Niddah 11b — the Talmud in English

It is the opinion of Beit Shammai!

For they say

Beit Shammai:

It is one spring.

According to Levi, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai dispute below, on page 35, in this question: whether it is one spring or two. And our Mishna is according to Beit Shammai, who hold that it is one spring, and therefore she does not need to examine. But Levi himself rules according to Beit Hillel, that they are two springs, and according to them she indeed needs to examine whether the impure spring has stopped.

And we object:

A

re

the tanna set down anonymously according to Beit Shammai?

But an “anonymous Mishna” is halakha according to it, whereas here [according to Levi], Beit Hillel dispute it, and the halakha is according to them; so why did the tanna set it down anonymously according to Beit Shammai?! And we answer:

“An anonymous statement followed by a dispute” is this,

for although here the tanna stated the anonymous ruling according to Beit Shammai, below in the Mishna the tanna brought the dispute of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.

And in every case of “an anonymous statement followed by a dispute,” the halakha is not according to the anonymous statement!

Therefore it is possible to establish the anonymous statement of our Mishna according to Beit Shammai, even though the halakha is not according to them.

And if you wish, say: Did it teach, “who seeks to sit”

who wishes to begin the days of purity, so that she is exempt from examining between impure blood and pure blood?

“Who sits upon pure blood”

for the impure spring has already stopped,

it teaches,

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

And we object:

If

our Mishna deals with

one who sits

upon pure blood—

what is it teaching us

that she is exempt from examination? After all, her blood is pure!

And we answer:

It is necessary, lest you say that she should examine,

for there is reason to obligate her to examine whether she is seeing pure blood.

For perhaps she has established a menstrual cycle for herself,

through three times when she examines and finds pure blood [for example, when she saw three times from the twentieth day to the twentieth day within the sixty-six days of purity of a woman who gave birth to a female child] so that even after the days of purity end, a menstrual cycle has been established for her through this.

It teaches us that from a pure spring to an impure spring she does not establish

a menstrual cycle!

And we object:

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

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

But according to Rav, who says that it is one spring—

she should examine

also during the days of purity, because

perhaps she has 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 it 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 time to see blood,

who was a minor, younger than twelve years old,

and she married.

Beit Shammai say: They grant her four nights

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

And Beit Hillel say: Until the wound heals,

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

Rav Giddel said in the name of Shmuel:

a.

They taught

that according to Beit Hillel, until the wound heals, her blood is pure,

only when she has not stopped

seeing blood

due to intercourse,

for she saw blood during all her acts of intercourse; in that case, even if she returned

and saw

during the day

not due to intercourse,

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

But if she stopped

seeing blood

due to intercourse,

even after only one act of intercourse, if she returned

and saw

blood, she is

impure.

Whether she saw this due to intercourse or not due to intercourse. Since she stopped seeing during one act of intercourse, we say that the wound has healed and the blood of virginity has ended. And this blood is menstrual blood.

b.

One night passed without intercourse

and on the following day she

saw

blood without intercourse—

she is impure!

c.

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 and 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 makes 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, for 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, so why did we exempt a virgin from examination?

Rava said:

Before you raise an objection to Rav Giddel in the name of Rav from the latter clause of the Mishna,

say the first clause

of the Mishna, [from which one can prove his position]. For we learned in it that every woman must examine herself in the morning and evening,

except for a menstruating woman and one who sits upon pure blood.

And it implies specifically that

a menstruating woman and one who sits upon pure blood are the ones who do not require examination, but a virgin,

despite the fact

that her blood is pure, requires examination

in the morning and evening; and necessarily the reason is lest the appearance of the blood has changed, in accordance with Rav Giddel in the name of Rav.

But they contradict one another

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

Here,

in the latter clause,

when she engaged in intercourse

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

for perhaps—

the organ [

of intercourse]

stained them

during intercourse with the blood of virginity, and therefore their appearance changed. [And therefore she is also exempt from the examination before intercourse, for that examination is only incidental to the examination after intercourse, as stated below].

Here,

in the first clause, concerning the obligation of examination in the morning and evening, which deals with a case where she

did not engage in intercourse

just now, she must be obligated to examine herself; for if she finds in her examination blood whose appearance changed from the appearance of the blood of virginity the first time, it is impure blood, because now she has nothing with which to attribute the change in the appearance of the blood, other than the fact that it is menstrual blood.

And Rav Giddel in the name of Rav deals with this manner of case: if the appearance of the blood changed and the matter did not occur immediately following intercourse, she is impure.

It was also taught so,

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

a.

When is this matter said,

that the blood of a virgin is pure?

When she has not stopped

seeing blood

due to intercourse,

for then, even if she returned

and saw not due to intercourse,

she is pure.

But if she stopped

seeing blood

due to intercourse, and she saw

one further time, whether during intercourse or afterward,

she is impure!

b.

One night passed without intercourse, and she saw

on the following day without intercourse,

she is impure!

c.

The appearance of her blood changed

when she saw not immediately following intercourse—

she is impure!

We learned in the Mishna:

“Twice she must examine herself, in the morning and in the evening.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: They taught

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

only

with regard to a woman occupied

with pure things, but with regard to her husband

she is

permitted

without examination.

And we object:

It is obvious

that the obligation of examination stated in the Mishna applies only to pure things and not to her husband, for it teaches that she examines in the

morning,

and an examination in the morning applies only to pure things and not to her husband, since intercourse is not practiced during the day?!

And we answer:

Rather, if it was stated,

the words of Shmuel

were stated with regard to the latter clause [

concerning what we learned in the latter clause of the Mishna, that she must also examine]

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

And concerning this

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: They taught

that she is obligated in this examination

only with regard to a woman occupied with pure things, since, because she requires examination

after intercourse

for pure things,

lest she saw blood due to intercourse, and in order that she not render them impure they instituted this examination—

she also requires examination for her husband

before intercourse .

But,

if she

is not occupied with pure things,

so that she is not obligated to examine after intercourse—

she does not require examination

at all, not even for her husband before intercourse .

And we object:

What does Shmuel teach us?

For we already

learned

this law in the Mishna below:

“All women have the presumptive status of purity for their husbands,”

so that they do not need to examine before intercourse! And in order that this Mishna not contradict our Mishna, it is necessarily necessary to distinguish between them: the Mishna below deals with a woman who is not occupied with pure things, and therefore she is exempt from examination for her husband before intercourse. What, then, did Shmuel teach us?

And we answer:

If it were from the Mishna

below,

I would have said

that the law of the Mishna, that all women have the presumptive status of purity for their husbands,

applies specifically to a woman who has a menstrual cycle,

for as long as her menstrual cycle has not arrived, she has the presumptive status of purity,

but a woman who does not have a menstrual cycle requires examination;

Shmuel therefore teaches us that even a woman who does not have a menstrual cycle is exempt from examination if she is not occupied with pure things.

And we object: How can it be said that Shmuel’s innovation is that even a woman who does not have a menstrual cycle is exempt from examination? Shmuel, who stated his innovation, “They taught only with regard to one occupied with pure things, but if she is not occupied with pure things, she is exempt from examination,” stated it concerning our Mishna,

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

for we learned, “Even though they said, her time is enough,” which is a law that applies specifically to a woman who has a menstrual cycle; and since Shmuel referred to a woman who has a menstrual cycle, the question returns: for the law of a woman who has a menstrual cycle we already learned in the Mishna below, that she is exempt from examination.

And we answer: The obligation of examination of a woman occupied with pure things, about which

the Mishna

speaks, applies

both

to a woman

who has a menstrual cycle and to one who does not have a menstrual cycle.

Consequently, Shmuel referred to our Mishna and said that they taught that she is obligated to examine only if she is occupied with pure things, but a woman who is not occupied with pure things does not need examination, even if she does not have a menstrual cycle. And what the Mishna stated in the first clause, “Even though they said, her time is enough,” namely, with regard to a woman who has a menstrual cycle, is to teach a novel matter in the opposite direction, stringently—

And this is what it teaches us: Even though she has a menstrual cycle,

if she is occupied with pure things, we say:

since she requires examination for pure things, she also requires examination for her husband!

And we object: Did Shmuel not say this once already?

For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya in the name of Shmuel: A woman who does not have a menstrual cycle is forbidden to engage in intercourse until she examines herself, and we established [

below, on the next page] that only

when she is occupied with pure things

did Shmuel say that she is forbidden to engage in intercourse until she examines herself; but if she is not occupied with pure things, she is permitted to engage in intercourse without examination, even if she does not have a menstrual cycle. Why, then, did Shmuel repeat his words?!

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

And one—

was stated by inference from the other. 173 .

It was also taught so,

that the obligation of examination before intercourse applies only when she is occupied with pure things:

When is this matter said,

that she must examine before intercourse?

For pure things

if she was occupied with pure things.

But for her husband,

when she is not occupied with pure things,

she is permitted

without examination! Even when she does not have a menstrual cycle.

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

In what case are these words said

that he need not ask her —

when he left her

at the time of his departure on the journey

with the presumptive status of purity. But if he left her

when he set out on the journey

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

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

until she says to him

explicitly: "

I am pure!"