Niddah 11a — the Talmud in English

As a tanna: A pregnant woman and a nursing woman who were

precisely located on the page

flowing blood and coming [that is, they had seen blood many times, yet they still had the status of women whose blood has ceased],

that is, they had seen blood many times, they nevertheless retain the presumption that their blood has ceased],

their time suffices

for them

all the days of their pregnancy, and their time suffices

for them

all the days of their nursing, these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon say: They said “their time suffices”

even with regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman

only with regard to the first sighting. But, with the second—

she becomes impure retroactively from the preceding twenty-four hours, and from examination to examination.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if she saw

the woman whose blood has ceased saw

the first sighting through an accident, even

if she saw the

second sighting

in her usual manner—

her time suffices.

Rav Huna said: If she jumped and saw, jumped and saw, jumped and saw—

she established a veset for herself!

And the Gemara clarifies:

For what

did she establish a veset for herself?

If you say, for the days

—that all three sightings occurred through jumping on a particular day, and Rav Huna teaches us that the particular day was established as the veset, whether she jumps or not.

This is not possible, because

behold, on every day on which she does not jump, she does not see,

and it is demonstrated that her veset depends also on the jumping and not on the day alone!?

Rather,

the Gemara explains that Rav Huna means that she establishes a veset

for jumping

alone , so that every time she jumps, even on another day, she is obligated to examine, like any woman who is obligated to examine at the time of her veset. And likewise as a leniency, her time suffices .

And we object:

But it was taught in a beraita: Every

veset

that she establishes because of an accident [for example, she jumped or was struck],

as a result of an accident

even

if that veset repeated itself because of an accident

several times—

she does not establish a veset!

And the Gemara deduces from the wording of the beraita:

What—is it not

the tanna’s intention when he says, “Every veset that she establishes because of an accident is not a veset,” to exclude and say that

she did not establish any veset at all!?

And therefore the Gemara retracts—

No,

this is not the intention of the tanna of the beraita.

Rather, his intention is to teach us that when the veset of jumping was combined with the veset of the days, so that she saw through her jumping on a designated day, the combined veset was established—[for the days and the jumping] alone as her veset.

And this is what the tanna said—

She did not establish a veset for the days alone, and

she did not establish a veset

for the jumping alone.

But, [rather]—

it is obvious

she established for herself a combined veset for the days and the jumping.

And we consider the matter: What does the tanna teach us by saying that a woman who establishes a combined veset for the days and the jumping does not establish a veset

for the days alone?

And

it is obvious

that one must also take the jumping into account, for it is the primary cause of the seeing of the blood .

And we explain:

Rav Ashi said:

The novelty of the beraita is in a case

such as:

a.

She jumped on Sunday, and saw.

b.

And she jumped [after a certain number of weeks]

[after a certain number of weeks]

on Sunday, and saw.

c.

And

if

on Shabbat

the third [after another interval of that same certain number of weeks] she

jumped—

and did not see. And on Sunday,

the next day, she

saw without jumping!

Lest you say,

since on the third occasion there was no jumping on the day on which she saw, but only on the preceding day, therefore

it is revealed retroactively that

only

the day is what causes

the seeing

and not the jumping [and we do not say that yesterday’s jumping affected the seeing on the following day]—

[and we do not say that the jumping of the previous day affected the sighting on the following day]—

he teaches us

the tanna, by saying that one does not concern oneself with a veset for the days alone,

that yesterday’s jumping also causes it. And this is why she did not see

yesterday at the time of the jumping: it was

because the time of the jumping had not yet arrived. And therefore, the combined veset is considered a veset for the days and the jumping!

Another version:

Rav Huna said: If she jumped and saw, jumped and saw, jumped and saw, she established a veset for herself

through her three sightings

for the days and not for the jumping!

And we consider the matter:

What are the circumstances?

Rav Ashi said:

For example,

she jumped on Sunday and saw, and she jumped on Sunday and saw, and on another Sunday

the third time

she saw without jumping!

For there it was revealed that the day is what causes it,

and she establishes a veset for the days, even though the first two sightings were because of the accident of jumping, since on the third occasion she saw without jumping.

It follows that the latter version does not disagree with the first version, but rather brings Rav Huna’s words in an additional case .

Mishna:

In this Mishna several laws of examination are explained.

a.

Although they said:

a woman who has a veset

her time suffices!

And she does not render pure items impure retroactively, and they did not suspect her lest the blood emerged before the time of the veset—

she must

that woman who has a veset

be examining

even not at the time of her veset, like all women [if she is occupied with pure items] , every day, morning and evening.

These examinations must be performed by every woman who is occupied with pure items

except for a menstruating woman

during the seven days of menstruation. For there is no reason to obligate her to examine, since she is impure throughout all seven days, whether she sees blood or not.

And

likewise, except for a woman who has given birth

who sits over the blood of purity,

for even if she finds blood, she is pure.

b. Likewise, although they said that a woman who has a veset—her time suffices, if she is occupied with pure items she is obligated to be

“engaging in marital relations with witnesses,”

that is, to examine herself before and after marital relations with “witnesses” [an “ed” means the cloth with which she wipes herself, for it testifies whether there was blood or not].

The obligation to engage in marital relations with witnesses applies, as stated, to every woman occupied with pure items,

except for

a woman who has given birth, who

sits over the blood of purity,

who is pure even when she sees blood.

And

except for

the virgin,

who engages in marital relations for the first time,

whose blood,

the blood of virginity, is

pure [even if she saw blood that differs from the blood of virginity, she may attribute it to the blood of virginity, which can change because of marital relations].

[and even if she sees blood that differs from the blood of virginity, she may attribute it to the blood of virginity, which can change as a result of intercourse].

ג. And the Mishna returns to explain the examination obligations:

And

what we learned, “she must examine,” means

twice:

she must examine

the woman who is occupied with matters requiring ritual purity—

in the morning and at twilight. [The purpose of this examination is that if she sees blood in the middle of the day, she retroactively renders impure only those ritually pure items that she touched after the morning examination. But the ritually pure items that she touched at night, before the morning examination, remain pure, since in the morning she was pure at the time of the examination and became impure only afterward. Similarly, the twilight examination protects all the ritually pure items of that day that were handled before the examination, if she becomes impure afterward.]

[The reason for this examination is that if she sees blood in the middle of the day, she renders impure retrospectively only the taharot that she touched after the morning examination. But the taharot that she touched at night, before the morning examination, remain pure, since in the morning she was pure at the time of the examination and became impure only afterward. Similarly, the examination between sunset and nightfall protects, if she becomes impure afterward, all the taharot of that day that were handled before the examination].

She must likewise examine herself

when she is preparing to have relations with her husband.

That is, before she has relations [with her husband].

D.

They have an additional requirement [

in addition to those women who are occupied with matters requiring ritual purity]—

women of priestly status,

who are obligated to perform an additional examination

when they eat teruma,

as they must examine themselves once more before eating teruma.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The women of priestly status must examine themselves

also when they move away,

after they finish

eating teruma.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

All women require examination, except for a menstruating woman, who does not require examination during her menstrual days.

A woman establishes a menstrual cycle when she sees blood at regular intervals.

This applies when this regular pattern results from the woman’s natural tendency to see blood at fixed times. However, if she sees blood from an “open source,” so that it is reasonable to attribute the blood she sees now not to a tendency to see blood at fixed intervals, but to the continuation of the flow that began several days earlier, this sighting is not considered a sighting caused by her established cycle and cannot be combined with other sightings.

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disagreed about what constitutes a “closed source,” in which a sighting establishes a menstrual cycle, and what constitutes an “open source,” in which a menstrual cycle is not established.

The Gemara asks:

This works well according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says: A woman establishes a menstrual cycle during

eleven

days of her period of abnormal bleeding.

But—

and a woman does not establish a menstrual cycle during

the seven

days of her menstruation! It is properly

said that she need not examine herself, since during her menstrual days she is impure in any event, and a new menstrual cycle also cannot begin with a sighting that occurs during the seven days of menstruation.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan, who says: A woman establishes a menstrual cycle during her menstrual days,

for example, if she saw blood on the first day of the month and stopped seeing blood, and then saw blood again during her seven menstrual days, an additional sighting on the fifth day of the month can be combined with two more sightings, on the fifth day of the month in each of the following two months, thereby establishing a menstrual cycle for the fifth day of the month, even though the first of these sightings occurred during the seven menstrual days.

If so, why is a menstruating woman not obligated to examine herself throughout all seven days after her first sighting? On the contrary—

she should examine herself, lest she establish a menstrual cycle

through an additional sighting during the seven menstrual days, since it is possible that this sighting will join two sightings that will occur on the same day of the month during the following two months, establishing a menstrual cycle for that day!?

Rabbi Yohanan can say to you: When I say

that a woman establishes a menstrual cycle even by combining a sighting that occurred during the seven menstrual days, it is—

where she saw it

this sighting during her menstrual days

from a closed source!

For example, she saw the first sighting on the first day of the month and the second sighting on the first day of the following month, but the third time she saw blood several days before the beginning of the month and then saw blood again on the first day of the month. In that case, I maintain that although the third sighting [on the first day of the month] occurred during the seven menstrual days, it joins the two previous sightings to establish a menstrual cycle.

Since the first two sightings, each of which occurred on the first day of the month at the beginning of the establishment of the cycle, did not occur during her menstrual days, we say that the third sighting, on the first day of the third month, was also a sighting from a “closed source.”

That is, on this occasion as well, her sighting began on the first day of the month. The fact that this time she saw blood several days before the first day of the month was because she had an excess of blood, which burst forth before the time appropriate for her cycle, namely, the first day of the month.

But if I saw it from

“an open source,”

I do not say [

that if the first sighting occurred during her menstrual days—for example, if she saw blood on the first day of the month and another time on the fifth day, and during the following two months she saw blood only on the fifth day of the month, it is impossible to combine the first sighting on the fifth day of the month, which she saw from an “open source” [that is, during her seven menstrual days], with the two subsequent sightings on the fifth day of the month, [even though those two subsequent sightings were from a “closed source,” since she did not see blood during her menstrual days].]

Therefore, even according to Rabbi Yohanan, she does not require examination during the seven menstrual days, because even if she sees blood on the other days, these sightings from an open source cannot be combined with subsequent sightings.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

a woman who has given birth

and is observing the days during which her blood is pure—

is not obligated to examine herself.

It might have entered your mind

that “one who is observing the days during which her blood is pure” does not mean that she is already within those days of purity, because if so, there would be nothing novel in stating that she does not need to examine herself, since her blood is pure. Rather, our Mishna is discussing one who

seeks to observe the days during which her blood is pure,

meaning that the days of impurity have ended and the days of purity are about to begin, and she does not need to examine herself in order to distinguish between impure blood and pure blood!

The Gemara asks:

This works well according to Rav, who says

that all the blood of a woman who has given birth, both the impure and the pure blood, comes from

one source,

but during the first week after giving birth to a male and the first two weeks after giving birth to a female,

the Torah rendered it impure,

and during the subsequent “days of purity”

the Torah rendered it pure; it is properly

said that she does not need to examine herself to distinguish between the blood. Even though she is flowing blood at the end of the days of impurity and the flow continues into the days of purity, she can immerse herself and become pure, because the blood she is seeing now is pure blood.

But according to Levi, who says that there are two sources,

an impure source and a pure source, and as long as the impure source continues to flow, her blood is impure, then she should examine herself—even if more than seven days have passed for a male birth or fourteen days for a female birth—until the impure source closes and the pure source opens. Why, then, is she exempt from examination? On the contrary,

she should examine herself;

we should obligate her to examine herself at the end of the days of impurity, because

perhaps that impure source has not yet stopped

and the days of purity still cannot begin?

The Gemara answers:

Levi can say to you: This—

our Mishna—

is whose?