Niddah 2a — the Talmud in English

A woman from whose source blood has emerged is impure. By Torah law, she is impure only if she felt the emergence of the blood; but by rabbinic law, every emergence of blood from the source renders her impure. And even if only a tiny drop of blood emerged into the passage between the womb and the outlet of her body, and it has not yet emerged outside, she is impure with the impurity of a menstruant. This passage is called “the prozdor.” In the Mishna before us, tannaim disagreed whether one must be concerned in the case of every woman who sees that blood has emerged from her, but did not feel its emergence, lest the blood had already emerged earlier, before the time of her seeing it, into the prozdor, remained there, and it is found that she is retroactively impure from the time that the blood emerged from the womb into the prozdor, and the ritually pure things that she touched are of doubtful impurity, or whether one need not be concerned for this. In the Gemara it will be explained that by Torah law there is no need for concern, either because the woman is to be maintained with the presumption of purity, or because she did not feel the emergence of the blood. And the entire dispute concerns only the impurity of the consecrated things that she touched—whether the Sages decreed that she become retroactively impure with “doubtful impurity” only in regard to consecrated ritually pure things. [And in regard to the ritually pure things of teruma, the amoraim disagreed]. Likewise, the tannaim who were stringent and decreed retroactive impurity upon her disagreed: what is the duration of the retroactive period that they decreed upon her, during which she renders consecrated ritually pure things retroactively impure? Mishna:

Shammai says: All women

who see blood while examining themselves —

their time is sufficient!

For they are impure only from the time of seeing onward, and the Sages did not decree “retroactive impurity” upon them; and they do not render impure consecrated things [and teruma] that they touched before the time of seeing.

Hillel says:

The Sages decreed upon them that they render teruma and consecrated things retroactively impure—

from examination,

from the time of the previous examination, until

the examination,

the examination that she performed now, in which she saw blood.

And even for many days

they decreed retroactive impurity. For if the previous examination was a long time before the examination in which she saw blood, she renders all the consecrated things [and terumot] that she touched after the previous examination impure.

And the Sages say: Not according to the words of this one and not according to the words of that one!

For we should not be excessively stringent for a long retroactive period, like Hillel, because the walls of the uterus do not hold the blood for a long time; rather, when the blood emerges into the prozdor, it emerges from there to outside her body after a short period of time.

And not according to the words of Shammai, who is excessively lenient by not decreeing any retroactive impurity upon her.

Rather,

retroactive impurity is to be decreed in the following manner:

a. The time period of

from one day to the next—

reduces

from the time period of

“from examination to examination”!

That is, if the previous examination, at which she examined herself and did not find blood, was several days earlier, it is sufficient that we decree that she render [things] retroactively impure only from one day to the next, and she does not render [things] retroactively impure until the time of the previous examination.

b.

And

so too,

from examination to examination—

reduces the period of from one day to the next!

For if the period of time “from examination to examination” was shorter than the period of time “from one day to the next,” such as when she examined herself in the morning and found herself pure, and in the evening examined herself and found blood, she does not render [things] retroactively impure from one day to the next, but only from the time of the examination in the morning, for she examined herself then and found herself pure.

c.

Every woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle

and examined herself at the time of her menstrual cycle and found blood—

her time is sufficient!

For they did not decree that she render [things] retroactively impure, because we say, “The menstrual occurrence comes in its time,” and there is no concern that it came early!

d.

And one who engages in marital relations with cloths,

who examined herself before intercourse and after intercourse with an “examination cloth,” on a sheet, and found herself pure,

this

examination

too

is also considered

as “

an examination”—

and reduces

that examination

the period of one day to the next and the period from examination to examination!

For she renders [things] retroactively impure only from the time of intercourse onward, since she examined herself then and found that she was pure.

How

did they say

“her time is sufficient”

in the case of a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, or according to Shammai in the case of every woman?

For example, that

she was sitting on a bed and

was

occupied with ritually pure things. And she departed

from the bed,

and

close after her departure from the bed she

saw

blood;

she

alone is

impure,

from this point onward.

And

if

they,

the ritually pure things with which she was occupied while sitting on the bed—

are pure!

Even though they said

the Sages and Hillel, in the case of a woman who has no fixed menstrual cycle, that she

renders

[things] retroactively

from one day to the next,

they said this only with regard to the fact that we were stringent to render the ritually pure things that she touched retroactively impure; but the seven days of her menstruation she

counts only from the time that she saw

the blood, and she does not need to be concerned to count them retroactively from one day to the next [for if she needed to be concerned to count them retroactively from one day to the next, the retroactive counting would cause her to bring forward the eleven days of her flux, which begin after the seven days of her menstruation].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna the position of Shammai, that one does not decree retroactive impurity in the case of a menstruant.

And we raised the matter:

What is Shammai’s reason?

Why is he not concerned to be stringent, even with regard to the purity of consecrated things? For there is room for concern that perhaps the blood emerged earlier, but the walls of the uterus held it; and if she had examined herself earlier, perhaps she would have found blood then?

And we answer with four explanations in clarification of Shammai’s position, why there is no place to decree retroactive impurity:

First explanation:

He holds

Shammai: Since the matter is uncertain—

Establish the woman upon her presumption, and a woman stands with the presumption of purity

before she saw the blood .

And Hillel

held:

When

we say

“Establish a matter upon its presumption,”

it is only

where it does not have

the matter that is being established upon its presumption

a disqualifying factor intrinsic to it.