Niddah 39b — the Talmud in English

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: They taught this only

in the Mishna that a fixed cycle of a veset can be established at an interval of fifteen days

, but

at an interval of

fifteen

days

until her immersion,

for it is her practice to see blood fifteen days from the night of her immersion

, which are

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

twenty-two

days

from her seeing.

And also the continuation of the Mishna, which said, “And she changed it to the twentieth day,” means the twentieth day from her immersion

, and

the Mishna intends to say that she

changed it to the twenty-seventh day

from her seeing.

That is, she changed and did not see on the twenty-second day from her seeing, but delayed five days and saw on the twenty-seventh day from her seeing. And in such a case, when she subsequently takes into account her fixed veset at an interval of twenty-two days, and counts twenty-two days beginning from the preceding twenty-second day [on which she was supposed to see the preceding seeing], 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 seeing,

it is found

, for when twenty-two return and come,

when twenty-two days return and arrive, which are the period of time for the return of the fixed day of the veset that she must take into account

, it stands

—this day of the veset—

within

eleven

days of her zavah period,

for until eighteen days from the day of the actual seeing, they are days of zavah,

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

That is, the day of the twenty-two-day interval, which is the time of her fixed veset, and the day of the twenty-seven-day interval, both of them are forbidden, even though the twenty-second day falls during her days of zavah.

Evidently,

it is proven

that we take it into account

—a veset during the days of zavah.

And the Gemara explains:

And Rav Pappa holds:

that the count of

twenty-two

days of the interval, which she must count in order to take into account the day of her fixed veset

from

the day

twenty-two,

the preceding one,

we count,

for it is the day on which she was supposed to see, and we do not count the days of the interval from the twenty-seventh day on which she actually saw.

But

[with regard to] niddah and its opening,

that is, the establishment of the day on which the cycle of seven days of niddah and eleven days of zavah begins

from

the day

twenty-seven we count

the beginning of the seven days of niddah, because on that day she began to see blood in actuality, and the law of the days of niddah begins only through an actual seeing of blood.

Therefore, when she takes into account the day of her fixed veset and counts twenty-two days—from the twenty-second day on which she was supposed to see, which is five days before she actually saw, and another seventeen days after she saw—it is found that this day falls within the days of zavah, for the days of zavah are the eighteen days after her actual seeing.

And since it is stated in the Mishna that this day is taken into account, Rav Pappa proved from here that a day of the veset that falls within the days of zavah is taken into account.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: From where [do you know this],

from where do you know that this is how they count

? Perhaps

the counting of the days of the interval of her fixed veset 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 supposed to see.

For when twenty-two return and come,

when the twenty-two days return and arrive, and the day of the veset that she must take into account arrives

, it stands within her days of niddah.

And if so, there is no proof that a veset during the days of zavah is taken into account.

And this too is reasonable:

that the days of the interval should be counted only from the day of the actual seeing, since the pattern of the intervals is not a pattern of mere days, but a pattern of an interval of days from one actual seeing to another actual seeing.

For if you do not say so,

that one must begin counting from the time of the actual seeing

, this hen

which follows a fixed pattern of laying eggs at fixed intervals,

that lays,

which lays an egg

one day

and

refrains,

and refrains

one day

from laying

, and

then again

lays one day and refrains one day.

And afterward it changed the order of its established pattern

, and refrained for two days

from laying

, and laid for one day.

And from now we must be uncertain: when

it again resumes,

when it returns to its pattern of laying one day and refraining one day, will it

resume according to what follows, or resume according to what was at first?

For example, on Sunday it laid, on Monday it did not lay, on Tuesday it laid, on Wednesday it did not lay, on Thursday it changed from its established pattern and did not lay, and on Friday it laid.

Will it not lay on Shabbat, since this is its established pattern: to refrain for one day from the actual day of laying,

or perhaps it will also lay on Shabbat and refrain from laying on Sunday, thereby returning to its earlier cycle, according to which it was destined to lay on Shabbat and refrain on Sunday?

You are forced to say that it resumed according to what follows!

For the way of a cycle is to continue the cycle from the time of the actual act, and not from the time at which it was originally fit to occur. Therefore, the same law applies to a woman: she must count the cycle of her veset from the time of the actual seeing.

Rav Pappa said to him: But what of that which Reish Lakish said: A woman establishes a veset for herself within her days of zavah,

and a woman does not establish a veset for herself within her days of niddah. And Rabbi Yohanan said: A woman establishes a veset for herself within her days of niddah.

And Rav Pappa infers:

What are the circumstances

of establishing a veset during her days of niddah according to Rabbi Yohanan? It necessarily cannot be speaking of a case in which all the sightings were during her days of niddah, because in such a case everyone agrees that she does not establish a veset, as is explained in the Gemara above, 1a [and explained in Tosafot, s.v. alma].

Rather

not,

it is certainly speaking of a case in which not all the sightings were during the days of niddah, and

for example, she saw:

a. The first time on

the beginning of the month,

which is the first day of the month

, and

she saw another time 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 beginning of the month, and

she again saw 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, and she did not see at the beginning of the month.

And it is speaking of a monthly veset, and not of a veset of an interval of days —

And

regarding this case

said

Rabbi Yohanan:

A woman establishes a veset for herself within her days of niddah.

That is, a veset was established for her for the fifth of the month, even though the third time that she saw on the fifth of the month, when the veset was established, the seeing was not during her days of niddah, for she did not see on the first of the month; nevertheless, Rabbi Yohanan calls it establishing a veset during the days of niddah. And it is implied that even the third seeing, through which the veset was established, is considered a seeing within the days of niddah.

Evidently,

since she had an established veset for the beginning of the month, therefore, even though in the third month she did not see at the beginning of the month, nevertheless

from the beginning of the month we count

the “days of niddah,” as though she had seen on it; therefore, we call the seeing on the fifth of the month a seeing within the days of niddah

.

And Rav Pappa proved from this that the same law applies regarding a veset of an interval: the days of the interval are counted from the day on which she was supposed to see, even though she did not actually see on it.

He said to him:

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua:

No;

it is not this manner that is being discussed here. Rather,

thus Rabbi Yohanan said:

a woman establishes a cycle within her days of menstruation,

for example, she saw:

a. In one month on

the beginning of the month,

b.

And

in the second month

on the beginning of the month, and

on

the twenty-fifth of the month,

c.

And

in the third month on

the beginning of the month,

for in this case the seeing on “the beginning of the month” of the third month is indeed within her days of menstruation, for she saw five days earlier, on the twenty-fifth of the second month [and therefore it is impossible to prove according to the position of Rav Pappa].

And even so, Rabbi Yohanan held that she establishes a cycle. And his reason is because

we say: what caused her to see five days before “the beginning of the month” of the third month is that

the fact that she began seeing blood five days before “the first day of the month” in the third month is because

additional blood was added to her.

For sometimes, because of the great abundance of blood, she begins to see even before the day of her cycle has arrived, and this seeing is subordinate to the seeing of the day of the cycle, while the day of the cycle is the principal cause of the seeing of the blood.

And Rabbi Yohanan held: since we see in the first two seeings that “the beginning of the month” is what causes her to see blood, therefore we attribute that also in the third month “the beginning of the month” is the principal cause of the seeing of the blood, whereas the seeing on “the twenty-fifth of the month” that preceded it [at the end of the second month] was only “additional blood,” which came out of her early—part of the blood came out before the day of the cycle because of the abundance of blood. And since she saw once more at the beginning of the month, this is considered to be three seeings at the beginning of the month that were not during her days of menstruation, and through this she establishes a cycle for the beginning of the month, despite the fact that in practice the third seeing that established the cycle occurred within the seven days of menstruation [of the seeing on the twenty-fifth at the end of the second month].

And likewise, when Ravin came, and all those who came down from the sea, they stated it according to Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua.

We have returned to you, chapter “Daughters of the Samaritans.”

We shall return to you, chapter “The Samaritan Women.”

Introduction

A. A woman who gives birth, whether she gave birth to a viable offspring or whether the offspring was a miscarriage, is impure with “impurity of childbirth”.

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

Impurity of childbirth applies even if no blood at all came out from the source of the woman who gives birth at the time of the birth.

B. Impurity of childbirth applies for one week when giving birth to a male, and for two weeks when giving birth to a female, and these days are called “days of impurity”.

C. Upon the completion of the days of impurity, the woman who gave birth immerses in order to become pure, and from then she counts “days of purity”. The meaning 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 source, she does not become impure, neither with impurity of menstruation nor with impurity of a woman with an irregular flow, and she is permitted to her husband. But she is not yet completely pure; rather, she is considered one who has immersed that day after a long period, since she is still forbidden to eat teruma until the end of the days of purity.

Likewise, she is forbidden to eat sacrificial foods or to enter the Temple until all these days have passed over her, and until she brings, on the following day, the offerings of a woman who gave birth, and through this she becomes completely pure.