Niddah 39a — the Talmud in English

b.

She remained

for two days that were suitable for Nidda, during which she was not presumed pure,

and did not examine herself every day, morning and evening [as a woman occupied with matters of ritual purity is obligated to examine herself on the days suitable for Nidda, every day, morning and evening, in order to ascertain that she had not become impure through seeing blood, as explained in the Mishna above, 11a]—

[as a woman occupied with matters of ritual purity is obligated to examine herself during the “days suitable for menstruation” every day, morning and evening, in order to ascertain that she had not become impure through the sighting of blood, as explained in the Mishna above, 11a]—

whether she refrained from examining herself because

she erred,

or

was prevented by circumstances beyond her control,

or whether she refrained because

she acted deliberately and did not examine herself,

she is

pure.

For the obligation to examine oneself when it is not the time of her veset is only because of the stringency of matters of ritual purity, and it is only an obligation ideally, and the Sages did not decree her impure if she did not examine herself.

c. But if

the time of her veset arrived,

on which day she is obligated to examine herself in order to ascertain that she had not become impure, and the day of her veset passed,

and she did not examine herself

on that day, although she did not see or feel the departure of blood,

she is impure.

Since she is always accustomed to see blood on this day, she retains her presumption that this time as well she saw blood on it, without feeling the departure of the blood.

d.

Rabbi Meir says: If she was in hiding, and the time of her veset arrived, and she did not examine herself

on the day of her veset, ,

nevertheless

she is pure, because fear dispels the blood.

And therefore, although it is the day of her veset, we do not fear that perhaps she saw blood on it and did not feel its departure.

e. The Mishna returns to the first law, that throughout all eleven days suitable for ziva she retains a presumption of purity and does not need to examine herself at all, and says that all this applies specifically when she has not yet begun to see blood. And the Mishna includes in this law also the law of the zav:

But “the days of the zav”

who saw three sightings

, and now counts seven clean days from ziva,

and “

the days of the

zava,”

who saw blood during the days suitable for ziva for three consecutive days, and now must observe seven days clean of blood,

and

the day of

one who observes one day corresponding to one day,

who saw during the “days of ziva” fewer than three days, and must observe one day in purity,

these retain a presumption of impurity,

as long as they have not clarified through examination that they have stopped seeing. For from the time they began to see, their source of impurity retains its presumption that it is still open, until it is clarified through examination that the source of impurity has already closed.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that during the eleven days suitable for ziva she retains a presumption of purity.

The Gemara discusses:

For what halakhic purpose?

With regard to what did the Mishna state this law, that during the eleven days of ziva she retains a presumption of purity?

Rav Yehuda said: To say that she does not need an examination

for matters of ritual purity, morning and evening, during these days. But during the other days, a woman occupied with matters of ritual purity needs an examination in order to ascertain that she had not become impure through seeing blood, as explained in the Mishna above, page 11.

And the Gemara objects:

But from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause, “She remained and did not examine herself,”

she is pure, which is a formulation referring to after the fact,

by inference

you learn

that ideally she requires an examination.

And if so, it is impossible to explain that the intention of the Mishna is to exempt her from the obligation of examination!?

And the Gemara offers several answers:

a.

The latter clause

of the Mishna does not deal with the days of ziva, but

we have arrived at the days of Nidda. And this is what it says: Every one of the eleven

days of the days suitable for ziva she is

presumed pure, and does not require an examination. But during the days of her Nidda she requires an examination.

And if she

remained

during the days of her Nidda

and did not examine herself,

because

she erred,

or

was prevented by circumstances beyond her control,

and even if

she acted deliberately and did not examine herself—she is pure.

b.

Rav Hisda said: It is necessary

for our Mishna

only according to Rabbi Meir, who says: A woman who has no veset is forbidden to have intercourse,

since there is concern that perhaps she will see blood at the time of intercourse. And this is what it says:

This matter

, that a woman who has no veset is forbidden to have intercourse, applies only

during the days of her Nidda. But during the days of her ziva, she stands with a presumption of purity,

and there is no concern that perhaps she will see blood during them; rather, it is permitted for her to have intercourse during these days.

And the Gemara objects:

If so,

that she may have intercourse during the eleven days suitable for ziva,

why did Rabbi Meir say, “

A woman who has no veset,

her husband shall send her away

her husband,

and shall not take her back

ever,” even after she has a veset!?

And the Gemara answers: The reason of Rabbi Meir, who obligated her husband to send her away, is because they decreed

lest she come to a mishap during the days of Nidda.

Perhaps she will have intercourse during the days of Nidda and see blood at the time of intercourse.

And the Gemara objects to Rav Hisda, who interpreted the Mishna as referring to a woman who has no veset:

But from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause: “The time of her veset arrived and she did not examine herself,”

she is pure

. By inference

you learn,

that we are dealing with a woman who has a veset?!

The Gemara answers:

There is a deficiency

in the wording of our Mishna,

and this is what it teaches:

A woman who has no veset,

every one of the eleven

days she is

presumed pure, and permitted to her husband. And during the “days of Nidda”

that follow them, although she did not see blood, she is

forbidden

to her husband, in accordance with Rabbi Meir, lest she see blood during them, since she has no fixed veset.

When are these words

that she is forbidden to her husband during the “days of Nidda”

said? In the case of a woman who has no veset. But

if

she has a veset, she is permitted

to her husband even during the days of Nidda.

And she requires an examination

for matters of ritual purity, morning and evening,

and concerning this woman who has a veset the Mishna continues to say: If she

remained and did not examine herself,

because

she erred,

or

was prevented by circumstances beyond her control,

and even if

she acted deliberately and did not examine herself

on days that are not her days of veset, nevertheless she is

pure,

but if

the time of her veset arrived and she did not examine herself—she is impure.

And the Gemara further objects to Rav Hisda, who interpreted the Mishna according to Rabbi Meir:

But from the fact that the latter clause

of the Mishna

is Rabbi Meir’s,

as we learned in it, “Rabbi Meir says: If she was in hiding,” it follows that only the latter clause follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but

the first clause does not follow Rabbi Meir’s opinion!

The Gemara answers:

The whole of it is Rabbi Meir’s. And this is what it says: If she was not in hiding, and the time of her veset arrived and she did not examine herself—she is impure,

for she retains her presumption that she certainly saw blood. But if she was in hiding, she is pure

because Rabbi Meir says: If she was in hiding and the time of her veset arrived and she did not examine herself—she is pure, because fear dispels the blood.

And it follows that the entire Mishna can be established according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

c.

Rava said:

The fact that the Mishna said that during the eleven days suitable for ziva she is presumed pure comes

to say to you that

if she saw blood during those eleven days, she

does not impart impurity retroactively from the entire day.

For she is like a woman whose blood has ceased, concerning whom we do not fear that perhaps the blood remained before its emergence outside, in the outer chamber, and therefore she is impure only from the time of her seeing. But in the case of an ordinary woman who saw blood, we fear that perhaps the blood emerged from the source one day before she saw it, and therefore we render impure all the ritually pure things that she touched during the last twenty-four hours, as explained in the Mishna above, page 2a.

He raised an objection

to Rava from what we learned:

A woman in a state of Nidda, and a zava, and one who observes one day corresponding to one day, and a woman who gave birth—all of them impart impurity retroactively from the entire day.

But the first sighting of the zava and of one who observes one day corresponding to one day is within the eleven “days of ziva,” and nevertheless it is explained in the beraita that she imparts impurity retroactively from the entire day?

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is a refutation!

d.

Rav Huna bar Hiyya said in the name of Shmuel:

The law of the Mishna, that throughout all eleven days she is presumed pure, comes

to say that she does not establish a veset during her days of ziva.

That is, if she sees during the days of ziva, these sightings do not combine for establishing a veset. For example, a woman who saw blood three times at intervals of fifteen days between one sighting and the next does not establish a veset for an interval of fifteen days, since the second sighting is within the eleven days of ziva. And since these days are days of “presumed purity,” during which it is not usual to see blood, this sighting is considered an incidental sighting, and it is impossible to combine it with other sightings to establish on its basis a veset demonstrating that the pattern of her sightings is to occur at an interval of fifteen days.

Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this teaching

of Shmuel, that a woman does not establish a veset during the eleven days suitable for ziva!

Abaye said to him: You,

you yourself

said it to us, and concerning this you said to us,

with regard to what we learned in the Mishna below:

She was accustomed to see on the fifteenth day [at an interval]

[at an interval of fifteen days]

, and she changed to the twentieth day [at an interval]

[at an interval of twenty days]

, both this and that are forbidden for intercourse.

That is, she is concerned the next time both for the first day of her veset, to which she became accustomed to see at an interval of fifteen days and which has the status of a fixed veset, and for the day of her new veset, at an interval of twenty days, which is not a fixed veset.

And even if

she changed twice to the twentieth day, both this and that are forbidden.

As long as she has not uprooted her previous veset three times, she is concerned both for her previous fixed veset and for her new veset, which is not fixed.

And concerning this you said to us: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: They taught only

in the Mishna that it is possible to establish a veset for an interval of fifteen days

but

in a case where the interval of

fifteen

days is an interval

to her immersion,

for she is accustomed to see blood fifteen days after her immersion,

which are,

together with the seven days of Nidda, an interval of

twenty-two

days

to her sighting.

For there,

in this manner, the day of her sighting

stands for her during the days of Nidda.

For the eleven “days of ziva” have already passed, and it is now possible to establish a veset during these days, and therefore even if she changed once to the twenty-seventh day [which is the twentieth day from her immersion], she must still continue to be concerned for her previous fixed veset, until she uproots it three times.

But

if she was accustomed to see on

the fifteenth day to her sighting, which stands during her days of ziva,

for the days of ziva are completed only at the end of eighteen days from the sighting,

she did not establish

a veset, and she does not need to be concerned for it as a fixed veset, since a fixed veset cannot be established on the basis of a sighting during the days of ziva.

Rav Pappa said: I stated the teaching,

that a woman does not establish a veset during the eleven days of ziva,

before Rav Yehuda of Diskarta:

And I asked him as follows: Indeed,

she did not establish

a veset during the days of ziva, and there is no need to uproot it three times.

But it still remains in doubt:

With regard to concern, what is it that we should be concerned for it

once, although it is during her days of ziva, as is the law of a veset that is not fixed?

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta was silent

and

and did not say anything to him.

Rav Pappa said: Let us see for ourselves!

For we learned in the Mishna below:

She was accustomed to see on the fifteenth day,

that is, at an interval of fifteen days,

and she changed to

an interval of

the twentieth day—

both this and that are forbidden.