Niddah 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

As they taught in a baraita: A pregnant woman and a nursing woman who were

continually discharging blood, [that is, they had seen blood many times, yet they still retain the presumptive status of women whose blood has ceased],

their time

is sufficient for them

at the time of their discovery

throughout all the days of their pregnancy, and their time

is sufficient for them

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

Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon say: When they said that their time of discovery is sufficient,

even in the case of a pregnant or nursing woman,

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

she is rendered impure retroactively from the preceding twenty-four hours and from examination to examination.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if she saw

the first sighting, when the woman was presumed to have ceased menstruating,

due to an accident, even

if she saw

the second

sighting

in her usual manner—her time of discovery is sufficient.

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

she has established a menstrual pattern!

And the Gemara clarifies:

For what

has she established a menstrual pattern?

If we say, for the days,

that all three sightings occurred after jumping on a particular day, Rav Huna teaches us that the particular day is established as her menstrual pattern, whether or not she jumps.

This is impossible, because

on any day on which she does not jump, she does not see blood,

which demonstrates that her menstrual pattern depends on the jumping as well, and not on the day alone!?

Rather,

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

for jumping

alone, such that every time she jumps, even on another day, she is obligated to examine herself, like any woman who is obligated to examine herself at the time of her menstrual pattern. And likewise, leniently, her time of discovery is sufficient. And we raise an objection: But it was taught in a baraita: Any

menstrual pattern

that she establishes as a result of an accident [such as jumping or being struck],

even

if that pattern recurred

as a result of an accident

several times—

she has not established a menstrual pattern!

The Gemara analyzes the wording of the baraita:

What, is that not

the meaning of the tanna’s statement, “Any menstrual pattern that she establishes as a result of an accident is not a menstrual pattern”—namely, to exclude and state that

she does not establish any menstrual pattern at all!?

And therefore the Gemara retracts: No, this is not the tanna’s intention in the baraita. Rather, his intention is to teach us that when the pattern of jumping was combined with a pattern of days—she saw after jumping on a specific day—the combined pattern was established [for days and jumping] alone as her menstrual pattern.

does not establish any cycle at all!?

And this is what the tanna said:

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

she did not establish a pattern

for jumping alone.

But [rather],

she established a combined pattern for days and jumping.

And we inquire: What does the tanna teach us by stating that a woman who establishes a combined pattern for days and jumping does not establish a pattern

for the days alone?

And

it is obvious

that the jumping must also be taken into account, since it is the primary cause of the appearance of blood?

And we explain: Rav Ashi said: The novelty of the baraita applies in a case such as this: a. She jumped on Sunday and saw blood.

for the days alone?

But it is

obvious

that the jumping must also be taken into account, since it is the primary cause of the sighting of blood.

b.

And she jumped [after a certain number of weeks]

on Sunday and saw blood.

c.

And

if on the third

Sunday [after the same number of weeks had passed once again] she

jumped—

but did not see blood, and on Monday

the following day—

she saw blood without jumping!

Lest you say

that since on the third occasion she did not jump on the day on which she saw blood, but only on the preceding day,

it is revealed retroactively that

it was specifically the day that caused

the appearance of blood,

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

the tanna teaches us

that one must not be concerned for a pattern of days alone:

the jumping of the previous day also caused it. And the fact that she did not see blood

yesterday, at the time of the jumping, was

because the time for the jumping had not yet arrived. Therefore, the combined pattern for days and jumping is considered established!

Alternatively:

Rav Huna said: If she jumped and saw blood, jumped and saw blood, jumped and saw blood, she established a menstrual pattern

through these three sightings

for the days, but not for the jumping!

And we inquire:

What are the circumstances?

Rav Ashi said:

For example,

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

the third

she saw blood without jumping!

For there, it is revealed that it was the day that caused it,

and she establishes a menstrual pattern for the days, even though the first two sightings were caused by the accident of jumping, since on the third occasion she saw blood without jumping.

for the days and not for the jumping!

And we examine this:

What are the circumstances?

Rav Ashi said:

For example,

It follows that the alternative formulation does not disagree with the first formulation; rather, it presents Rav Huna’s statement in an additional case.

Mishna: Several laws of examination are clarified in this Mishna. a. Although they said: A woman who has an established menstrual pattern has her time of discovery deemed sufficient! She does not render ritually pure items impure retroactively, and there is no concern that the blood emerged before the time of her menstrual pattern— she must the woman who has an established menstrual pattern examine herself even not at the time of her menstrual pattern, like all women, [if she is occupied with matters involving ritually pure items], every day, morning and evening. These examinations must be performed by every woman occupied with ritually pure items except a menstruating woman during the seven days of her menstruation. There is no reason to require her to examine herself, since she is impure throughout all seven days whether or not she sees blood. And likewise, except for a woman who has given birth who is observing the days of pure blood, since even if she finds blood, she is ritually pure. b. Likewise, although they said that a woman who has an established menstrual pattern has her time of discovery deemed sufficient, if she is occupied with ritually pure items, she is obligated to be “ examining herself with cloths,”” that is, to examine herself before and after intercourse with “cloths” [an “examination cloth” is the cloth with which she examines herself, which testifies whether or not there was blood]. The obligation to engage in intercourse with cloths applies, as stated, to every woman occupied with ritually pure items, except for a woman who has given birth, who is observing the days of pure blood, and is ritually pure even when she sees blood. And except for a virgin, who has intercourse for the first time,

saw blood without jumping!

For there, it is retrospectively revealed that the day causes

the sighting, and she establishes a cycle for the days, even though the first two sightings were due to the circumstance of jumping, since on the third occasion she saw blood without jumping.

It follows that the other version does not disagree with the first version. Rather, it presents Rav Huna's statement in an additional case.

Mishna:

This Mishna explains several laws concerning examination.

a.

Although they said that

a woman who has an established cycle

has her time deemed sufficient,

and she does not render ritually pure items impure retroactively, and we do not suspect that the blood emerged before the time of her cycle—

she must

the woman who has an established cycle

examine herself

even when it is not the time of her cycle, like all women, [if she is occupied with matters of ritual purity,] every day, morning and evening.

whose blood—

the blood of virginity—

is ritually pure [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].

And

likewise, except for a woman who has given birth

and is observing the days of pure blood,

since even if she finds blood, she remains ritually pure.

b. Likewise, although it was said that a woman who has an established cycle has her time deemed sufficient, if she is occupied with matters of ritual purity, she is required to

use examination cloths,

that is, to examine herself before and after intercourse with “witnesses,” [an “examination cloth” is the cloth with which she wipes herself; it testifies whether or not there was blood].

The obligation to use examination cloths applies, as stated, to every woman occupied with matters of ritual purity,

except for

a woman who has given birth, who is

observing the days of pure blood,

and is ritually pure even when she sees blood.

And

except for

a virgin,

who engages in intercourse for the first time,

whose

blood—the blood of virginity—

is ritually pure

[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].

c. And the Mishna returns to explain the obligations of examination:

And

what we learned, “she must examine,” means

twice

she must examine

the woman who is occupied with taharot—

in the morning and between sunset and nightfall.

[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].

And she must likewise examine herself

when she goes to serve her household.

That is, before she engages in intercourse [with her husband].

d.

They have additional obligations

[beyond those women who are occupied with taharot]—

women of priestly lineage,

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 lineage must examine themselves

even when they cease

after they finish

eating teruma.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

All women require examination except for a niddah, for during the days of her niddah she does not require examination.

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

This applies when this pattern is caused by the woman’s tendency to see blood at fixed times. But if she sees blood from an “open source,” so that it is reasonable to attribute her present sighting not to a tendency to see blood at fixed times, but to the continuation of a flow of blood that began several days earlier, this sighting is not considered a sighting caused by the woman’s menstrual cycle, and it does not combine with other sightings.

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disputed what constitutes a “closed source,” in which a sighting establishes a menstrual cycle, and what constitutes an “open source,” in which no menstrual cycle is established.

We raised a difficulty:

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

eleven

days of her days of ziva.

But

a woman does not establish a menstrual cycle during

the seven

days of her niddah! It is well

that they said she need not examine herself, since during her days of niddah she is impure in any event, and a new menstrual cycle likewise cannot begin from a sighting that she sees during the seven days of niddah.

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

for example, if she saw blood on the first of the month and stopped seeing blood, and then saw again during her seven days of niddah—an additional sighting on the fifth of the month—this sighting on the fifth is fit to combine with two further sightings, on the fifth of the month during the following two months, thereby establishing a menstrual cycle for the fifth of the month, even though the first of these three sightings occurred during the seven days of niddah.

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

let her examine herself, lest she establish a menstrual cycle

through an additional sighting during the seven days of niddah, since it is possible that this sighting will combine with two sightings that will occur on the same day of the month during the following two months, and she will establish 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 days of niddah—

it is where she saw it

this sighting during the days of niddah

from a closed source!

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

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

That is, on this occasion too, the first of the month was the beginning of her sighting. The fact that she saw blood several days before the first of the month on this occasion was because she had an excess of blood, which burst forth before the time appropriate to her menstrual cycle, namely, the first of the month.

But if she saw it from

an “open source,”

I do not say

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

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

We learned in the Mishna:

And

a woman after childbirth

who observes the days of pure blood—

is not obligated to examine herself.

It might have entered your mind

that “a woman who observes the days of pure blood” does not mean that she is already within the days of purity themselves, because if so, there would be no novelty in saying that she need not examine herself, since her blood is pure. Rather, our Mishna deals with a woman who

seeks to observe the days of pure blood.

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

We raised a difficulty:

This works well according to Rav, who says

that all the blood of a woman after childbirth, both the impure and the pure, comes from

one source,

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

the Torah rendered that source impure,

and during the days of purity that follow,

the Torah rendered it pure; it is well

that she need not examine herself to distinguish between the blood. Rather, 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 and become pure, because the blood now being discharged 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 has not ceased flowing, her blood is impure, if so, let her examine herself—even if more than seven days have passed for a male birth and fourteen days for a female birth—until the impure source is closed and the pure source opens. Why, then, is she exempt from examination? On the contrary,

let her examine herself;

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

perhaps that impure source has not yet ceased

and the days of purity cannot yet begin?

And we answer:

Levi can say to you: This,

our Mishna,

whose opinion is it?