Niddah 10b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Ilai challenged Hezekiah

:

And what is the difference between this one

who has not yet seen a sight that renders her impure retroactively, and nevertheless we decreed concerning her stain, according to Hezekiah,

and a virgin

who married,

whose blood is pure,

for whom we were lenient and did not decree concerning her stain, but rather we attribute it to the pure blood of virginity, despite the fact that if she were to see actual blood that is not blood of virginity, she would become impure retroactively [for this concerns a virgin who saw blood once in her father's house and thereby became established as one who sees, and if she sees again with a different appearance from the blood of virginity, she becomes impure retroactively], and it is demonstrated that they do not render her stain impure even though she had become established as one who sees, and if she sees again she would become impure retroactively .

Rabbi Zeira said to him: This one,

the virgin—

her fluid is present [the fluid means the blood],

for the blood of virginity is present in her, and therefore she attributes it to that .

And this one,

the minor—

her fluid is not present,

for she has no pure blood to which she could attribute it.

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

A minor who had not reached the age at which she was due to see, and saw for the first and second time,

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

her saliva and her treading in the marketplace

are pure!

The Sages decreed impurity upon the saliva and treading of a woman who had reached the age at which she was due to see, even if we do not know that she is a menstruant; but concerning this minor, who had not become established as one who sees, they did not decree, out of doubt lest she had seen, upon her saliva and her treading.

Her stain

of this minor who saw only twice

is likewise pure.

And Ulla said:

I do not know

whether that which Rabbi Yohanan said—that her stain is pure—

is his own

having innovated it on his own,

or his master's

whether Rabbi Yohanan also said the law of the stain in the name of his master, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak.

And we inquired concerning it:

What practical difference is there

whether it is his own or his master's? And we answered:

That his words should be those of one

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

in the place of two!

For Rabbi Yohanan disagreed with Hezekiah on the basis of his own reasoning, and in addition brought the words of his master; the words of the two who purify prevail over the words of the one who renders impure.

And the Gemara proves that Rabbi Yohanan said it in the name of his master, and that the halakha is decided according to the words of the two, from this:

When Ravin and all those who descended to the sea,

said it

—that her stain is pure after two sightings—

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Yehotzadak!

Rav Helkiah bar Tovi said: A minor who had not reached the age at which she was due to see,

and began to see for the first time,

even if she flows

and sees blood

all seven

days of her menstruation,

it is only one sighting,

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

And the Gemara asks concerning the wording of Rav Helkiah, whose implication is

even if she flows,

that she sees without interruption, it is one sighting—

and it is not necessary to say that she stops

between her sightings within the seven days, that it is one sighting!

But

on the contrary, if she stops

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

it is for her like two sightings

separate ones!?

Rather,

this is what Rav Helkiah said: “

A minor who had not reached the age at which she was due to see, and flows all seven—

it is only one sighting.”

But if she stops between her sightings, she counts them as separate sightings even within the first seven days of her menstruation. And if there were two interruptions between three sightings, she becomes established as one who sees blood.

Rav Shimi bar Hiyya said: “Dripping”

—that she drips drops of blood, one after the other—

is not considered seeing

blood, not even as one sighting.

And the Gemara asks: How is it possible not to consider her sighting?

But she sees it!?

And the Gemara establishes Rav Shimi bar Hiyya's innovation in another manner—

say

“dripping”

is not like flowing

—that the entire continuation of her sighting is considered one sighting.

Rather,

“dripping”—it is

like stopping!

For although drops of blood emerge from her one after the other, since each one emerges separately, each emergence of a drop of blood is considered a sighting in itself, and she is considered established as one who sees and is rendered impure from one period of time to another.

And the Gemara asks: If we say that “dripping,” which drips in a continuous manner one after the other, is called stopping, then

by implication

you learn

that “flowing,”

which is considered one sighting, is only when she flows

like a river,

with the blood emerging from her in a constant flow for seven days; but it is impossible that in such a condition she would remain alive!?

Therefore, the Gemara retracts and establishes Rav Shimi's words in the opposite manner—

rather, say—

“dripping”

is only like flowing,

for it is considered only one sighting: the continuous dripping is treated as though it were a continuous flow, and therefore her time is still sufficient until she sees two further separate sightings .

The Sages taught: The established status

of

the daughters of Israel

is to conduct themselves according to this order:

Before they reach their maturity

—when they are under the age of twelve years—

they are presumed pure, and the women do not

the adult women

examine them

in order to know whether they saw blood .

Once they reach their maturity—

they are presumed impure,

presumed that blood is present in them,

and women

adult women

examine them

in order to know whether they are pure or impure.

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

if they scratch them, and they will err, thinking that they saw menstrual blood.

Rather, they apply oil to them internally and wipe them externally, and they examine themselves,

for if their time to see has arrived, the blood emerges on account of the oil.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says: A pregnant woman

and a nursing woman concerning whom three periods have passed, their time is sufficient.

A tan­nay taught before Rabbi Elazar: “Rabbi Yosei says”—

a pregnant woman and a nursing woman concerning whom three periods have passed,

without seeing,

her time is sufficient.” Rabbi Elazar said to that tan­nay: “You began with two

[a pregnant woman and a nursing woman],

and concluded with one,

[in the singular form—“her time is sufficient”]?

Perhaps you said, ‘a pregnant woman who is nursing,’

that you spoke about one woman whose seeing stopped for three periods, part of the interruption being during her pregnancy and part during her nursing,

and, incidentally, he teaches us a matter

that the two interruptions combine to make a duration of three periods,

for 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? She stopped for two

periods

during her pregnancy and one during her nursing 150,

or—she stopped for

two

periods

during her nursing and one during her pregnancy,

Or—the interval is interrupted—

one and a half

answers:

during her pregnancy, and one and a half during her nursing, [

and likewise in the reverse case],

the intervals join together

the interruptions

to three intervals!

And the Gemara clarifies:

Granted, “the days of her pregnancy count for her as the days of her nursing” can be found, when she is nursing and goes along [

and she stopped seeing during the latter days of her nursing],

and she becomes pregnant 151 , [

and she continued the interruption during the days of her pregnancy, so that the days of pregnancy join the days of nursing that preceded them],

but “the days of her nursing count for her as the days of her pregnancy,”

so that the days of nursing after the pregnancy join the days of pregnancy,

how can this be found?

For at the time of birth she sees blood, and it is found that she did not stop seeing for three consecutive intervals?

And the Gemara explains in three ways:

If you wish, say: with a dry birth,

so that she did not see blood at the time of birth.

If you wish, say: menstrual blood is one matter and birth blood is another matter,

and the sighting of birth blood does not interrupt the interruption.

And if you wish, say: teach one [of the statements]

only: the days of pregnancy join the days of nursing before the pregnancy, but the days of nursing do not join the preceding days of pregnancy, for the sighting of birth blood indeed interrupts the interruption.

We learned in the Mishna:

In what did they say

that a woman from whom blood is withheld

is judged only from her time—

with the first sighting, but with the second she becomes impure retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours!

Rav said:

This—that with the second sighting she becomes impure retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours—applies

to all of them,

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

And Shmuel said: They taught

that with the second time she becomes impure retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours

only with regard to a virgin,

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

and an old woman

who has returned to see twice,

but a pregnant woman and a nursing woman—

they are judged

only from

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

For the pregnancy and the nursing continue to cause the blood to be withheld, even if it happened that she saw several times during the pregnancy and nursing .

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish likewise said

like Rav—that

“to all of them”

applies to the latter clause of the Mishna, that with the second sighting she ceases to be one from whom blood is withheld.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

like Shmuel, that

they taught only with regard to a virgin and an old woman, but a pregnant woman and a nursing woman—

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