Niddah 10a — the Talmud in English

If

she again happened to see blood in “seasons”

what?

That is: if she saw blood once more, after an interval of thirty days—defined as an “onah”—from the previous sighting, what is her status?

And the uncertainty depends on the two ways in which the beraita is explained. According to the first reason, that an interruption of ninety days makes her one whose blood has ceased, in accordance with the law of Rabbi Eliezer, if she returns and sees once more, she is like all women whose blood has ceased: with the second sighting they again become considered women who see blood and convey impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours.

But according to the second reason, that this young girl, as a result of the interruption of ninety days, returned to the law of “one whose time to see has not arrived,” then also the second time, after thirty days, her status is sufficient for her time alone [until she again becomes established as seeing three times at intervals of thirty days]. [

Rashi and Tosafot added an explanation of the problem in light of what is elucidated in the beraita: if that young girl returned and saw again after an interruption of ninety days, her status is sufficient for her time alone.

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Is what is stated in the beraita—that she returned and saw after three onot—specifically stated, since when she sees twice at an interval of three onot, Rabbi Eliezer concedes that her status is sufficient for her time alone? But if she saw the second time after an interval of one onah, is she like all women, and does she again convey impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours?

Or perhaps, since this concerns a young girl whose time has not arrived for seeing, her status remains that her time alone is sufficient even if she returned and saw the second time after an interval of one onah.

And the reason the tanna stated an interval of three onot is to inform us that even according to Rabbi, who says that two occurrences constitute a presumption, we do not say that this woman establishes a menstrual pattern for an interval of three onot through two sightings at such intervals. Since this concerns a young girl, we say that she remains in the state of “her time has not arrived for seeing.” Only if she sees a third time after an interval of three onot does she establish a menstrual pattern for three onot].

And here is an explanation of Rashi’s words, in the entry “What” [the emphasized letters are Rashi’s wording]:

Her status is sufficient for her time alone, or does she convey impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours?

Do we say—

a.

that what is taught

in the beraita

later,

concerning the first sighting after three onot, “

and three more onot passed over her”—

it specifically teaches “passed,”

in the plural, meaning that three additional onot passed. And because

if she saw at the end of an onah

alone, she would

convey impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours. For although her time had not arrived

for seeing,

since she had been established as a “woman who sees”

already

before the interruption of the first three onot, she is like one whose time has arrived!

That is, because

when she interrupted at the beginning and saw

after ninety days,

her status was sufficient for her time alone—

for that sighting

alone! And

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

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

and when she sees again at the end of an onah

one, she

conveys impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours—

like any woman over whom three onot have passed,

according to Rabbi Eliezer,

whose status is sufficient for her time alone only

at the

first

sighting. But at the second sighting she ceases to be one whose blood has ceased and conveys impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours.

But where three second onot again passed over her, and she saw, her status is sufficient for her time alone at 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, remains presumed to be one who sees even when three onot passed and she did not see; and it makes no difference whether she interrupted once for three onot or twice. But according to Rabbi Eliezer, every interruption of three onot makes her one whose blood has ceased, whose status is sufficient for her time alone.

And although we do not see that Rabbi Eliezer is dealing

with the case where her status is sufficient for her time alone

except at the first passage

of three onot, from where do we know that if she returns once more and does not see for three onot, her status is sufficient for her time alone?

It may be said:

however, he concedes

Rabbi Eliezer

that her status is sufficient for her time alone at the second occurrences,

also after the passage of the second three onot,

until she becomes established—

either like Rabbi,

[after two occurrences]

or like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

[after three occurrences].

And according to this side of the problem, we are compelled to say:

And although the beginning

of the beraita

is Rabbi’s,

for it teaches that a young girl who saw was established after two occurrences as one who sees, and at her third sighting she already conveys impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours, nevertheless

the conclusion

—that she interrupted for three onot and saw, and again interrupted for three onot and saw—necessarily

follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

for according to him two occurrences do not constitute a presumption, and therefore she was not established as one who sees at intervals of ninety days even though she saw at two such intervals.

For if it followed Rabbi,

then at the sighting after the second interruption she should have conveyed impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours, [and not because she had been established after two occurrences to have an interval of ninety days, for only the next time, after she had been established, would she convey impurity retroactively, but because according to Rabbi]

since

if

she had seen in “onot,”

at intervals of thirty days,

we would

have

likened her to “one whose time has arrived,”

and we would have said that she is like all women who convey impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours: since she saw twice, she was established as one who sees according to Rabbi, for two occurrences constitute a presumption;

when she saw with an interruption

of ninety days twice,

also

we should say that she is “presumed to be one who sees,” as though her time had arrived for seeing.

d.

Since

two

times she saw with an interruption

of ninety days,

the matter is retroactively revealed that it is a change of menstrual pattern

to an interval of ninety days

and not a cessation of blood,

for through these two intervals of ninety days she becomes established in a menstrual pattern according to Rabbi, and it is impossible that something which creates a menstrual pattern should be considered a “cessation of blood”!

And

therefore, at the

second

sighting after ninety days, according to Rabbi, she

conveys impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours [and although a young girl who becomes established as one who sees conveys impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours even according to Rabbi only at the third sighting, which is the first sighting after she became established through the first two—here she conveys impurity immediately at the second sighting]

[even though a young girl who establishes a presumption of seeing blood renders objects impure retroactively according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only with her third sighting, which is the first sighting after she established a presumption through the first two sightings—here she renders objects impure immediately with the second sighting,]

for this one does not need to become established in blood!

For, as stated, after she interrupted for ninety days a second time, the matter is revealed that the first interruption was not a cessation of blood, but rather it was the first occurrence of a change of menstrual pattern to ninety days .

Therefore, it is impossible to establish the conclusion of the beraita according to Rabbi; it follows only Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, according to whom three occurrences constitute a presumption. According to him, when she interrupted seeing twice for three onot, she remains presumed to be one whose blood has ceased, and therefore her status is sufficient for her time alone.

b.

Or perhaps—

if she saw at the end of an onah

one

alone, all the more so her status would also be sufficient for her time alone,

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

the matter is proven that the first interruption

of ninety

was a cessation of blood and not a change of menstrual pattern

to ninety days .

And therefore,

it may be said,

by virtue of the interruption of three onot—she

returned to her original status

as a young girl; and if she wishes to become established as a “woman who sees,”

she needs to become established further, after

the sighting that follows

the interruption, through two sightings

of additional thirty- or ninety-day intervals,

as at the beginning [when she was established as one who sees through three sightings]. But at the first sighting after thirty days from the sighting following the interruption, her status is sufficient for her time alone!

[when she established the presumption of being one who sees blood through three sightings]. But with the first sighting after thirty days from the sighting that followed the interruption, she needs establish impurity only from that moment onward!

And the reason the tanna stated

the words

“and three onot passed

over her

and she saw, her status is sufficient for her time alone,”

is this: even if only thirty days passed, which are not considered a cessation of blood, and she saw, her status is sufficient for her time alone?

He informs us a novelty: although twice she saw with an interruption

of an equal ninety-day interval,

we do not say that the matter is revealed that it is a change of menstrual pattern and not a cessation of blood, and that she should become impure

at the sighting after

the second interruption retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours.

It informs us that we do not say this,

but even according to Rabbi

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

her status is sufficient for her time alone.

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 arrived for seeing; we do not say retroactively that the matter is revealed that she changed her menstrual pattern to ninety days.

And this is not similar to one whose time has arrived,

for after an interruption of ninety days she returns to her original status already at the second sighting. This law applies only when her time has arrived and according to Rabbi Eliezer; but according to the side now being explained, we relate to the young girl as one whose time has not arrived for seeing, and therefore

she needs to become established through two additional sightings,

and only

at the third does she convey impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours,

as he

continues to explain.

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

This concludes the explanation of Rashi’s words.

The Gemara resolves the problem:

Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: The first time

that she saw after the interruption of ninety days, and

the second

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

her status is sufficient for her time alone. But the

But with the

third

time, when she sees after another thirty days, she

conveys impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours and from examination to examination,

for she became established through two occurrences as one who sees, according to Rabbi, and at the third occurrence she already conveys impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours!

We learned further in the beraita: A young girl who saw three times and was established as one who sees, and interrupted seeing for three onot, and saw, and on another occasion—

and three more onot passed over her, and she saw—

her status is sufficient for her time alone!

And the Gemara is uncertain: after she interrupted twice for ninety days and saw after the interruptions,

she again saw in “onot,”

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

what?

Is her status sufficient for her time alone, or does she convey impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Is it also after she interrupted twice at an interval of ninety days that we say the interruption returns her to the status of a young girl whose time has not arrived for seeing, and therefore, according to Rabbi, she needs two sightings in order to return to conveying impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours: the first, the first sighting after the interruption, and the second, the sighting thirty days [or ninety days] afterward? According to this, at the sighting thirty days after the second interruption, her status is still sufficient for her time alone, and only at the sighting after that does she convey impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours.

Or perhaps we say that only at the first interruption does she return to being a young girl. But at the second interruption we relate to her as one who is beginning to be a woman who sees; therefore, we combine the sighting after the first interruption with the sighting after the second interruption, and through these two occurrences she becomes established as one who sees, according to Rabbi. And at the third sighting, thirty days after the end of the second interruption, she conveys impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours! [

And the fact that it is explained in the beraita that only after a third interruption of three onot does she convey impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours is stated as a novelty, so that we should not say that even after the third interruption her status is sufficient for her time alone [because every sighting after an interruption of three onot is considered the sighting of one whose blood has ceased].

The Gemara resolves the uncertainty:

Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav Giddel in the name of Rav: The first time,

the sighting after the second interruption,

her status is sufficient for her time alone.

The

second time,

after thirty days, and this is the sighting about which we were uncertain—

she conveys impurity retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours and from examination to examination .

Who is it?

According to whose view did we establish the beraita?

It is Rabbi, who says that a presumption is established after two times,

for we established both the beginning, that a young girl who saw twice acquired the status of one who sees, and the end, that three intervals of three seasons passed twice, and she saw after them twice, so that she acquired the status of returning to being one who sees after she returned to being a young girl through the first interruption, according to Rabbi.

And if so,

let us say the end

of the end: if her time had arrived to see, and she saw several times, and afterward

three seasons passed over her, and she saw—

her present time is sufficient.

And this law, that even a young woman is considered one whose blood has ceased after an interruption of three seasons,

comes according to Rabbi Eliezer!

And if you would say

that there is no difficulty in this, for it may be said that this law too is according to

Rabbi, and with regard to the seasons

(through an interruption of three seasons)

he holds

Rabbi

like Rabbi Eliezer,

that she becomes one whose blood has ceased.

And does he hold

Rabbi

like Rabbi Eliezer? But it says, “after he remembered,”

which implies that the matter was difficult in his eyes because he had ruled like Rabbi Eliezer.

Rather,

the end of the end, where her time had arrived to see and she interrupted for three seasons, and her present time is sufficient—

it is Rabbi Eliezer.

And with regard to menstrual cycles,—

he holds like Rabbi,

that a presumption is established after two times, and all the words of the beraita correspond.

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

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

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

stain between

the first

and second sight—

is pure!

But if she saw twice, for according to Rabbi she had already acquired a presumption of being one who sees—if she sees a third time, she will render pure things impure from twenty-four hours earlier—but she still did not see blood a third time, and only found a stain, Rabbi Yohanan and Hezekiah disagreed about this:

A stain

between

the

second sight

of a young girl and her

third

sight—

Hezekiah said: impure. Rabbi Yohanan said: pure.

And we explain:

Hezekiah said—

impure, since if she had seen

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

rendered impure

even retroactively; therefore she is already now presumed to have blood, and so

her stain too is impure.

And Rabbi Yohanan 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 law of one presumed with regard to blood, to render her retroactively impure, since she has still not seen blood a third time ; therefore

we likewise do not render her impure through her stain,

for the Sages did not impose stringency upon her to render her stain impure. [For according to the basic law, one who sees a stain is pure, and all impurity of stains is only a rabbinic decree; therefore they were lenient not to apply their decree to a young girl who had still not seen a sight that renders her retroactively impure] .