Niddah 39a (לט.) — the Talmud in English

b.

She remained

during the “days suitable for menstruation,” during which she is 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 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 acted unknowingly,

or

she was compelled,

or whether she refrained because

she acted deliberately and did not examine herself,

she is nevertheless

pure.

This is because the obligation to examine herself when it is not the time of her established menstrual cycle is only due to the stringency applicable to matters of ritual purity; it is merely an obligation ab initio, and the Sages did not decree that she becomes impure if she did not examine herself.

c. But if

the time of her established menstrual cycle 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 established cycle passed,

and she did not examine herself

on that day—even though she neither saw nor felt the emission of blood—

she is impure.

Since she ordinarily sees blood on that day, she retains her presumptive status that this time as well she saw blood on that day, without feeling its emission.

d.

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

on the day of her established cycle,

nevertheless

she is pure, because fear dispels the blood.

Therefore, even though it was the day of her established cycle, we do not suspect that she saw blood on that day without feeling its emission.

e. The Mishna returns to the first law: During all eleven days suitable for ziva, she is presumed pure and need not examine herself at all. It states that this is specifically when she has not yet begun to see blood. The Mishna includes in this law as well the law of a man with a gonorrheal discharge:

But “the days of a man with a gonorrheal discharge”

who saw three sightings,

and is now counting seven clean days free of discharge,

and “

the days of

a woman with a gonorrheal discharge,”

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

and

the day of

one who observes one day corresponding to one day,

who saw blood during the “days of ziva” for fewer than three days and must observe one clean day,

all retain a presumptive status of impurity,

as long as it has not been established through examination that they have ceased seeing blood. For once they began seeing blood, their source of impurity retains its presumptive status that it is still open, until examination establishes that the source of impurity has already closed.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that during the eleven days suitable for ziva she is presumed pure.

The Gemara discusses this:

For what halakhic purpose?

With regard to what did the Mishna state this law—that during the eleven days of ziva she is presumed pure?

Rav Yehuda said: To teach that she does not require 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 requires examination in order to ascertain that she had not become impure through seeing blood, as explained in the Mishna above, on page 11.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If she remained and did not examine herself,

she is pure—which is language referring to a situation after the fact—

by inference

you learn

that ideally she requires examination.

If so, it is impossible to explain that the Mishna’s intention is to exempt her from the obligation of examination!?

The Gemara offers several answers:

a.

The latter clause

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

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

days suitable for ziva she is

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

And if she

remained

during her days of menstruation

and did not examine herself,

because

she acted unknowingly,

or

she was compelled,

and even if

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

b.

Rav Ḥisda said: It is necessary

to state our Mishna

only according to Rabbi Meir, who says: A woman who has no established menstrual cycle is forbidden to engage in intercourse,

since there is concern that she might see blood at the time of intercourse. And this is what it is saying:

This matter

—that a woman who has no established menstrual cycle is forbidden to engage in intercourse—applies only

during her days of menstruation. But during her days of ziva, she stands with a presumptive status of purity,

and there is no concern that she might see blood during those days; rather, she is permitted to engage in intercourse during them.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

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

why did Rabbi Meir say: “A woman who has no established menstrual cycle,

her husband

must send her away

and her husband

may not take her back”

ever, even after she acquires an established menstrual cycle!?

The Gemara answers: The reason Rabbi Meir required her husband to send her away is that they decreed

lest she come to mishap during her days of menstruation.

Perhaps she will engage in intercourse during her days of menstruation and see blood at the time of intercourse.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ḥisda, who interpreted the Mishna as referring to a woman who has no established menstrual cycle:

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: The time of her established menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself,

she is pure

. By inference

you learn

that we are dealing with a woman who has an established menstrual cycle!?

The Gemara answers:

The text is lacking

in the wording of our Mishna,

and this is what it teaches:

A woman who has no established menstrual cycle:

Every one of the eleven

days she is

presumed pure and permitted to her husband. But during the “days of menstruation”

that follow them, even though she did not see blood, she is

forbidden

to her husband, in accordance with Rabbi Meir, lest she see blood during those days, since she has no fixed menstrual cycle.

When are these matters stated,

that she is forbidden to her husband during her “days of menstruation”?

In the case of a woman who has no established menstrual cycle. But

if

she has an established menstrual cycle, she is permitted

to her husband even during her days of menstruation.

And she requires examination

for matters of ritual purity, morning and evening.

Regarding this woman who has an established menstrual cycle, the Mishna continues to say: If she

remained and did not examine herself,

because

she acted unknowingly,

or

she was compelled,

and even if

she acted deliberately and did not examine herself

during days that are not the days of her established cycle, nevertheless she is

pure,

but if

the time of her established menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself—she is impure.

The Gemara further challenges Rav Ḥisda, who interpreted the Mishna in accordance with 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 is according to Rabbi Meir, but

the first clause is not according to Rabbi Meir!

The Gemara answers:

The entire Mishna is according to Rabbi Meir. And this is what it is saying: If she was not in hiding, and the time of her established menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself—she is impure,

as she retains her presumptive status that she certainly saw blood. But if she was in hiding, she is pure.

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

It follows that the entire Mishna can be interpreted as following the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

c.

Rava said:

The Mishna’s statement that during the eleven days suitable for ziva she is presumed pure comes

to teach you that

if she saw blood during those eleven days, she

does not render impure retroactively, from one period of time to another.

This is because she is like a woman from whom blood is considered absent, with regard to whom we do not suspect that the blood remained inside the vaginal canal before emerging externally; therefore, she becomes impure only from the time she saw it. But in the case of an ordinary woman who saw blood, we suspect that the blood emerged from the source one day before she saw it, and therefore all ritually pure items that she touched during the preceding twenty-four hours are rendered impure, as explained in the Mishna above, 2a.

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rava from what we learned:

A menstruating woman, a woman with a gonorrheal discharge, one who observes one day corresponding to one day, and a woman who has given birth—all render impure retroactively, from one period of time to another.

But the first sighting of a woman with a gonorrheal discharge and of one who observes one day corresponding to one day occurs within the eleven “days of ziva,” and nevertheless it is explained in the beraita that she renders impure retroactively from one period of time to another!?

And we conclude: Indeed,

this is a refutation!

d.

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Shmuel:

The Mishna’s law that during all eleven days she is presumed pure comes

to teach that she does not establish an established menstrual cycle during her days of ziva.

That is, if she sees blood during the days of ziva, these sightings do not combine for the establishment of an established menstrual cycle. For example, if a woman saw blood three times at intervals of fifteen days between one sighting and the next, she does not establish a cycle of a fifteen-day interval, since the second sighting occurred within the eleven days of ziva. Since these days have a “presumptive status of purity,” as it is not usual to see blood during them, this sighting is considered an incidental sighting, and it cannot be combined with other sightings to establish a cycle based upon it that would demonstrate that the natural pattern of her sightings is to occur at fifteen-day intervals.

Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this statement

of Shmuel—that a woman does not establish an established menstrual cycle during the eleven days suitable for ziva!

Abaye said to him: You

yourself

told it to us, and you told us this

regarding what we learned in the Mishna below:

She had become accustomed to seeing on the fifteenth day

[at an interval of fifteen days]

, and she changed to the twentieth day

[at an interval of twenty days]

, both this and that are forbidden for intercourse.

That is, the next time she is concerned both for the first day of her established menstrual cycle, on which she had become accustomed to seeing at an interval of fifteen days and which has the status of an established cycle, and for the day of her new cycle, at an interval of twenty days, which is not an established cycle.

And even if

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

As long as she has not changed her previous cycle three times, she must be concerned both for her previous established cycle and for her new cycle, which is not established.

And you told us concerning it: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: They taught

in the Mishna that it is possible to establish a cycle at an interval of fifteen days

only

when the interval of

fifteen

days is an interval

from her immersion,

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

which,

together with the seven days of menstruation, is an interval of

twenty-two

days

from her sighting.

For there,

in this case, the day of her sighting

falls during her days of menstruation.

The eleven days of ziva have already passed, and it is now possible to establish a menstrual cycle during these days. 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 established cycle until she uproots it three times.

But

if she was accustomed to see on the

fifteenth day from her sighting, which falls during her days of ziva,

since the days of ziva are completed only at the end of the eighteenth day from the sighting, she

did not establish

a cycle, and need not be concerned for it as an established cycle, since an established cycle cannot be established on the basis of a sighting during the days of ziva.

Rav Pappa said: I stated this teaching,

that a woman does not establish an established menstrual cycle during the eleven days of ziva,

before Rav Yehuda of Diskarta

and asked him as follows: Indeed,

she did not establish

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

But there is still room for uncertainty:

With regard to concern, what is the law—should we be concerned for it

once, even though it is during her days of ziva, as is the law with regard to a menstrual cycle that is not established?

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta was silent

and

did not say anything to him.

Rav Pappa said: Let us examine the matter!

We learned in the Mishna below:

She had become accustomed to seeing on the fifteenth day,

that is, at an interval of fifteen days,

and she changed to

an interval of

twenty days—

both this and that are forbidden.