Niddah 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Ilai raised an objection against Hezekiah

:

And what is the difference between this woman

, who has not yet experienced a sight that renders her impure retroactively, and nevertheless we issued a decree concerning her bloodstain, according to Hezekiah,

and a virgin

who married,

whose blood is pure,

as we were lenient and did not issue a decree concerning her bloodstain, but rather we attribute it to the pure blood of virginity, despite the fact that if she were to see actual blood that was not blood of virginity, she would become impure retroactively [as the discussion concerns a virgin who saw blood once in her father’s house and thereby acquired the status of one who sees blood, and if she sees again with an appearance different from that of the blood of virginity, she becomes impure retroactively]. It is thus evident that a bloodstain is not rendered impure even though she has acquired the status of one who sees blood, and if she sees again she will become impure retroactively.

Rabbi Zeira said to him: This one,

the virgin—

her sap is common

([the sap means the blood]), as the blood of virginity is common in her, and therefore it can be attributed to it.

And this one,

the young girl—

her sap is not common,

as she has no pure blood to which the blood can be attributed.

Ulla said that Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak:

A young girl who has not reached the age at which she is expected to see blood, and who saw once and twice,

but was not established through a third sight as one who sees blood—

her saliva and her tread in the marketplace

are pure!

The Sages issued a decree of ritual impurity concerning the saliva and the tread of a woman who has reached the age at which she is expected to see blood, even when we do not know that she is a niddah. But with regard to this young girl, who has not become established as one who sees blood, they did not issue a decree based on the uncertainty that perhaps she saw, concerning her saliva and her tread.

Her bloodstain

of this young girl, who saw only twice,

is also pure.

And Ulla said:

I do not know

whether this statement of Rabbi Yohanan, that her bloodstain is pure,

is his own

innovation, which he originated himself, or

is his teacher’s

—whether Rabbi Yohanan also stated the law concerning the bloodstain in the name of his teacher, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak.

And we raised the issue:

What practical difference is there

whether it is his own or his teacher’s? And we answered:

To make his statement that of one

—Hezekiah, who says that after two sightings her bloodstain is impure—

against the statement of two!

For Rabbi Yohanan disagreed with Hezekiah on the basis of his own reasoning, and in addition cited the statement of his teacher; the statements of the two who declare her pure therefore prevail over the statement of the one who declares her impure.

The Gemara proves that Rabbi Yohanan stated this in the name of his teacher, and that the halakha is decided in accordance with the opinion of the two, from the following:

When Ravin and all those who descended to the sea,

they stated

that her bloodstain is pure after two sightings

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehotzadak!

Rav Ḥilkיה bar Tovi said: A young girl who has not reached the age at which she is expected to see blood,

and began to see for the first time,

even if she flows

and sees blood

throughout all seven

days of her niddah,

it is only one sighting,

and she is not established as one who sees blood until she sees two further sightings.

The Gemara asks about Rav Ḥilkיה’s wording, whose implication is

even if she flows continuously

without interruption, this is one sighting—

and it is not necessary to say that if her flow is interrupted

between sightings during the seven days, it is one sighting!

But

on the contrary, if her flow is interrupted

between sightings, so that it is not continuous throughout the seven days,

it is considered for her like two sightings

separate from one another!?

Rather,

this is what Rav Ḥilkיה said:

“A young girl who has not reached the age at which she is expected to see blood, and whose flow continues throughout all seven”

“is only one sighting.”

However, if her flow is interrupted between sightings, they are counted as separate sightings, even within the first seven days of her niddah. If there were two interruptions between three sightings, she becomes established as one who sees blood.

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: “Dripping”

—when drops of blood fall one after another—

is not considered seeing

blood, not even as one sighting.

The Gemara asks: How can her sighting not be considered?

But she is seeing!

The Gemara presents Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya’s novel teaching in a different form:

Say

that dripping

is not like continuous flow,

where the entire continuation of her sighting is considered one sighting.

Rather,

dripping is

like an interruption!

Although drops of blood emerge from her one after another, since each one emerges separately, each emission of a drop of blood is considered a sighting in its own right, and she is consequently considered established as one who sees blood and is rendered impure retroactively for the entire twenty-four-hour period.

The Gemara asks: If we say that dripping—where the drops fall continuously, one after another—is called interrupted flow,

by inference

you learn

that continuous flow,

which is considered one sighting, is only when it flows

like a river,

with the blood emerging in a continuous stream for seven days. But in such a condition, it is impossible for her to remain alive!?

The Gemara therefore retracts this explanation and presents Rav Shimi’s statement in the opposite manner:

Rather, say

that dripping

is only like continuous flow,

and is considered only one sighting. The continuous dripping is treated as though it were an uninterrupted flow, and therefore her time remains sufficient until she experiences two further separate sightings.

The Sages taught: The presumption

of

the daughters of Israel

is that they follow this order:

Before they reach maturity,

when they are younger than twelve years of age,

they are presumed pure, and women do not

the adult women

examine them

to determine whether they have seen blood.

Once they reach maturity—

they are presumed impure,

presumed to have blood commonly present in them—

and women

adult women

examine them

to determine whether they are pure or impure.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They do not examine them by hand, because they distort them

if they scratch them, causing them to err and think that they have seen menstrual blood.

Rather, they apply oil to them internally, and wipe them externally, and they are examined on their own,

as, if they have reached the age at which they are expected to see blood, the blood will emerge as a result of the oil.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says: A pregnant woman

and a nursing woman who experienced three periods without seeing blood have only the present time.

A tanna taught before Rabbi Elazar: Rabbi Yosei says—

a pregnant woman and a nursing woman who experienced three periods,

without seeing blood,

have only the present time. Rabbi Elazar said to that tanna: You began with two

[a pregnant woman and a nursing woman],

and concluded with one,

[using the singular expression, “she has only the present time”]?

Perhaps you meant, “a pregnant woman who is nursing,”

speaking of one woman who stopped seeing blood for three periods, part of the interruption occurring during her pregnancy and part during her nursing period.

And incidentally, you are teaching us a matter

that the two interruptions combine to make a total of three periods:

the days of her pregnancy count for her

[combine]

toward the days of her nursing, and the days of her nursing count for her toward the days of her pregnancy

148 . As it was taught: The days of her pregnancy count for her toward the days of her nursing, and the days of her nursing count for her toward the days of her pregnancy

149 . How so? If she stopped seeing for two

periods

during her pregnancy and one during her nursing 150 ,

or if she stopped seeing for

two

periods

during her nursing and one during her pregnancy,

Or—the ruling is

one and a half

ona:

during her pregnancy and one and a half onot during her nursing period ,

and likewise conversely,

the intervals are combined

the interruptions

to make three onot!

And the Gemara clarifies:

Granted, the statement, “her pregnancy days count toward her nursing days,” can be found in a case where she nurses and continues to do so ,

and she stopped seeing blood during the last days of her nursing period,

and she became pregnant

and she continued the interruption during her pregnancy, so that the pregnancy days are combined with the nursing days that preceded them,

but the statement, “her nursing days count toward her pregnancy days,”

meaning that the nursing days following the pregnancy are combined with the pregnancy days,

how can this be found?

After all, at the time of childbirth she sees blood, and it follows that she did not interrupt her seeing for three consecutive onot?

The Gemara explains this in three ways:

if you wish, say: with a dry birth,

meaning that she did not see blood at the time of childbirth.

if you wish, say: menstrual blood is one matter and blood of childbirth is another matter,

and seeing blood of childbirth does not interrupt the cessation.

and if you wish, say: teach only one

case: The pregnancy days are combined with the nursing days preceding the pregnancy, but the nursing days are not combined with the preceding pregnancy days, since seeing blood of childbirth does indeed interrupt the cessation.

We learned in the Mishna:

With regard to what did they say

that a woman whose blood is withheld

is judged only from her present time—

at her first sighting; but at her second sighting, she imparts impurity retroactively from time to time!

Rav said:

The fact that she imparts impurity retroactively from time to time at her second sighting applies

to all of them,

to all four women enumerated in the Mishna as women whose blood is withheld, for in all of them, the second time she sees blood, the designation “whose blood is withheld” is removed from her

. And Shmuel said: They taught

that at the second sighting she imparts impurity retroactively from time to time

only with regard to a maiden,

whose time to see blood has arrived, and when she sees blood a second time, she is established as one who sees blood ,

and an elderly woman

who has resumed seeing blood twice,

but with regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman—

they are judged only from their present time

the status of the time they discover the blood

throughout all their pregnancy days; they are judged only from their present time throughout all their nursing days!

For pregnancy and nursing continue to cause the blood to be withheld, even if she happened to see blood several times during her pregnancy and nursing periods .

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish likewise said

in accordance with Rav—that

“to all of them”

the latter clause of the Mishna applies to all of them: At the second sighting, she ceases to be a woman whose blood is withheld.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

in accordance with Shmuel, that

they taught only with regard to a maiden and an elderly woman; but with regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman—

they are judged only from their present time throughout all their pregnancy days; they are judged only from their present time throughout all their nursing days!