Niddah 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

It is Beit Shammai!

As they say,

Beit Shammai:

There is one spring.

According to Levi, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree below, on page 35, regarding whether there is one spring or two. Our Mishna follows Beit Shammai, who hold that there is one spring, and therefore she is not required to examine herself. Levi himself rules in accordance with Beit Hillel, who hold that there are two springs, and according to them she indeed must examine herself to determine whether the impure spring has ceased.

And we raise an objection:

But

if

the tanna set down an unattributed ruling in accordance with Beit Shammai?

After all, the halakha follows an “unattributed Mishna,” whereas here [according to Levi] Beit Hillel disagree, and the halakha follows them. Why, then, did the tanna set down an unattributed ruling in accordance with Beit Shammai? And we answer:

“An unattributed ruling followed later by a dispute,”

for although here the tanna set down an unattributed ruling in accordance with Beit Shammai, below, in the Mishna, the tanna presented the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.

And whenever there is “an unattributed ruling followed later by a dispute,” the halakha does not follow the unattributed ruling!

Therefore, it is possible to establish the unattributed ruling of our Mishna as the opinion of Beit Shammai, even though the halakha does not follow them.

Alternatively, if you wish, say: Does the Mishna actually teach, “who seeks to sit”?

That is, who wishes to begin her days of purity, when she is exempt from examining herself to distinguish between impure and pure blood?

It teaches, “who is sitting on pure blood,”

meaning that the impure spring has already ceased,

it teaches,

and her days of purity have begun; therefore, she is exempt from examination.

And we raise an objection:

If

our Mishna is dealing with one who is

sitting

on pure blood,

what is it teaching us

by stating that she is exempt from examination? Her blood is pure!

And we answer:

It was necessary to teach that she need not examine herself,

for it might have occurred to you that she should be required to examine herself if she sees pure blood,

as perhaps she established a menstrual cycle for herself,

through examining herself and finding pure blood three times [for example, if she saw blood three times at twenty-day intervals during the sixty-six days of purity of a woman who gave birth to a female], so that even after her days of purity end, this would establish a menstrual cycle for her.

It teaches us that a pure spring does not establish

a menstrual

cycle for an impure spring! And we raise an objection:

This works well according to Levi, who says that there are two springs,

for it is properly stated that the establishment of a menstrual cycle by blood from the pure spring cannot establish one for the impure spring.

But according to Rav, who says that there is one spring,

she should examine herself

even during the days of purity, because

perhaps she established a menstrual cycle for herself,

since all the blood flows from the same spring, she should establish a menstrual cycle without taking into consideration whether the blood is impure or pure!?

And we answer:

Even so,

although there is one spring, she does not establish a menstrual cycle for the days of impurity during the days of purity, because—

From the days of purity to the days of impurity she does not establish

a menstrual

cycle! We learned in the Mishna:

“And she engages in intercourse with examination cloths”—

except for a virgin, whose blood is pure.

We learned there: “A young girl who has not reached the age at which she is expected to see blood,”

who was a minor, under twelve years old,

“and she married.”

Beit Shammai say: We grant her four nights,

and declare the blood that she sees during intercourse pure, as the blood of virginity.

And Beit Hillel say: Until the wound heals,

for her period is not limited; rather, as long as she sees blood during intercourse, we attribute it to the wound not yet having healed from the intercourse, and the blood she continues to see is pure blood of virginity.

Rav Giddel said in the name of Shmuel:

a.

The statement

that Beit Hillel said—that her blood is pure until the wound heals—

was taught

only when she had not ceased to see blood

due to intercourse,

that is, she saw blood during all her acts of intercourse. In that case, even if she subsequently

saw

on a day

without intercourse,

she is pure, because as long as she sees blood during intercourse, we attribute any blood she sees in the interim to the blood of virginity.

But if she ceased

seeing blood

due to intercourse,

even after only one act of intercourse, and she subsequently

saw

blood, she is

impure.

This applies whether she saw it due to intercourse or not. Since she ceased seeing blood during one act of intercourse, we say that the wound has healed and the blood of virginity has ended; this blood is menstrual blood.

b.

If one night passed without intercourse

and on the following day she

saw

blood without intercourse,

she is impure!

c.

If the appearance of her blood changed

from the appearance of the blood during the first act of intercourse,

she is impure,

for we say that it is different blood, not blood of virginity.

Rav Yona raised an objection

to the last ruling of Rav Giddel in the name of Rav, that a change in the appearance of the blood renders her impure, from what we learned in our Mishna:

“And a virgin, whose blood is pure,”

does not need to engage in intercourse with examination cloths like other women!

And why? Let her engage in intercourse with examination cloths, since perhaps the appearance of her blood has changed,

for according to Rav Giddel in the name of Rav she is impure when the appearance changes. Why, then, did we exempt a virgin from examination?

Rava said:

Before you raise a difficulty against Rav Giddel in the name of Rav from the latter clause of the Mishna,

consider the first clause

of the Mishna, [from which support for his opinion may be proved]. We learned there that every woman must examine herself morning and evening,

except for a menstruating woman and one sitting on pure blood.

This implies that specifically

a menstruating woman and one sitting on pure blood do not require examination, but a virgin,

despite the fact

that her blood is pure, requires examination

morning and evening. Necessarily, the reason is concern that the appearance of the blood may have changed, in accordance with Rav Giddel in the name of Rav.

But the two clauses contradict one another,

the first clause and the latter clause?! Necessarily, we must distinguish between the examinations and say:

Here,

in the latter clause,

where she engaged in intercourse

just now, she is exempt from the examination after intercourse, for even if she finds blood whose appearance has changed in her examination, it is pure,

as perhaps

the organ [of intercourse]

[of intercourse]

stained

the blood of virginity during intercourse, and therefore its appearance changed. [Consequently, she is also exempt from the examination before intercourse, since that examination is required only as an adjunct to the examination after intercourse, as will be explained below.]

Here,

in the first clause, which deals with the obligation to examine herself morning and evening, the case is

where she did not engage in intercourse

just then. She must examine herself, for if she finds blood whose appearance has changed from that of the blood of virginity during the first act of intercourse, it is impure blood. Now she has no basis on which to attribute the change in the appearance of the blood, other than that it is menstrual blood.

This is the case addressed by Rav Giddel in the name of Rav: if the appearance of the blood changed and the matter did not occur close to intercourse, she is impure.

It was taught likewise,

with regard to the three rulings innovated by Rav Giddel in the name of Rav:

a.

When is this statement

that a virgin’s blood is pure applicable?

When she had not ceased

seeing blood

due to intercourse,

so that even if she subsequently

saw blood without intercourse,

she is pure.

But if she ceased

seeing blood

due to intercourse, and she saw

once more, whether during intercourse or afterward,

she is impure!

b.

If one night passed without intercourse, and she saw

blood on the following day without intercourse,

she is impure!

c.

If the appearance of her blood changed

when she saw it not close to intercourse,

she is impure!

We learned in the Mishna:

“She must examine herself twice, morning and evening.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The statement was taught

in our Mishna, that she is obligated to examine herself morning and evening,

only

with regard to a woman occupied

with matters of ritual purity; but with regard to her husband,

she is

permitted

without examination.

And we raise an objection:

Is this not obvious?

The obligation of examination stated in the Mishna applies only to matters of ritual purity and not to her husband, since we learned that she examines herself

“in the morning,”

and a morning examination applies only to matters of ritual purity and not to her husband, since marital relations are not practiced during the day!?

And we answer:

Rather, if it was stated,

Shmuel’s statement

was stated with regard to the latter clause

of the Mishna [which teaches that she must also examine herself]

“when she is about to engage in intercourse in her home.”

Concerning this,

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The statement was taught

that she is obligated in this examination

only with regard to a woman occupied with matters of ritual purity, since, because she requires examination

after intercourse

for matters of ritual purity,

lest she saw blood due to intercourse, and this examination was instituted so that she would not render them impure,

she also requires examination with regard to her husband

before intercourse.

But

if she

is not occupied with matters of ritual purity,

so that she is not obligated to examine herself after intercourse,

she does not require examination

at all, including not even for her husband before intercourse.

And we raise an objection:

What does Shmuel teach us?

This ruling was already

taught

in the Mishna below:

“All women have the presumptive status of purity with regard to their husbands,”

meaning that they do not need to examine themselves before intercourse! In order that this Mishna not contradict our Mishna, it is necessarily the case that a distinction must be made: the Mishna below deals with a woman who is not occupied with matters of ritual purity, and therefore she is exempt from examination for her husband before intercourse. What, then, does Shmuel teach us?

And we answer:

If it had been derived from the Mishna

below,

I would have said

that the ruling of the Mishna—that all women have the presumptive status of purity with regard to their husbands—

applies specifically to a woman who has a regular cycle,

for as long as her expected time has not arrived, she has the presumptive status of purity;

but a woman who has no regular cycle requires examination.

Shmuel therefore teaches us that even a woman who has no regular cycle is exempt from examination if she is not occupied with matters of ritual purity.

And we raise an objection: How can it be said that Shmuel’s novelty is that even a woman who has no regular cycle is exempt from examination? Shmuel stated his novelty—“the statement was taught only with regard to one occupied with matters of ritual purity, but if she is not occupied with matters of ritual purity, she is exempt from examination”—with regard to our Mishna,

and our Mishna deals with a woman who has a regular cycle,

as we learned: “Although they said that her present time is sufficient,” which is a ruling that applies specifically to a woman who has a regular cycle. Since Shmuel was referring to a woman who has a regular cycle, the original difficulty returns: the ruling concerning a woman who has a regular cycle was already learned in the Mishna below, which teaches that she is exempt from examination.

And we answer: The obligation of examination of a woman occupied with matters of ritual purity, which is the subject of

the Mishna,

applies

both

to a woman

who has a regular cycle and to one who has no regular cycle.

Consequently, Shmuel was referring to our Mishna and said that the obligation to examine herself applies only when she is occupied with matters of ritual purity, but a woman who is not occupied with matters of ritual purity does not require examination, even if she has no regular cycle. The Mishna’s formulation in its first clause, “although they said that her present time is sufficient”—which refers to a woman who has a regular cycle—was intended to teach a further novelty, in the opposite direction, as a stringency—

And this is what it teaches us: Although she has a regular cycle,

if she is occupied with matters of ritual purity, we say:

Since she requires examination for matters of ritual purity, she also requires examination for her husband!

And we raise an objection: Shmuel already stated this once.

For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya, who said in the name of Shmuel: A woman who has no regular cycle is forbidden to engage in intercourse until she examines herself; and we established

[below, on the following page] that only

when she is occupied with matters of ritual purity

did Shmuel say that she is forbidden to engage in intercourse until she examines herself. But if she is not occupied with matters of ritual purity, she may engage in intercourse without examination, even if she has no regular cycle. Why, then, did Shmuel repeat his statement!?

And we answer: Shmuel did not repeat his statement; rather, he stated it only once.

And one

was stated by implication from the other. 173

It was taught likewise,

that the obligation to examine herself before intercourse applies only when she is occupied with matters of ritual purity:

When is this statement

that she must examine herself before intercourse applicable?

For matters of ritual purity,

when she was occupied with matters of ritual purity.

But with regard to her husband,

when she is not occupied with matters of ritual purity,

she is permitted

without examination, even when she has no regular cycle.

And likewise, when her husband returns from a journey, he is permitted to come to her without asking whether she is ritually pure, because she has the presumptive status of ritual purity.

What are these matters referring to

that he need not ask her—

if he left her

at the time of his departure on a journey

with the presumptive status of ritual impurity. But if he left her

when he set out on his journey

with the presumptive status of ritual impurity, she remains in her state of impurity forever

and even if the days of impurity have passed and it was possible for her to become pure, the husband may not rely on the assumption that she immersed and became pure—

until she tells him

explicitly, "

I am ritually pure!"