Niddah 10a (י.) — the Talmud in English

If

the case returns to seeing at “onot”—

what is the ruling?

That is to say: If she sees once again, after an interval of thirty days—defined as an “ona”—from the previous sighting, what is her status?

The uncertainty depends on the two ways in which the beraita can be understood. According to the first explanation, that the interruption of ninety days renders her one whose blood has ceased to flow, in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling, if she returns to see once again, she is like all women whose blood has ceased to flow: with the second sighting they again acquire the status of women who see blood and render ritually impure retroactively from the preceding twenty-four-hour period.

However, according to the second explanation, that this young girl, as a result of the interruption of ninety days, returned to the status of one whose time has not yet arrived to see, even with the second sighting, after thirty days, her ruling is that she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself, until she again establishes herself as one who sees by seeing three times at intervals of thirty days]]. [

Rashi and Tosafot added an explanation of the problem in light of what is stated in the beraita: If that young girl returned and saw again after an interruption of ninety days, she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself.

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Is the statement in the beraita—that she returned and saw after three onot—specifically stated in that manner, since when she sees twice at an interval of three onot, Rabbi Eliezer concedes that she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself? But if she saw the second time after an interval of only one ona, is she like all women, and does she again render retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period?

Or perhaps, since this is a young girl whose time has not yet arrived to see, her status remains one who assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself even if she returned and saw the second time after an interval of one ona.

And the reason the tanna mentioned an interval of three onot is to teach us that even according to Rabbi, who says that a presumption is established after two occurrences, we do not say that this woman establishes a menstrual cycle of an interval of three onot through two sightings at such intervals. Since she is a young girl, we say that she remains in the status of one whose time has not yet arrived to see. Only if she sees a third time after an interval of three onot does she establish a menstrual cycle of three onot]].

Here is an explanation of Rashi’s words, s.v. “What is the ruling?” [the boldface words are Rashi’s wording]:

Does she assess her impurity from the time of the sighting itself, or does she render retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period?

Do we say—

a.

that this which is taught

in the

latter

beraita, concerning the first sighting after three onot,

“And another three onot passed over her”

—

the wording “passed over” is specifically used in the plural, indicating that three additional onot passed. And because

if she had seen at the end of one ona

alone, she would be

rendering retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period. For even though her time has not yet arrived

to see,

once she has acquired the presumption of being one who sees

again

before the interruption of the first three onot, her time is considered to have arrived!

That is because

when she interrupted her seeing at the beginning and then saw

after ninety days,

she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself—

only with regard to that sighting! And

this is

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who says that every woman who interrupts her seeing for three onot is called one whose blood has ceased to flow; therefore, the status of this young girl is like that of every woman.

And when she sees again at the end of one ona

alone, she is

rendered retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period—

like any woman over whom three onot have passed,

according to Rabbi Eliezer,

for she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself only

with regard to the

first

sighting. But with the second sighting, she ceases to be one whose blood has ceased to flow and renders retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period.

However, where a second three onot passed over her, and she saw, she assesses her impurity from the time of that sighting

second

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer!

For according to the Sages, this young girl, who had already seen three times in the past, retains the presumption of being one who sees even when three onot passed without her seeing; it makes no difference whether she interrupted her seeing for three onot once or twice. But according to Rabbi Eliezer, every interruption of three onot renders her one whose blood has ceased to flow, so that she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself.

And even though we do not see that Rabbi Eliezer is speaking

of her assessing her impurity from the time of the sighting itself

except with regard to the first interruption

of three onot, from where do we know that if she again does not see for three onot, she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself?

One can say:

Nevertheless, he concedes

Rabbi Eliezer

that she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself with regard to the second occurrences,

even after a second interval of three onot,

until she establishes herself—

either in accordance with Rabbi

[after two occurrences]

or in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

[after three occurrences].

And according to this side of the uncertainty, we must say:

And even though the first part

of the beraita

is Rabbi’s

—as it teaches that a young girl who saw acquired the presumption of being one who sees after two occurrences, and with her third sighting she already renders retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period—nevertheless, the

latter part

—in which she interrupted her seeing for three onot and saw, and then again interrupted her seeing for three onot and saw—must necessarily be understood

in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

who says that a presumption is not established after two occurrences. Therefore, she did not acquire the status of one who sees at ninety-day intervals even though she saw at two such intervals.

For if it were in accordance with Rabbi,

then with the sighting following the second interruption she should have rendered retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period [and not because she acquired the presumption after two occurrences of an interval of ninety days, since only with the next occurrence, after acquiring the presumption, would she render retroactively impure; rather, it is because according to Rabbi

since

if

she had seen at “onot,”

at intervals of thirty days,

we

would have

likened her to one whose time has arrived to see,

meaning that we would have said that she is like all women who render retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period. Once she saw twice, she acquired the presumption of being one who sees, according to Rabbi, who says that a presumption is established after two occurrences.

When she saw with an interruption

of ninety days twice,

also

we would say that she has the “presumption of being one who sees,” as though her time had arrived to see.

d.

Since

two

occurrences of seeing with an interruption

of ninety days occurred,

it becomes retrospectively clear that it is a change in her menstrual cycle

to an interval of ninety days

and not a cessation of blood flow,

for through these two intervals of ninety days she acquires a menstrual-cycle presumption according to Rabbi; it is impossible that something which establishes a menstrual cycle should be considered a “cessation of blood flow”

! And

therefore, with the

second

sighting after ninety days, according to Rabbi, she is

rendered retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period [

even though a young girl who acquires the presumption of being one who sees renders retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period even according to Rabbi only with the third sighting, which is the first sighting after she acquired the presumption through the first two occurrences—here she renders impure immediately with the second sighting,]

for this one need not establish herself with regard to blood!

For, as stated, after she interrupted her seeing for ninety days a second time, it becomes retrospectively clear that the first interruption was not a cessation of blood flow; rather, it was the first occurrence of a change in her menstrual cycle to ninety days.

Therefore, it is impossible to establish the latter part of the beraita in accordance with Rabbi; it can follow only Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that a presumption is established after three occurrences. According to him, if she interrupted her seeing twice for three onot, she still retains the presumption of one whose blood has ceased to flow, and therefore she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself.

b.

Or perhaps—

if she had seen at the end of one ona

alone,

it would also be all the more so that she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself,

for from the fact that she returns and sees after thirty days, and not after ninety,

it is evident that the first interruption

of ninety days

was a cessation of blood flow and not a change in her menstrual cycle

to ninety days.

And therefore,

one can say

that by virtue of the interruption of three onot she

returned to her original status

as a young girl; and if she wishes to acquire the presumption of being “one who sees,” she

must establish herself further, after

the sighting that followed

the interruption, through two sightings

at additional intervals of thirty or ninety days,

as at the beginning

[when she acquired the presumption of being one who sees through three sightings]. But with the first sighting after thirty days from the sighting that followed the interruption, she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself!

And the reason the tanna stated

the wording

“And another three

onot

passed over her and she saw; she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself,”

is that even if only thirty days passed, which are not considered a cessation of blood flow, and she saw, she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself?

He teaches us a novel point: Even though she saw twice with an interruption

of an equal interval of ninety days,

we do not say that it becomes retrospectively clear that it was a change in her menstrual cycle and not a cessation of blood flow, and that she should render impure

with the sighting following

the second interruption, retroactively from the preceding twenty-four-hour period.

It teaches us that we do not say this.

Rather, even according to Rabbi

[who says that a presumption is established after two occurrences, and there would be reason to say that, on the contrary, through these two interruptions she establishes a menstrual cycle and is not one whose blood has ceased to flow,] we say

that she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself,

because

we always regard the first interruption as having returned her to her original status

and as the status of a young girl whose time has not yet arrived to see; we do not say retrospectively that it has become evident that she changed her menstrual cycle to ninety days.

And this is not comparable to one whose time has arrived to see,

who, after an interruption of ninety days, returns to her original status already with the second sighting. That law applies only when her time has arrived to see and in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. But according to the second side now being explained, we relate to the young girl as one whose time has not yet arrived to see; therefore,

she must establish herself through two additional sightings,

and only

with the third does she render retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period,

as he

proceeds to explain.

It follows that according to this side of the uncertainty, the entire beraita can follow Rabbi.

This concludes the explanation of Rashi’s words.

The Gemara resolves the uncertainty:

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With the first sighting

that she saw after the interruption of ninety days, and with

the second

sighting that she saw afterward, after an interval of thirty days,

she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself. But with the

But with the

third

sighting, which she sees after another thirty days, she is

rendered retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period and from examination to examination,

for she acquired the presumption through two occurrences of being one who sees, according to Rabbi, and with the third occurrence she already renders retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period!

We learned further in the beraita: A young girl who saw three times and acquired the presumption of being one who sees, and then interrupted her seeing for three onot and saw, and on another occasion—

“And another three onot passed over her, and she saw”—

“she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself!”

The Gemara raises an uncertainty: After she interrupted her seeing twice for ninety days and saw after each of the interruptions,

she again sees at “onot,”

that is, she saw an additional sighting after thirty days from the end of the second interruption—

what is the ruling?

Does she assess her impurity from the time of the sighting itself, or does she render retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say that even after she interrupted her seeing twice at an interval of ninety days, the interruption returns her to the status of a young girl whose time has not yet arrived to see? Therefore, according to Rabbi, she requires two sightings to return to the status in which she renders retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period: the first, the sighting after the interruption, and the second, the sighting thirty days [or ninety days] afterward. Accordingly, with the sighting thirty days after the second interruption, she still assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself, and only with the subsequent sighting does she render retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period.

Or perhaps we say that only with the first interruption does she again become a young girl. But with the second interruption we regard her as one who is beginning to be one who sees; therefore, we combine the sighting after the first interruption with the sighting after the second interruption, and through these two occurrences she acquires the presumption of being one who sees, according to Rabbi. With the third sighting, thirty days after the end of the second interruption, she renders retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period! [

And the fact that it is explained in the beraita that she renders retroactively impure only after a third interruption of three onot is stated as a novelty, so that one should not say that even after the third interruption she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself [because every sighting after an interruption of three onot is considered the sighting of one whose blood has ceased to flow]].

The Gemara resolves the uncertainty:

Rav Kahana said that Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With the first sighting,

the sighting after the second interruption,

she assesses her impurity from the time of the sighting itself.

With the

second

sighting, after thirty days—and this is the sighting about which we raised the uncertainty—she is

rendered retroactively impure from the preceding twenty-four-hour period and from examination to examination.

From whom?

According to whose view did we establish the beraita?

It is Rabbi’s view, as he says that two occurrences establish a presumption,

for we established both the first clause, concerning a young girl who saw blood twice and thereby acquired the status of one who sees blood, and the final clause, concerning one for whom three intervals passed twice and who then saw blood twice, thereby acquiring the status of one who returns to seeing blood after having resumed the status of a young girl during the first interruption, according to Rabbi.

And if so,

let us say the final clause

of the final clause: if she has reached the age at which she is expected to see blood and saw several times, and afterward

three intervals passed over her, and she saw—

her ruling is that she is judged according to the time of her discovery.

And this law—that even a young woman is considered to have ceased seeing blood after an interruption of three intervals—

follows the view of Rabbi Eliezer!

And if you would say

that this presents no difficulty, because one may say that this halakha too is according to the view of

Rabbi, and with regard to intervals [

an interruption of three intervals]

he agrees

with

Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that she has ceased to see blood.

But does he agree

with Rabbi

with Rabbi Eliezer? Yet it says, “After he remembered,”

which implies that it had been difficult for him that he had ruled according to Rabbi Eliezer.

Rather,

the final clause of the final clause, which states that when she has reached the age at which she is expected to see blood and an interruption of three intervals occurred, her ruling is that she is judged according to the time of her discovery—

is according to Rabbi Eliezer.

And with regard to menstrual cycles,

he agrees with Rabbi,

who holds that two occurrences establish a presumption; and all the statements of the beraita are thereby consistent.

The Gemara continues to explain the laws of a young girl:

A stain found on a young girl does not render impure like a stain found on a woman, for since she has not acquired a presumption of seeing blood, we attribute the stain to the possibility that it did not come from her.

Therefore, even if she has already seen blood once and afterward found a stain, that

stain between

the first

and second sightings—

is pure!

However, if she saw blood twice—according to Rabbi, she has already acquired a presumption of being one who sees blood, so that if she sees blood a third time she renders pure items impure retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours—but she has not yet seen blood a third time and has only found a stain, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Ḥizkiyya disagree about the matter:

A stain

between

the

second

sighting of the young girl and her

third

sighting—

Ḥizkiyya said: It is impure. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is pure.

And we explain:

Ḥizkiyya said—

it is impure, since if she had seen

blood, this would have been her third sighting, and she would have

rendered impure

even retroactively; therefore, she already has the presumption of one who sees blood, and

her stain is likewise impure.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Her stain is

pure, since she has not acquired a presumption with regard to blood.

For we have not yet applied to her the status of one presumed to see blood, rendering her retroactively impure, since she has still not seen blood a third time . Therefore,

we likewise do not render her impure on account of her stain,

for the Sages did not impose the stringency of rendering her stain impure. [For by strict law, one who finds a stain is pure, and all impurity caused by stains is only a rabbinic decree. Therefore, they were lenient and did not apply their decree to a young girl who has not yet seen a sight that renders her retroactively impure.]