Niddah 36a (לו.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, according to Levi, who says that there are two springs,

why do I need seven

and

a

cessation

of even a little is sufficient.

For from the time that she stops seeing blood during her days of purity, the impure spring is sealed and the pure one opens, and the sighting of dam tohar does not invalidate the counting of the seven clean days of a zava?

The Gemara explains:

This is what it is saying: She must cease for a little while

after the days of childbirth, so that

the days that follow will count for her

the subsequent days

toward the seven clean days,

even if she sees blood during them, because dam tohar does not invalidate the seven clean days.

Come and hear:

A woman who experienced three onot, namely, ninety days, during which she did not see blood, and then saw blood again—the pure objects that she touched retroactively during the preceding twenty-four hours are not rendered impure, as is the case with any woman. Rather, her status is sufficient from the time of her sighting alone, because she has the presumptive status of one whose blood has ceased. And even if part of the three onot consisted of the days of pregnancy and part of the days of nursing, since she does not see blood during either of them, they combine to establish her as one whose blood has ceased , as explained below:

The days of her pregnancy count for her

—they combine—

with the days of her nursing, and the days of her nursing count for her toward the days of her pregnancy!

How

do the days combine?

She ceased

seeing blood for

two

onot

during her pregnancy,

and gave birth,

and

again did not see blood for one ona

during her nursing.

Or she did not see blood for

two

onot

during her nursing

[and stopped nursing and became pregnant],

and

did not see blood for one ona

during her pregnancy.

Or she did not see blood for one

and a half onot during her pregnancy

[and gave birth],

and

again did not see blood for one

and a half onot during her nursing,

each of these combinations

counts for her as three onot,

and she has the status of one whose blood has ceased, so that “her status is sufficient from the time of her sighting”!

Granted, according to Rav, who says that it is one spring; that is why a cessation of three onot is required,

so that she must not see even dam tohar during her nursing!

For even if dam tohar does not cause ritual impurity, nevertheless, if she sees it she does not retain the presumptive status of one whose blood has ceased, since it is one spring, except that the Torah declared its blood pure; thus the spring itself continues to flow.

Rather, according to Levi, who says that there are two springs,

why do I need a cessation of three onot

including even the days of purity while she is nursing? And

with a little

cessation

it is sufficient

during her nursing, because once the days of purity have begun, why should we be concerned about her seeing pure blood? It flows from a different spring and does not contradict the cessation of her blood from the impure spring?

The Gemara answers:

This is what it is saying: She must cease for a little while

during her nursing, after the days of impurity have passed ,

so that

another spring will begin, and the subsequent days

will count for her as three onot,

even if she sees pure blood during them!

Come and hear: And Shammai and Hillel agree

that they disputed concerning every woman whether her status is sufficient from the time of her sighting or whether she renders impure retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours —

when she sees after dam tohar—

that her status is sufficient from the time of her sighting.

It might have been understood that this applies even if she saw a considerable time after the days of purity had elapsed.

Accordingly, the Gemara asks:

Granted, according to Levi, who says that there are two springs; that is why we say that her status is sufficient from the time of her sighting,

because the blood she saw during the days of purity came from a different spring. Therefore, her first sighting after the days of purity had elapsed is the first sighting of a nursing woman, concerning whom we learned above [7a] that her status is sufficient from the time of her sighting.

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

it follows that her sightings during the days of purity were sightings that contradicted the presumptive status of a nursing woman as one whose blood has ceased—

why is her status sufficient from the time of her sighting

with regard to the first sighting after the days of purity? Her sightings during the days of purity preceded it and removed her from the presumptive status of a nursing woman whose blood has ceased; why should she not

be rendered impure retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours!?

The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case

where there was no interval!

Her first sighting was on the eighty-first day, and therefore she does not render impure retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours, because even if she had seen blood earlier, it would have been pure blood . [It does not mean that she saw immediately upon the beginning of the eighty-first day, for in that case it would obviously be impossible to render her impure retroactively during the days of purity; rather, she waited several hours and then saw blood, and nevertheless her status is sufficient from the time of her sighting.]

The Gemara asks: Even though there is no interval sufficient to render her impure retroactively for the preceding twenty-four hours,

should she not be rendered impure from examination to examination?

That is, if she examined herself on the night of the eighty-first day and did not see blood, and examined herself again in the morning and saw blood, she should render the pure objects impure retroactively from the time of her examination during the night.

The Gemara answers:

Since there is no “preceding twenty-four hours,”

the Sages likewise did not issue a decree of “from examination to examination” in her case!

They did not impose the stringency of issuing a decree where it is impossible to impose the full stringency of the decree .

Come and hear: A woman who gave birth after a period of ziva and counted

seven clean days

but did not immerse, and

again

saw—Beth Shammai followed their view

and declared her blood pure, since the days of her impurity and the days of her counting had already been completed, and dam tohar depends on “days” alone;

and Beth Hillel followed their view,

according to which dam tohar depends on “days and immersion,” and since she had not yet immersed, she renders both wet and dry objects impure.

Granted, according to Rav, who says that it is one spring; that is why it renders impure

according to Beth Hillel, by Torah law,

both wet and dry objects,

because as long as she has not immersed, the Torah has not declared the blood pure.

But according to Levi, who says that there are two springs, why does it render both wet and dry objects impure,

since she ceased seeing during the seven clean days, and once the impure spring was sealed, the pure one opened? If so, it is difficult why Beth Hillel render her impure.

Levi can say to you: I speak in accordance with the tanna of “and they agree”!

That tanna disagrees with the tanna of the beraita concerning a woman who gave birth after a period of ziva and counted but did not immerse. For in my view, the beraita of “and they agree” is referring to a case in which her sighting occurred after dam tohar, even where there was an interval, and nevertheless Beth Hillel said that her status is sufficient from the time of her sighting. They held that there are two springs, and sightings of dam tohar do not contradict the presumptive status of one whose blood has ceased, which she possesses as a nursing woman. Therefore, after the days of purity, her status is sufficient from the time of her sighting as a nursing woman, even if she saw blood during the days of purity.

Accordingly, a woman who gave birth after a period of ziva and counted does not render wet and dry objects impure according to Beth Hillel, because in his view her blood is dam tohar even though she did not immerse!

Indeed, the tanna of the beraita concerning “a woman who gave birth after a period of ziva” holds that it is one spring, and therefore states that if she did not immerse, according to Beth Hillel she renders both wet and dry objects impure.

And if you wish, say instead, the beraita concerning “a woman who gave birth after a period of ziva” is dealing

with a case of

a continuous flow.

The impure spring had not yet been sealed and the pure spring had not yet opened. Therefore, Beth Hillel rendered her blood impure, while Beth Shammai declare it pure, because in their view it is one spring, and nevertheless the Torah declared it pure during the days of purity.

The Gemara asks:

But it teaches, “she counted

seven clean days,”

does it not,

meaning that she ceased seeing for a week? How can it be established that this is a case of a continuous flow?

The Gemara answers:

Here—

we are dealing with a woman who gave birth to a female after a period of ziva,

whose impurity following childbirth lasts fourteen days. Therefore, the beraita can be established as referring to a case

where she ceased

seeing during the first week, counted seven clean days, and completed the days of her counting as a zava. She continued seeing during the second week of her impurity as a woman who had given birth .

And the sighting during

the latter week did not cease

but continued as a flow during the days of purity , and therefore she renders both wet and dry objects impure . But if she ceases flowing and then sees again, she is pure, because there are two springs: during the days of purity, the impure one is sealed and the pure one opens.

The Gemara adds that there is a novel point in counting the seven clean days of ziva within the fourteen days following the birth of a female:

And he holds: The days following childbirth during which she does not see blood—

although she is impure during them—are

counted for her toward the counting

of the seven clean days of

her ziva!

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Rav Shaman of Sakhra told us: Mar Zutra happened to come to our place and expounded: The halakha follows Rav stringently—

meaning that a continuous flow extending from the eighty days into the period thereafter renders her impure, because even during the days of purity the blood does not come from a pure spring; rather, there is one spring, and the Torah declared it pure only during the days of purity. Once they have ended, she becomes impure upon seeing blood.

And the halakha is in accordance with Levi, stringently -

when she is continuously bleeding from within the fourteen days into the period after the fourteen days, because although there are two sources, as long as the impure one has not ceased, the pure one has not opened.

Rav Ashi said: The halakha is in accordance with Rav -

both leniently

when she is continuously bleeding from within the fourteen days into the period after the fourteen days, as she becomes pure from the beginning of the days of purity, since all the blood comes from a single source, and the Torah declared it pure.

and stringently

when she is continuously bleeding from within the eighty days into the period after the eighty days, because once the days of purity have ended, the purity of the blood ceases.

Marimar taught: The halakha is in accordance with Rav, both leniently and stringently.

And the conclusion of the Gemara:

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav, both leniently and stringently!