Niddah 36a — the Talmud in English

But according to Levi, who says that they are two sources—

why do I need seven

and behold,

a

cessation of

something suffices? For from the time that she ceased seeing blood during her days of purity, the impure source was closed and the pure one opened, and seeing pure blood does not invalidate the counting of the seven clean days of a zava?

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 something

after the days of childbirth, so that

the following days may count for her

the days

toward the seven clean days,

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

Come and hear:

A woman upon whom three intervals had passed, which are ninety days, during which she did not see blood, and she then saw again—the pure foods that she touched retroactively, from one twenty-four-hour period, are not rendered impure, as is the case with every woman; rather, only her present time suffices for her, because she has the presumption of having been removed from blood. And even if part of the three intervals consists of the days of pregnancy and part of the days of nursing, since during both of them she does not see blood, they combine to establish her as removed from blood , 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

intervals

during the days of her pregnancy,

and gave birth,

and

again did not see for

one interval during the days of her nursing.

Or she did not see for

two

intervals

during the days of her nursing [

and ceased nursing, and became pregnant ],

and

did not see for

one interval during the days of her pregnancy.

Or she did not see for

one and a half intervals during the days of her pregnancy [

and gave birth ],

and

again did not see for

one and a half intervals during the days of her nursing,

each one of these combinations—

counts for her as three intervals,

and she is one removed from blood, so that “her present time suffices”!

Granted, according to Rav, who says that it is one source; for that reason she requires a cessation of three intervals,

so that she not see during the days of her nursing even pure blood!

For even if pure blood does not cause impurity, nevertheless, if she sees it, she does not have the presumption of being “removed from blood,” since it is one source, except that the Torah declared it pure; and behold, the source continues to flow.

But according to Levi, who says that they are two sources—

why do I need a cessation of three intervals

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

with something

of a cessation

it suffices

during the days of her nursing, for once the days of purity have begun, what do we care about her seeing pure blood? Behold, it flows from another source, and it is not a contradiction to her removal of blood from the impure source?

The Gemara answers:

This is what it is saying: She must cease for something

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

so that

another source may begin, and the following days

may count for her as three intervals,

even if she sees pure blood during them!

Come and hear: And Shammai and Hillel agree

that, although they disagreed concerning every woman whether only her present time suffices or whether she renders impure retroactively for one twenty-four-hour period —

when she sees after pure blood—

that only her present time suffices.

And it might have been thought that this means even if she saw a long time after the days of purity had passed.

And therefore the Gemara asks:

Granted, according to Levi, who says that they are two sources, for that reason we say that only her present time suffices,

because the blood that she saw during the days of purity is blood from another source, and therefore her first seeing after the days of purity have passed is the first seeing of a nursing woman, concerning which we learned above [7a] that only her present time suffices.

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

and it follows that her seeings during the days of purity were seeings that contradicted the presumption that a nursing woman is “removed from blood”—

why does only her present time suffice

for the first seeing after the days of purity? The seeings during the days of purity preceded it and removed her from the presumption of being a nursing woman who is removed from blood, so why should she not

be rendered impure retroactively for one twenty-four-hour period!?

The Gemara answers: It is speaking of a case

where there is no interval!

in which the first seeing was on the eighty-first day. Therefore she is not rendered impure retroactively for one twenty-four-hour period, because even if she had previously seen blood, it was pure blood . [There is no intention that she saw immediately upon the beginning of the eighty-first day, for in that case it is obvious that she does not render things impure retroactively, during the days of purity; rather, she waited several hours and afterward saw, and nevertheless only her present time suffices.]

And the Gemara asks: Even though there is no interval in which to render her impure retroactively for one twenty-four-hour period,

should she be rendered impure from examination to examination?

That is, in a case where she examined herself on the night of the eighty-first day and did not see, and in the morning examined herself again and saw, she should render the pure foods impure retroactively from the time of the examination at night.

The Gemara answers:

Since there is no “twenty-four-hour period,”—

the Rabbis likewise did not decree “from examination to examination” upon her!

For they did not impose the stringency of a decree in a place where it is impossible to impose the entire stringency of the decree .

Come and hear: A woman who gave birth while a zava and counted

seven clean days

but did not immerse, and

again

saw, Beth Shammai followed their position

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

and Beth Hillel followed their position,

for pure blood depends on “days and immersion,” and since she had still not immersed, she renders wet and dry things impure.

Granted, according to Rav, who says that it is one source, for that reason it renders

according to Beth Hillel, by Torah law,

wet and dry things impure,

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

But according to Levi, who says that they are two sources, why does it render wet and dry things impure,

for she ceased seeing during the seven clean days, and once the impure source was closed, the pure one opened; if so, it is difficult why Beth Hillel renders it impure?

Levi can say to you: I speak according to the tanna of “And they agree”!

And this tanna disagrees with the tanna in the beraita concerning a woman who gave birth while a zava, counted, and did not immerse! For in my view, the beraita of “And they agree” speaks of a case in which her seeing was after pure blood, even a case in which she had an interval, and nevertheless Beth Hillel said that only her present time suffices. For they held that they are two sources, and the seeings of pure blood do not contradict the presumption of being removed from blood that she has as a nursing woman. Therefore, only her present time suffices after the days of purity, in her capacity as a nursing woman, even if she saw blood during the days of purity.

Accordingly, a woman who gave birth while a zava and counted does not render wet and dry things impure according to Beth Hillel, because in his view her blood is pure blood even though she has not immersed!

Indeed, the tanna in the beraita concerning “a woman who gave birth while a zava” holds that it is one source, and therefore stated that if she did not immerse, according to Beth Hillel it renders wet and dry things impure.

And if you wish, say that the beraita concerning “a woman who gave birth while a zava” is dealing

with a case of

with one who flows continuously.

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

The Gemara is astonished:

But it teaches, “she counted

seven clean days

it teaches,”

that is, she ceased seeing for a week; and how is it possible to establish that it is dealing with one who flows continuously?

The Gemara answers:

Here—

we are dealing with a woman who gave birth to a female child while a zava,

whose impurity following childbirth lasts fourteen days. Therefore it is possible to establish the beraita in a case

where she ceased

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

And the seeing of

the second week did not cease

but she continued to flow during the days of purity , and therefore she renders wet and dry things impure . But if she ceases flowing and afterward sees, she is pure, because they are two sources, and during the days of purity the impure source is closed and the pure one opens.

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

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

although she is impure during them, they

count for her toward the counting of

seven clean days of

her ziva!

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

because one who flows continuously from the eightieth day into the days after it renders things impure: even during the days of purity the blood does not come from a pure source, but there is one source, and the Torah declared it pure only during the days of purity; once they have ended, she becomes impure through seeing blood.

And the halakha is according to Levi for stringency -

when she is flowing from after fourteen to after fourteen, for although they are two springs, as long as the impure one has not been stopped, the pure one has not opened.

Rav Ashi said: The halakha is according to Rav -

both leniently

when she is flowing from after fourteen to after fourteen, for she becomes pure from the beginning of the days of purity, since all the bloods come from one spring, and the Torah purified it.

both stringently

when she is flowing from after eighty to after eighty, for at the completion of the days of purity, the purification of the blood ceases.

Marimar expounded: The halakha is according to Rav, both leniently and stringently.

And the conclusion of the Gemara:

And the halakha is according to Rav, both leniently and stringently!