Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Do you not concede that for her to become ritually impure she requires that the size of the blood stain on the cloth be more than the size of a split bean? If the stain is smaller, it is assumed to have been caused by a squashed louse. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Indeed [aval], that is correct. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: If so, you too render this blood found on the cloth in the box a stain, which renders one impure as a matter of uncertainty. If you had considered it definitely impure, there would have been no distinction between a small stain and a large one.

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who deems the woman definitely impure in this case, maintains that although we require that the size of the blood stain be more than the size of a split bean, this is necessary only to exclude the possibility that this is the blood of a louse; and since the possibility that it is the blood of a louse has been excluded, as its size is more than that of a split bean, it certainly came from her body, and therefore she is definitely impure.

The Gemara analyzes this statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya with reference to the dilemma under discussion: What, is it not correct to assume that Rabbi Ḥiyya was in his old age when he disagreed with his teacher, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He would not have done so when he was young. And if he deemed the woman impure as a matter of uncertainty in his old age, it can be inferred that in his youth he would deem her definitely impure as a menstruating woman. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from here that this is the case.

§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would praise Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, by saying that he is a great man. Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: When he comes to you, bring him to me.

When Rabbi Ḥama came before him, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Ask me about a halakhic matter. Rabbi Ḥama asked him: If a woman examined herself with a cloth that was not examined by her before its use, and she placed it in a box, and on the following day she found blood on this cloth, what is the halakha?

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Shall I say to you an answer in accordance with the statement of father, Rabbi Yosei, or shall I say to you an answer in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Which would you prefer? Rabbi Ḥama said to him: Say to me an answer in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

Rabbi Yishmael said: Is this the one that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says about him that he is a great man? How can he neglect the statement of the teacher, Rabbi Yosei, and listen to the statement of the student, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa did so because he maintains that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is preferable, as he is the head of the yeshiva, and the Sages are frequently in his presence, and due to the constant disputes his statements are sharper than those of Rabbi Yosei, despite the fact that Rabbi Yosei was his teacher.

The Gemara asks: What is this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, referred to by Rabbi Yishmael? Rav Adda bar Mattana says that the reference is to that which was taught in a baraita with regard to this case: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the woman impure and Rabbi Yosei deems her pure.

And Rabbi Zeira says, in explanation of this dispute: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deemed the woman impure, he ruled in accordance with the line of reasoning of Rabbi Meir, and when Rabbi Yosei deemed her pure, he deemed her pure in accordance with his own line of reasoning.

As it is taught in a mishna (59b): In the case of a woman who was urinating and saw blood mixed in the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinated while standing, she is impure, as the blood could have originated in the uterus. If she was sitting, she is pure, as the blood is clearly from the urethra.

Rabbi Yosei says: Whether she urinates in this manner, standing, or whether she urinates in that manner, sitting, she is pure. Like Rabbi Meir, who disregards the possibility that the blood originated in the urethra in a case where the woman was standing, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems a woman impure in the case where blood is found on the cloth in the box, despite the possibility that it could have been on the cloth before she used it to examine herself. Rabbi Yosei, by contrast, maintains that wherever there is a reasonable uncertainty, the woman is not impure.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But doesn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, say that when Rabbi Meir deemed the woman impure in the case involving urination, he merely deemed her impure as a matter of uncertainty, due to contact with a blood stain, whereas Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that in the case involving a stained cloth the woman is definitely impure as a menstruating woman? Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava: This is what we are saying: When that comment of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, concerning the ruling of Rabbi Meir was stated, it was stated that he deemed the woman impure as a menstruating woman.

§ The mishna states: If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure and are each liable to bring a sin offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, i.e., what is considered to be immediately after intercourse? This is comparable to a male organ and a cloth that are standing alongside the doorpost, i.e., at the entrance to the vagina; at the exit of the organ the cloth immediately enters.

The Gemara comments: This is the period of time concerning which the Sages said: During this period any blood on the cloth renders both the woman and the man ritually impure and liable to bring a sin offering. Yet this period is referring only to an external wipe of the pubic area with the cloth after intercourse, to see if there was a flow of blood during intercourse. But this time frame was not stated with regard to a full internal examination. If the woman conducts a full examination of herself, too much time would have passed since the intercourse for the man to be considered definitely impure.

§ The mishna further states: If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and therefore they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita: But they are each liable to bring a provisional guilt offering brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering. The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason that he does not render each of them liable to bring a provisional guilt offering?

The Gemara answers: The tanna of our mishna holds that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering in every case involving the uncertain violation of a prohibition that, were it certain, would render one liable to bring a sin offering. Rather, we require it to be a case akin to that of one piece from two pieces, e.g., one had two pieces of meat before him, one of which was definitely forbidden while the other was permitted, and he does not know for certain which he ate. But when the uncertainty involves a single item, which may or may not have been forbidden, one does not bring a provisional guilt offering. In the case discussed in the mishna there is only one woman, as it is uncertain whether or not engaging in intercourse with her was permitted, which depends on whether menstruation began before or after intercourse.

§ The mishna states: What is considered after time passed? It is a period of time equivalent to the time needed for the woman to descend from the bed and rinse her pubic area. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: What is considered after time passed? Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, explained: It is a period equivalent to the time in which she may extend her hand under the cushion or under the blanket and take a cloth and examine herself with it. This is a shorter period than that required for her to get out of bed and rinse her pubic area.

Rav Ḥisda says: What is the meaning of: After, in the mishna? After, after. In other words, this is referring to the period after the period of time mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, who said it is after the amount of time it takes for the woman to extend her hand under the cushion and take a cloth and examine herself. The mishna is referring to the period of time that follows the time frame referred to by Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, as: After time passed. If blood is found after this amount of time has elapsed the man is not ritually impure for a seven-day period, but only until evening, according to the Rabbis.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in the mishna with regard to this time period: If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. And the mishna continues: What is considered after time passed? It is a period of time equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face, i.e., her pubic area. This indicates that the period of time that follows the ability to perform an immediate examination is that which is mentioned in the mishna, and the mishna is not discussing the third time frame concerning which the husband is impure only until the evening.

The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: What is considered after time passed? It is a period equivalent to the time in which she may extend her hand under the cushion or under the blanket and take a cloth and examine herself with it, as stated by Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok. And with regard to the other time frame, i.e., equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face, i.e., her pubic area, there is a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis as to whether the man is impure for seven days or only until the evening.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis, doesn’t the mishna teach: Afterward, which indicates that they disagree concerning blood found in the time period that comes after the period in which she can descend from the bed and rinse her pubic area? The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: And this time frame, i.e., which is equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her pubic area, is that period of time labeled: Afterward, with regard to which Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree.

Rav Ashi says a different resolution of the apparent contradiction between the mishna and the baraita: Both this and that are one period, as it all depends on the situation. If the cloth is already in her hand, she does not need to extend her hand, and therefore the time frame is as stated in the mishna: Equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face. If the cloth is not in her hand, the period is equivalent to the time in which she may extend her hand under the cushion or under the blanket and take a cloth and examine herself with it, while she is still in bed.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ashi’s interpretation from a baraita: What is considered after time passed, at which point the blood found on the woman’s cloth renders them both impure as a matter of uncertainty for seven days? About this matter Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, asked the Sages in Usha, and he said to them: