Niddah 39b (לט:) — the Talmud in English

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This was taught only

in the Mishna with regard to the possibility of establishing a fixed menstrual pattern at an interval of fifteen days

, but

at an interval of

fifteen

days

to her immersion,

as she was accustomed to see blood fifteen days from the night of her immersion

, which

with the addition of the seven niddah days preceding the immersion, is an interval of

twenty-two

days

to her sighting.

The continuation of the Mishna as well, which states, “And she changed it to the twentieth day,” refers to the twentieth day from her immersion

and

the Mishna means to say that she

changed it to the twenty-seventh day

from her sighting.

That is, she changed her pattern and did not see on the twenty-second day from her sighting, but delayed five days and saw on the twenty-seventh day from her sighting. In such a case, when she subsequently observes the fixed pattern of an interval of twenty-two days, and counts twenty-two days beginning from the preceding twenty-second day [on which she was expected to see the preceding sighting], she begins counting it five days before the twenty-seventh day [on which she actually saw], and another seventeen days from the day of her actual sighting,

it follows

, that when twenty-two days return and arrive,

when the twenty-two-day period for the recurrence of the fixed menstrual day has elapsed, for which she must be concerned

it stands

—this menstrual day

within

the eleven

days of ziva,

for until the eighteenth day from the actual sighting, these are the days of ziva,

and it teaches: “Both this and that are forbidden.”

That is, both the day of an interval of twenty-two days, which is the time of her fixed menstrual pattern, and the day of an interval of twenty-seven days are forbidden, despite the fact that the twenty-second day falls during her days of ziva.

Apparently,

it is demonstrated

that we are concerned about it

—about a menstrual pattern occurring during the days of ziva.

And the Gemara explains:

And Rav Pappa holds

that the count of

twenty-two

interval days that she must count in order to be concerned for her fixed menstrual day

from

the

twenty-second

preceding day

we count,

as that is the day on which she was expected to see, and we do not count the interval days from the twenty-seventh day on which she actually saw.

Whereas

for niddah and its opening,

that is, determining the day on which the cycle of seven days of niddah and eleven days of ziva begins

from

the

twenty-seventh day we count

the beginning of the seven days of niddah, because that is when she actually began to see blood, and the status of the days of niddah begins only through an actual sighting of blood .

Therefore, when she is concerned for her fixed menstrual day and counts twenty-two days from the twenty-second day on which she was expected to see—which is five days before she actually saw—and another seventeen days after she saw, it follows that this day falls within the days of ziva, since the days of ziva are the eighteen days following her actual sighting.

And since the Mishna states that one is concerned for this day, Rav Pappa proved from here that one is concerned for a menstrual day that falls within the days of ziva.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: From where

do you know that this is how we count

perhaps

the count of the interval days of her fixed menstrual pattern, which is an interval of

twenty-two

days

also, from the twenty-seventh day

on which she actually saw

we count,

and not from the twenty-second day on which she was expected to see.

For when twenty-two days return and arrive,

when the twenty-two days return and the menstrual day for which she must be concerned arrives

it stands within her days of niddah.

If so, there is no proof that one is concerned for a menstrual pattern during the days of ziva.

And this too is reasonable:

the interval days should be counted only from the day of the actual sighting, since the pattern of intervals is not a pattern of mere days, but a pattern of intervals of days from one actual sighting to the next.

For if you do not say so,

that the count must begin from the time of the actual sighting,

this hen

that habitually lays eggs at fixed intervals

which lays,

laying an egg

one day

and

refraining,

refraining

one day

from laying

and

then again

lays one day and refrains one day.

And afterward she changed her established pattern

and refrained for two days

from laying

, and laid one day.

We must now be uncertain whether

when she resumes her pattern,

when she returns to her pattern of laying one day and refraining one day,

does she follow the later pattern or the original pattern?

For example, on Sunday she laid, on Monday she did not lay, on Tuesday she laid, on Wednesday she did not lay, on Thursday she changed her pattern and did not lay, and on Friday she laid.

Should she not lay on Shabbat, since this is her established pattern—to refrain for one day from the actual day of laying,

or perhaps she will also lay on Shabbat and refrain from laying on Sunday, thereby returning to her earlier pattern, according to which she was to lay on Shabbat and refrain on Sunday?

It is necessarily the later pattern that she follows!

For the nature of a pattern is that it continues from the time of the actual event, and not from the time at which it was initially expected to occur. Therefore, the same applies to a woman: She must count the cycle of her menstrual pattern from the time of the actual sighting.

Rav Pappa said to him: But what of that which Reish Lakish said: A woman establishes a menstrual pattern during her days of ziva,

but a woman does not establish a menstrual pattern during her days of niddah. And Rabbi Yohanan said: A woman establishes a menstrual pattern during her days of niddah.

Rav Pappa analyzes this statement:

What are the circumstances

of establishing a menstrual pattern during her days of niddah, according to Rabbi Yohanan? It necessarily cannot be a case in which all the sightings occurred during her days of niddah, since in that situation everyone agrees that she does not establish a pattern, as explained in the Gemara above, 1a [and explained in Tosafot, s.v. Elma].

Rather,

no,

it certainly refers to a case in which not all the sightings occurred during the days of niddah, and

for example, she saw:

a. The first time, on

the first of the month,

which is the first day of the month

and

she saw again within the seven days of her niddah, on

the fifth of the month,

which is the fifth day of the month.

b.

And

again she saw in the second month on

the first of the month, and

she returned to see during her days of niddah on

the fifth of the month.

c.

And now,

in the third month,

she saw on the fifth of the month, but she did not see on the first of the month.

The case concerns a monthly pattern, and not a pattern based on intervals of days —

And

concerning this case

said

Rabbi Yohanan:

A woman establishes a menstrual pattern for herself during her days of niddah.

That is, she established a pattern for the fifth of the month, even though on the third occasion when she saw on the fifth of the month, at which point the pattern was established, the sighting did not occur during her days of niddah, since she had not seen on the first of the month. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yohanan calls it establishing a pattern during the days of niddah. It is implied that even the third sighting, through which the pattern was established, is considered a sighting during the days of niddah.

Apparently,

since she had an established pattern of menstruating on the first of the month, therefore, even though in the third month she did not see on the first of the month,

from the first of the month we count

the “days of niddah” as though she had seen on that day. Therefore, we call the sighting on the fifth of the month a sighting during the days of niddah

.

Rav Pappa proved from this that the same applies to a pattern based on an interval: The interval days are counted from the day on which she was expected to see, even though she did not actually see on that day.

He said to him,

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:

No,

this is not the way the matter here is to be understood. Rather,

this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

a woman establishes a veset even within her days of niddah,

for example, if she saw:

a. In one month, on

the first of the month,

b.

And

in the second month,

on the first of the month, and

on the

twenty-fifth of the month,

c.

And

in the third month, on

the first of the month,

in which case, the sighting on the first of the third month was actually within her days of niddah, since she had seen blood five days earlier, on the twenty-fifth of the second month [and therefore it is impossible to prove the opinion of Rav Pappa].

Nevertheless, Rabbi Yoḥanan held that she establishes a veset. His reason is

that we say: The fact that she began to see blood five days before the first of the third month was because

the additional blood

was added to her.

Sometimes, because of the abundance of blood, she begins to see it even before the day of her veset arrives, and this sighting is secondary to the sighting on the day of the veset, while the day of the veset is the primary cause of the sighting of blood.

Rabbi Yoḥanan held that since we see from the first two sightings that the first of the month is what causes her to see blood, we likewise attribute the primary cause of the sighting in the third month to the first of the month. By contrast, the sighting on the twenty-fifth of the month that preceded it [at the end of the second month] was merely “additional blood,” some of the blood having emerged early because of its abundance, before the day of the veset. And since she saw blood once more on the first of the month, this is considered three sightings on the first of the month, not during her days of niddah, and thereby she establishes a veset for the first of the month, despite the fact that in practice the third sighting, which established the veset, occurred within the seven days of niddah [of the sighting on the twenty-fifth at the end of the second month].

And likewise, when Ravin and all those who descended to the sea [from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia] arrived, they stated it in accordance with Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.

the Taz [section 189, paragraphs 18 and 31] is that Rav Huna disagreed only in a case where she did not see blood on the twenty-second day but did see it on the twenty-seventh. Since she did not see blood on the day of her expected cycle but did see it on another day, we assume that she certainly changed her cycle on this occasion to another day. But if she did not see blood on the twenty-seventh, Rav Huna agrees that she is treated as though she had seen blood on the twenty-second, since, as she did not see blood on another day, we assume that her previous pattern remains in force and that she simply did not see blood at that time. This is certainly so if she saw blood on both the twenty-second and the twenty-seventh, since she clearly did not change her cycle; Rav Huna agrees that the interval is counted from the twenty-second day. [All this is understandable according to the explanation of Rashi’s view mentioned in the earlier note: the basis of the disagreement between Rav Pappa and Rav Huna is whether, despite the fact that she did not see blood on the twenty-second day, we say that she is considered to have seen it and that her natural pattern has not changed, or whether, since she did not see blood on that day, we say that her natural pattern changed on this occasion.] And the view of the Bach, Pleti, and Sidrei Taharah [there, paragraph 14] is that Rav Huna disagrees in all cases. He holds that the interval is always counted only from the most recent sighting, and it is never possible to count an interval from a day on which she did not see blood. Therefore, even if she saw blood both on the twenty-second and on the twenty-seventh, she counts only from the twenty-seventh. Likewise, if she saw blood neither on the twenty-second nor on the twenty-seventh, she does not count the interval from the twenty-second, because it is impossible to count from a day on which she did not see blood. This is also the view of Beit Meir, section 189, subsection 13; and in Nekudat HaKesef, the Shakh follows the view of the Taz only with regard to an established cycle. This is understandable according to the explanation mentioned earlier in the note regarding the view of the Ramban: the basis of the disagreement between Rav Pappa and Rav Huna is how the natural pattern of intervals functions. Rav Huna holds that it functions through the cyclical process of filling and bursting that occurs in a woman’s body, and according to his view it is obvious that an interval can be counted only from an actual sighting.

We return to you, chapter “The Daughters of the Samaritans.”

Introduction

A. A woman who gives birth, whether she gives birth to a viable child or whether the child is a miscarriage, is impure with tum'at leidah, the impurity of childbirth.

The degree of her impurity is that of a father of impurity, and she is forbidden to her husband like a menstruant.

The impurity of childbirth applies even if no blood at all emerges from the reproductive tract of the woman giving birth at the time of childbirth.

B. The impurity of childbirth applies for one week when a male is born, and for two weeks when a female is born, and these days are called the “days of impurity.”

C. Once the days of impurity have ended, the woman who gave birth immerses in order to become pure, and from then on she counts the “days of purity.” The significance of the days of purity is that any blood she sees during them is “pure blood,” which does not render her impure and does not forbid her to her husband.

The days of purity are thirty-three days of purity for a woman who gives birth to a male, and sixty-six days of purity for a woman who gives birth to a female.

D. During the days of purity, as stated, even if she sees blood from her reproductive tract, she does not become impure, neither with the impurity of menstruation nor with the impurity of ziva, and she is permitted to her husband. However, she is not yet completely pure; rather, she is considered one who has immersed that day with regard to a long period, since she remains forbidden to eat teruma until the end of the days of purity.

Likewise, she is forbidden to eat sacrificial meat or enter the Temple until all these days have passed and until she brings, on the following day, the offerings of a woman who gave birth, thereby becoming completely pure.