Niddah 53b — the Talmud in English

And then the twilight of Rabbi Yosei takes effect,

for it is still an uncertain time, whether it is day or night. And if she did not examine herself during it, there is concern that perhaps she saw during it. And since she examined herself only during the time that is twilight according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is still possible to doubt that perhaps she saw afterward, during the twilight of Rabbi Yosei.

And this tanna

in the second beraita

holds that the twilight of Rabbi Yosei is connected with that of Rabbi Yehuda,

for it is the final moment of Rabbi Yehuda’s twilight, and since she must examine herself throughout the entire time of twilight, it follows that she also examined herself during Rabbi Yosei’s twilight, and therefore she need not be concerned.

The Sages taught: One who sees a stain renders herself impure

with regard to taharot that she touched

and sacred things

that she touched

retroactively,

until the time of laundering

the words of Rabbi.

For we do not know from when she became impure, and therefore we are concerned retroactively until the last laundering of the garment.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

Only

sacred things

she

renders impure

through touching them retroactively until the time of laundering. But

herself,

with regard to the taharot that she touched,

she does not render impure

retroactively until the time of laundering,

so that her stain should not be more stringent than her sighting,

for when she actually saw blood, she does not render taharot impure retroactively except for a twenty-four-hour period.

The Gemara raises an objection: How can Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar say, “so that her stain should not be more stringent than her sighting

”? But we find

in his own words that

her stain is more stringent than her sighting with regard to sacred things!

For her stain renders sacred things impure retroactively until the time of laundering, whereas her sighting does not render sacred things impure retroactively except for a twenty-four-hour period?

Rather, teach it this way: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even sacred things she does not render impure retroactively until the time of laundering, but only for a twenty-four-hour period, because her stain should not be more stringent than her sighting in any matter!

The Sages taught: If she saw a stain and afterward saw blood,

she is not concerned for her stain from the time of laundering, but

she attributes her stain to her sighting

and is concerned only as one who saw blood, for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, as explained on page 2a.

And what we said, that she attributes her stain to her sighting, is on condition that she saw within

twenty-four hours

after finding the stain. But if she saw the blood after twenty-four hours from finding the stain, she does not attribute her stain to her sighting; rather, she is concerned for her stain retroactively from the time of laundering,

the words of Rabbi! Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

what we said, that she attributes her stain to her sighting, applies only when she saw the blood on

its day

of the stain. But if she saw the blood after twilight, even though twenty-four hours have not yet passed from finding the stain, she does not attribute her stain to her sighting; rather, she renders [things] impure retroactively from the time of laundering.

Rabbi said: His words appear [more correct]

those of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar more

than my words, for he rectifies her and I distort her!

For Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is lenient for her, whereas I am stringent for her; and since the impurity of stains is only rabbinic, we must follow the lenient one.

The Gemara raises an objection: Is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

rectifying

and being lenient for her? On the contrary,

I distort her exceedingly!

For he is stringent for her: if the sun set after the day on which the stain was found, she cannot attribute her stain to her sighting, even if twenty-four hours have not passed, and she is impure retroactively until the last laundering?!

Ravina said: Reverse it

and say thus: Rabbi said, “My words appear [more correct] than his words, for I am the one who is lenient”!

Rabbi Nahman said: Never reverse it,

and this is what Rabbi said: “His words appear [more correct] than my words,

for he rectifies her laws with regard to ziva,

for Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is lenient for her in this matter: if she saw the blood on the day after the day on which the stain was found, she counts her seven days of niddah from the day of seeing the blood and not from the preceding day on which the stain was found. And if she returns and sees on the seventh day from seeing the blood, which is the eighth day from finding the stain, she may immerse in the evening, become pure from her niddah impurity, and become pure. This is the law of a niddah who, according to Torah law, sees blood for seven days, and if the blood stops at the final moment of the seventh day, she immerses in the evening and is pure [and the Sages gave every niddah the status of a zavah, who must count seven clean days]. But had she counted from the day on which the stain was found, this would have been a sighting on the eighth day and would have caused her to become a minor zavah, obligated to observe one day corresponding to one day.

And I,

who attribute her stain to her sighting even when the stain was on the day preceding the day of seeing the blood [but within twenty-four hours],

distort her laws with regard to ziva,

for according to my words she must count the seven days of niddah from the day on which the stain was found. [For she attributes her stain to her sighting, and the meaning of this is that the stain is one matter with the sighting of blood that follows it.] And if she saw on the eighth day from finding the stain, which is the seventh day from seeing the blood, she is a minor zavah, obligated to observe one day corresponding to one day, and she cannot immerse in the evening and purify herself.

And it follows that we were stringent for her, and therefore we must rule according to the words of the lenient one.

Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Asi:

Whether

stains require a clean examination,

as in the law of a woman who sees blood, who must establish cleanliness before her immersion on the evening of the seventh day,

or not,

since stains are only a rabbinic stringency, she is not obligated to establish cleanliness, for she did not actually see blood?

Rabbi Asi was silent

Rabbi Asi

and did not say anything to him!

At times Rabbi Zeira found

Rabbi Asi

sitting and saying:

This that we learned, “

She attributes her stain to her sighting for a twenty-four-hour period, the words of Rabbi,”

said

concerning this

Reish Lakish: “And this is when she examined

herself on the seventh day from finding her stain, as a woman who sees blood establishes cleanliness at the end of the seventh day.

But if she did not examine herself at the end of the seventh day from finding the stain, but only on the following day, the seventh day from seeing the blood, she revealed her view that she counted the seven days of niddah only from the day of seeing the blood and not from the day of finding the stain. Therefore, there is no connection between the stain and the sighting of blood on the following day, and consequently the stain renders [things] impure retroactively from the time of laundering!

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even though she did not examine herself

at the end of the seventh day from finding her stain, she may attribute her stain to her sighting, and the stain does not render [things] impure retroactively from the time of laundering. For the matter does not depend on her actions and her revealed view; rather, it is an independent law: whenever she saw blood after finding her stain within twenty-four hours, she attributes her stain to her sighting, and her status is that of one who sees blood and not of one who finds a stain.

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira to Rabbi Asi:

By implication

from your words, in which you said that Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan disagree whether she examined herself or did not examine herself at the end of the seventh day from finding her stain, we learn

that stains require a clean examination!

For even according to Rabbi Yohanan it implies that she requires an examination on the seventh day from seeing her stain; he merely said that although she did not examine herself, she may attribute her stain to her sighting.

He said to him,

Rabbi Asi to Rabbi Zeira:

Yes!

It can be learned from the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish that stains require a clean examination.

And Rabbi Zeira asked him:

But many times I asked you, and you said nothing at all!?

For it has been a long time since I asked you this matter, and you answered me nothing.

And Rabbi Zeira added:

Perhaps, in the course of your rush, it came to you,

perhaps now, during the course of studying the matter rapidly, this teaching became clear to you?

He said to him,

Rabbi Asi:

Yes! In the course of my rush, it came to me!

Mishna:

According to Torah law, a woman who sees blood from the source of her blood becomes a niddah and is impure for seven days, whether she saw blood throughout all seven days or saw it only on the first day. And if she stopped seeing the blood, then on the night of the eighth day she immerses and is pure. And even if she saw blood throughout all seven days until the final moment before twilight,

after she completes the seven days of niddah, a period of eleven days begins, “fit for ziva,” such that if she sees blood during them, this blood is zov. And if she saw blood for only one or two days, she must observe one day after them in purity, when it is clean of blood, and immerse; this is called “observing one day [of purity] corresponding to one day [of impurity].” But if she saw blood for three consecutive days, she becomes a “major zavah” and must count seven days clean of blood. And today the Sages decreed that with every blood a woman sees, she must conduct herself as though she were a major zavah and must count seven clean days, as will be explained below, on page 66a.

A woman

who sees

blood on

the day

of the

eleven

days of ziva, during

twilight,

and does not know whether it is ziva blood of the eleventh day or niddah blood of the first day of the days fit for niddah, her count is disrupted [both now and subsequently], and with her sightings she is concerned for

the beginning of niddah and the end of niddah,

for

the beginning of ziva and

for

the end of ziva,

as will be explained in the Gemara.

And likewise a woman after childbirth who sees blood on the final day of the days of purity, which are

the fortieth day for a male and the eightieth day for a female,

and her sightings were on the final day

at twilight in all cases [

between the days of purity of the male and the days of purity of the female],

these

who see at twilight and doubt whether their blood is pure or impure

are mistaken

and their count is disrupted, for if they again see an additional sighting on the eighth day, they do not know whether it is blood of the beginning of niddah or blood of the beginning of ziva, and they do not know whether to sit [in impurity] for seven days of niddah impurity or to observe one day corresponding to one day of ziva.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Before you rectify the foolish women,

that is, those who err and do not know whether this was during the day or at night,

come and rectify the clever women,

as will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A woman who sees blood during the twilight of the eleventh day is concerned with her sightings for

the beginning of niddah and the end of niddah.

The Gemara raises an objection: Surely the concern with that sighting is

the beginning of niddah and the end of ziva,

for perhaps her sighting was at night, which is the time of niddah, or during the preceding day, which is the time of ziva?!

Rav Hisda said: This is what it says: One who sees on the eleventh day, during twilight,

is concerned as a result of this sighting for two matters:

A. With that same sighting itself she must be concerned for

the beginning of niddah and the end of ziva.

That is: perhaps her sighting was at night, in which case she is obligated to sit [in impurity] for her niddah seven days; and perhaps her sighting was on the eleventh day, and if two sightings preceded it [on the ninth and tenth days during the days of ziva], she is a major zavah and must bring an offering because of the doubt, and it is not eaten.

B.

And on the seventh day of her niddah

if she again sees blood on it, then besides the concern that perhaps the previous sighting was during the days of ziva, so that this sighting is a sighting of the beginning of niddah and she is obligated to sit [in impurity] for seven days of niddah, she is also concerned that perhaps the previous sighting was at night, in which case her present sighting is on the eighth day of her niddah and is a sighting of

the end of niddah,

that is, after the seven days of niddah,

and

if she continues to see during the following three days, these will be sightings of

the beginning of ziva,

and she must sit [in impurity] on their account for another seven clean days!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Before you rectify the foolish women, etc.

The Gemara wonders: Are

these

women who see during twilight and whose sighting is doubtful because twilight is an uncertainty, day or night, [really the ones meant]?