Niddah 53b (נג:) — the Talmud in English

And he would then return and establish the interval of twilight according to Rabbi Yosei,

which is still a time of uncertainty as to whether it is day or night. And if she did not examine herself during it, there is reason for concern that perhaps she saw blood during that time. Since she examined herself only during the interval of twilight according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is still possible to be uncertain whether she saw blood afterward, during Rabbi Yosei’s twilight.

And this tanna

in the second beraita

held that Rabbi Yosei’s twilight is connected with Rabbi Yehuda’s twilight,

as it is the final moment of Rabbi Yehuda’s twilight. Since she must examine herself throughout the entire period of twilight, it follows that she also examined herself during Rabbi Yosei’s twilight, and therefore there is no reason for concern.

The Sages taught: If a woman finds a bloodstain, she renders herself impure

with regard to terumot that she touched

and sacrificial offerings

that she touched,

retroactively

until the time of the laundering,

this is the statement of Rabbi.

Since we do not know when she became impure, we are concerned retroactively until the last laundering of the garment.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

Only

sacrificial offerings

she

renders impure

by touching them retroactively until the time of the laundering. But

she herself,

with regard to the terumot that she touched,

does not render them impure

retroactively until the time of the laundering,

so that her bloodstain should not be more stringent than her sighting.

When she actually sees blood, she renders terumot impure retroactively only for the previous twenty-four hours.

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

But we find

in his own statement that

her bloodstain is more stringent than her sighting with regard to sacrificial offerings!

For her bloodstain renders sacrificial offerings impure retroactively until the time of the laundering, whereas her sighting does not render sacrificial offerings impure retroactively except for the previous twenty-four hours.

Rather, teach it this way: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even with regard to sacrificial offerings, she does not render them impure retroactively until the time of the laundering, but only for the previous twenty-four hours, because her bloodstain should not be more stringent than her sighting in any respect!

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

she need not be concerned about her bloodstain from the time of the laundering; rather,

she attributes her bloodstain to her sighting

and is concerned only as one who saw blood, for the previous twenty-four hours or from examination to examination, as explained on 2a.’

What we said, that she attributes her bloodstain to her sighting, applies on condition that she saw blood within

twenty-four hours

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

This is the statement of Rabbi! Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

What we said, that she attributes her bloodstain to her sighting, applies only when she saw the blood during

its day,

but if she saw the blood after twilight, even though twenty-four hours had not yet elapsed from the finding of the bloodstain, she does not attribute the bloodstain to her sighting; rather, she renders things impure retroactively from the time of the laundering.

Rabbi said: His statement appears

more reasonable

than my statement, for he repairs the situation while I damage it!

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is lenient with her, whereas I am stringent with her. Since the impurity of bloodstains is only rabbinic, we should follow the lenient opinion.

The Gemara raises an objection: Is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar really

repairing

the situation and being lenient with her? On the contrary,

he makes the situation even worse!

He is stringent with her, for if the sun set after the day on which the bloodstain was found, she cannot attribute her bloodstain to her sighting, even if twenty-four hours have not elapsed, and she is impure retroactively until the last laundering.

Ravina said: Reverse

the attributions and say as follows: Rabbi said, “His statement appears more reasonable than mine,” because I am the one who is lenient.

Rav Naḥman said: Do not reverse

the attributions at all. Rather, this is what Rabbi said: “His statement appears more reasonable than mine,

for he repairs her halakhic reckoning so that it leads to the status of a menstruating woman,”

because Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is lenient with her in this matter: If she saw the blood on the day following the day on which she found the bloodstain, she counts her seven days of menstruation from the day she saw the blood, and not from the preceding day on which she found the bloodstain. If she sees blood again on the seventh day from the sighting, which is the eighth day from finding the bloodstain, she may immerse that evening, thereby becoming pure from her menstrual impurity. This is the law regarding a menstruating woman who, according to Torah law, sees blood for seven days: If the blood ceases at the final moment of the seventh day, she immerses that evening and is pure. [The Sages, however, assigned every menstruating woman the status of a woman with a prolonged flow, who must count seven clean days.] But had she counted from the day on which she found the bloodstain, this would be a sighting on the eighth day, making her a woman with a minor prolonged flow, who must observe one clean day corresponding to the day of her flow.

Whereas I,

who attribute her bloodstain to her sighting even when the bloodstain was found on the day preceding the day of her sighting [but within the twenty-four-hour period],

damage her halakhic reckoning so that it leads to the status of a woman with a prolonged flow,

for according to my ruling she must count the seven days of menstruation from the day on which she found the bloodstain. [Since she attributes her bloodstain to her sighting, this means that the bloodstain and the subsequent sighting are treated as one matter.] If she sees blood on the eighth day from finding the bloodstain, which is the seventh day from the sighting, she is a woman with a minor prolonged flow, who must observe one day corresponding to one day, and she cannot immerse that evening and purify herself.

It follows that we were stringent with her, and therefore we must rule in accordance with the lenient opinion.

Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Asi:

Do

bloodstains require a cessation-of-purity examination,

as is the law for a woman who sees blood, who must establish that she has ceased bleeding through an examination before immersing on the evening of the seventh day,

or not,

since bloodstains are merely a rabbinic stringency, she is not required to establish cessation of purity, for she did not actually see blood?

Rabbi Asi was silent

and

did not say anything to him.

On one occasion Rabbi Zeira found

Rabbi Asi

sitting and saying:

This is what we learned:

“She attributes her bloodstain to her sighting for the previous twenty-four hours; this is the statement of Rabbi.”

He said

concerning this:

Reish Lakish said: And this is when she examined herself

on the seventh day from finding her bloodstain, as is the law for one who sees blood and establishes cessation of purity at the end of the seventh day.

But if she did not examine herself at the end of the seventh day from finding the bloodstain, and examined herself only on the following day, the seventh day from the sighting of the blood, she demonstrated that she had counted the seven days of menstruation only from the day of the sighting, and not from the day on which she found the bloodstain. Therefore, there is no connection between the bloodstain and the following day’s sighting, and the bloodstain renders her impure retroactively from the time of the laundering.

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

at the end of the seventh day from finding her bloodstain, she may attribute her bloodstain to her sighting, and the bloodstain does not render her impure retroactively from the time of the laundering. This matter is not dependent upon her actions or upon what she demonstrated through them; rather, it is an independent legal ruling: Whenever she sees blood within twenty-four hours after finding her bloodstain, she attributes the bloodstain to her sighting, and her status is that of one who saw blood, not one who found a bloodstain.

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi:

By implication

of your statement—that Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree over whether or not she examined herself at the end of the seventh day from finding her bloodstain—we learn

that bloodstains require a cessation-of-purity examination!

For even according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, it appears that she requires an examination on the seventh day from finding her bloodstain; he merely says that although she did not examine herself, she may still attribute her bloodstain to her sighting.

He said to him,

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira:

Yes!

It may be learned from the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish that bloodstains require a cessation-of-purity examination.

And Rabbi Zeira asked him:

But you asked me this many times, and you did not say anything!

You asked me this matter long ago, and I gave you no answer at all.

And Rabbi Zeira added:

Perhaps it came to you in the course of your rushing

through the study of this matter—that is, perhaps this teaching became clear to you only now, while you were rapidly reviewing the subject?

He said to him,

Rabbi Asi said:

Yes! It came to me in the course of my rushing!

Mishna:

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

After she completes the seven days of menstruation, an eleven-day period begins, “fit for prolonged flow.” If she sees blood during those days, the blood is zav. If she sees blood for only one or two days, she must observe the following day in purity, free of blood, and then immerse; this is called “observing one day corresponding to one day.” But if she sees blood for three consecutive days, she becomes a woman with a major prolonged flow and must count seven clean days free of blood. In the present era, the Sages decreed that whenever a woman sees blood, she must conduct herself as though she were a woman with a major prolonged flow, and she must count seven clean days, as will be explained below, on 66a.

A woman

who sees

blood on

the day

of

the eleventh

day of the days of prolonged flow, during

twilight,

and does not know whether it is the blood of prolonged flow of the eleventh day or the menstrual blood of the first day of the days designated for menstruation, has an impaired reckoning [both immediately and subsequently], and with regard to her future sightings she must be concerned for

the beginning of menstruation and the end of menstruation,

for

the beginning of prolonged flow and

for

the end of prolonged flow,

as will be explained in the Gemara.

Likewise, a woman who has given birth and sees blood on the final day of the days of purity, which are

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

and whose sightings occurred on the final day

during twilight according to all opinions

[whether with regard to the days of purity for a male child or the days of purity for a female child],

these women

who see during twilight and are uncertain whether their blood is pure or impure

are mistaken

and have an impaired reckoning, for if they see again on the eighth day, they do not know whether it is blood at the beginning of menstruation or blood at the beginning of prolonged flow, and they do not know whether they must observe seven days of menstrual impurity or observe one day corresponding to one day of prolonged flow.

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Before you correct the foolish women

that is, those who are mistaken and do not know whether the sighting occurred during the day or at night,

come and correct the intelligent 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 must be concerned with regard to her future sightings for

the beginning of menstruation and the end of menstruation.

The Gemara raises an objection: The concern arising from that sighting is

the beginning of menstruation and the end of prolonged flow,

for perhaps she saw the blood at night, which is a time of menstruation, or during the preceding day, which is a time of prolonged flow.

Rav Ḥisda said: This is what it is saying: One who sees blood during the twilight of the eleventh day

must be concerned, as a result of this sighting, for two matters:

a. With regard to the sighting itself, she must be concerned for

the beginning of menstruation and the end of prolonged flow.

That is: Perhaps she saw the blood at night, in which case she must observe seven days for her menstruation; and perhaps she saw the blood on the eleventh day, in which case, if two sightings preceded it [on the ninth and tenth days, during the days of prolonged flow], she is a woman with a major prolonged flow and must bring a sacrifice due to the uncertainty, and that sacrifice may not be eaten.

b.

And on the seventh day of her menstruation,

if she sees blood again on that day, in addition to the concern that perhaps the previous sighting occurred during the days of prolonged flow, in which case this sighting is a sighting at the beginning of menstruation and she must observe seven days of menstruation because of it, she is also concerned that perhaps the previous sighting occurred at night, in which case her present sighting is on the eighth day of her menstruation and is a sighting of

the end of menstruation,

that is, after the seven days of menstruation,

and

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

the beginning of prolonged flow,

and she must observe another seven clean days because of them.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Yehoshua said: Before you correct the foolish women, and so on.”

The Gemara is astonished: Are

these

women who see during twilight and are uncertain concerning their sighting because twilight is of uncertain status, whether day or night, the ones whom Rabbi Yehoshua means?