it is uncertain whether that woman has the status of one who gave birth, and it is uncertain whether she has the status of a woman who experiences an irregular discharge of blood from the uterus [ziva]. Therefore, she brings an offering, like any woman after childbirth or after ziva, but the offering is not eaten by the priests. The reason is that perhaps she neither gave birth nor experienced ziva, and is therefore exempt from bringing an offering. Consequently, her bird sin offering is disqualified, and is forbidden in consumption, as a bird offering is killed by pinching its neck, which is not the valid manner of slaughtering a non-sacred bird.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: The woman brings an offering, and it is eaten. The reason is that she is certainly either a woman after childbirth or a zava, as opening of the womb is not possible without a discharge of blood. The tanna’im in the baraita disagree about whether opening of the womb is possible without a discharge of blood. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak maintains that this is also the issue in dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis in the mishna.

§ Some say another version of the above discussion. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Rabbi Yehuda deemed the woman impure, despite the fact that no blood emerged, only in the case of a piece of tissue that has the appearance of one of the four types of ritually impure blood, but if it has the appearance of other types of blood, the woman is pure.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Hoshaya came from Neharde’a, he came and brought a baraita with him that states: In the case of a woman who discharges a piece of tissue that is red, or black, green, or white, if there is blood that emerges with it, the woman is impure, and if not, she is pure. And Rabbi Yehuda says: In both this case, where blood emerged, and that case, where no blood emerged, the woman is impure.

The Gemara concludes its challenge: The baraita teaches both a case where the piece of tissue is red or black, and a case where it is not one of the four types of impure blood but it is green or white, i.e., in all of these cases the Rabbis hold that the woman is pure, and yet Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with their opinion.

And if you would say that when Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis, it is with regard to the case of a red or black piece of tissue, but with regard to the case of a green or white piece he does not disagree with them, as he concedes that the woman is pure; but if that is so, for the sake of clarifying whose opinion does the baraita teach the case of a green or white piece of tissue?

If we say that it comes to clarify the opinion of the Rabbis, that is unnecessary: Now that in the case of a red or black piece of tissue the Rabbis deem the woman pure, is it necessary to state that they deem her pure in a case of a green or white piece? Rather, is it not coming to clarify the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, teaching that the Rabbis deem the woman pure in this case, but Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with them and deems her impure? This contradicts the explanation of Shmuel.

Rather, Rav Yehuda says there is a different explanation of the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda: They disagree with regard to whether or not opening of the womb is possible without a discharge of blood. And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman experienced difficulty in labor during which blood emerged on two consecutive days, and on the third day she discharged, but she does not know what she discharged, it is uncertain whether she has the status of a woman who gave birth, and it is uncertain whether she has the status of a woman who experienced ziva. Therefore she brings an offering, but it is not eaten by the priests.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: The woman brings an offering, and it is eaten. The reason is that she is certainly either a woman after childbirth or a zava, as opening of the womb is not possible without a discharge of blood. This is also the matter in dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir, and likewise Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya would say in accordance with his statement: A Sage who is presented with this piece of tissue should tear it to examine it. If there is blood inside it, the woman is ritually impure, and if not, she is pure.

The Gemara compares this baraita to the ruling of the mishna: This statement is basically in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in the mishna, but it is more far-reaching, i.e., more stringent, than that ruling of the Rabbis. It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as they say that opening of the womb is possible without a discharge of blood, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that opening of the womb is impossible without a discharge of blood. But the ruling of the baraita is more far-reaching than that ruling of the Rabbis, as they hold that if blood emerges with the piece of tissue, then yes, the woman is impure, but if blood is found inside the piece of tissue, she is not impure; and Sumakhos holds that even if blood is found inside the piece, the woman is impure.

And it is taught in another baraita with regard to a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, that Rabbi Aḥa says: One tears it open, and if its interior looks red, even if it contains no blood, the woman is impure; and if it does not have a red appearance, she is pure.

The Gemara compares this baraita to the aforementioned opinion of Sumakhos: This ruling of Rabbi Aḥa is basically in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, as Rabbi Aḥa also requires that the interior of the piece of tissue must be examined to see if there is blood on the inside, but it is more far-reaching than the opinion of Sumakhos, as Rabbi Aḥa deems the woman impure even if the piece of tissue merely looks red on the inside but does not contain blood.

And it is taught in another baraita with regard to a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, that Rabbi Binyamin says one tears it open to examine it. If it contains a bone, it is considered a fetus, and its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman who gave birth. Rav Ḥisda says: And this applies in the case of a white piece of flesh; only in such a situation does the existence of a bone render it a fetus. And likewise, when a pair of Torah scholars came from Ḥadyab, they came and brought a baraita with them: In the case of a woman who discharges a white piece of tissue, one tears it open to examine it, and if it contains a bone, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman who gave birth.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: With regard to a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, one tears it open to examine it. If it contains a quantity of accumulated blood, the woman is impure; and if not, she is pure. The Gemara comments: This is basically in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, that blood found inside the piece of tissue renders the woman impure, but it is more lenient than all the previous opinions, i.e., Sumakhos and Rabbi Aḥa, as according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai the woman is rendered impure only if there is a quantity of accumulated blood.

§ Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: In the case of a woman who inserted a tube into her vagina and sees blood, i.e., she found blood in the tube, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yirmeya clarified his question: Since it is stated: “And if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days” (Leviticus 15:19), perhaps the Merciful One states in this verse that the woman is impure only if the blood is discharged through “her flesh” and not through a tube. Or perhaps this term: “In her flesh,” is necessary to teach the halakha that a woman becomes impure by finding blood inside her vagina just as she becomes impure by experiencing bleeding outside her vagina, i.e., once the blood enters the vaginal canal from the uterus the woman is ritually impure.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: The Merciful One states: “In her flesh,” meaning that the woman is impure only if the blood is discharged through “her flesh” and not through a tube. As, if the term “in her flesh” is necessary to teach that a woman becomes impure by finding blood inside her vagina just as by seeing blood outside her vagina, if so, let the verse say: In the flesh. What is the significance of the fact that the verse states: “In her flesh”? Conclude two conclusions from the term, both that a woman becomes impure by the presence of blood inside her vagina, and that a woman who experiences bleeding that emerged through a tube is ritually pure.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: With regard to a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, one tears it open to examine it; if it contains a quantity of accumulated blood, the woman is impure, and if not, she is pure? If a woman who sees blood that emerged inside a piece of tissue becomes impure, the same should apply to a woman who sees blood that emerged through a tube.

The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to a piece of tissue, the woman is impure, as it is the manner of a woman to see blood inside such a piece of tissue. Therefore, this blood fulfills the condition stated in the verse: “In her flesh.” By contrast, here, in the case of a tube, the woman should not be impure, as it is not the manner of a woman to see blood that emerged through a tube.

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the halakha in the case of a tube is subject to a dispute between tanna’im? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, even though the piece is full of blood, if there is blood on the outside that emerges with it, the woman is impure; and if not, she is pure. Rabbi Eliezer says: The term “in her flesh” teaches that a woman is rendered impure only by blood that emerges through direct contact with her flesh, and not by blood that emerges in a gestational sac, nor by blood that emerges in an amorphous piece of tissue.

The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita and asks: Isn’t the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer identical to that of the first tanna? The first tanna also says that a woman does not become impure due to blood found in a piece of tissue. Rather, the entire baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and one must say that the baraita should read as follows: Even if the piece of tissue is full of blood the woman is pure, as Rabbi Eliezer says that the term “in her flesh” teaches that a woman is rendered impure only by blood that emerges through direct contact with her flesh, and not by blood that emerges in a gestational sac, nor by blood that emerges in a piece of tissue.

The baraita continues: And the Rabbis say: If there is blood in the piece of tissue, this is not menstrual blood, but rather the blood of the piece of tissue. The Gemara asks: Doesn’t the first tanna also deem the woman pure? What is the difference between the opinion of the Rabbis and that of the first tanna? The Gemara answers: Rather, the difference between the opinion of the first tanna and that of the Rabbis is with regard to a case where the piece of tissue is cracked, and its blood comes in direct contact with the woman’s body.

The first tanna holds that the term “in her flesh” teaches that a woman is rendered impure only by blood that emerges through direct contact with her flesh, and not by blood that emerges in a gestational sac, nor by blood that emerges in a piece of tissue. And the same is true with regard to blood that emerges through a tube. But this statement applies only in a case where the piece of tissue is smooth, but if it is cracked, the woman is impure. What is the reason for this exception? Since the blood comes in direct contact with the woman’s flesh, we read the term “in her flesh” with regard to it, i.e., it fulfills that condition.

And the Rabbis come to say: Even though the piece of tissue is cracked, the woman is pure, as this is not menstrual blood but rather the blood of the piece of tissue. It can be inferred from here that if the blood is menstrual blood, the woman is certainly impure, and this is true even if the blood emerges through a tube. Accordingly, the halakha in the case of a tube is subject to a dispute between tanna’im.

Abaye says that this suggestion should be rejected: In the case of a tube, everyone agrees that the woman is pure, as derived from the term “in her flesh.”