Q&A: A Continuous Bug Stain
A Continuous Bug Stain
Question
In Niddah 58 it is written that we do not attribute a stain to a bug if it is larger than a split bean, and apparently the assumption there is that even though it could be that in a large stain this is really two bugs that joined into one large stain, we do not say that, because it is not likely that both would be crushed in exactly the same place. If so, why in the case of a continuous bug stain does the Talmud say that we do attribute it even if it is the size of a split bean or more? Also, when they say, “remove from here the split-bean area of the continuous bug stain,” there is still left here the amount of another bug.
So the question is: seemingly this is the same level of improbability—to say that two bugs met in the same place. What difference does it make if I saw a continuous bug stain? Seemingly that does not change the probability. (To me this seems very similar to a shell crater.)
Answer
There is a difference between the likelihood that there were two bugs next to each other and the likelihood that, given one bug, another bug would also be crushed in that same spot. The first is small; the second is not. Beyond that, here there is always the possibility that the blood came from the source and is not from a bug. Therefore one must always compare the probabilities to the probability that this is blood from the source.
In Lechem VeSimlah 190:12, he wrote that the measure of a bug is not specifically a split bean, but can also be more than that; the reason we attribute it only up to a split bean is that if it is less than a split bean, it is not likely to be menstrual blood, and so we attribute it to a bug. More than that, we assume it is menstrual blood. There is no assumption here that there were several bugs. According to this, the concern here is not two bugs but one large bug. Therefore in the case of a continuous bug stain, we do attribute it, because there each part is less than a split bean and can be attributed to a bug.