Niddah 63b (סג:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, said:

The Mishna is speaking of a woman who has a continuous flow of blood:

of impure blood issuing from pure blood.

That is, she regularly sees pure blood, such as blood that is green or white, before seeing the impure blood, and this is the establishment of her menstrual pattern: to see impure blood after seeing pure blood. Therefore, she is deemed impure only from the beginning of her seeing the impure blood, and dayah sha'atah applies.

We learned in the Mishna:

And a kind of shivering

seizes her, and similarly in such cases.

And the Gemara discusses this: “

And similarly in such cases”—

what does this come to include?

Rabba bar Ulla said: It comes to include a woman whose head feels heavy, whose limbs feel heavy, who trembles and belches

[that is, burps].

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said that Shmuel said: They said

[Shmuel had a tradition that there was a position held by certain Sages, who said]:

With regard to days,

for establishing a menstrual pattern based on days,

two

days are sufficient: when she returns and sees blood once more on the same date, the pattern is established.

For bodily menstrual patterns,

one sighting

alone

is sufficient .

But, on the other hand,

why did the Sages not enumerate

in the Mishna, as a bodily menstrual pattern, a case in which the sensations must occur

three

times in order to establish the pattern?

And Shmuel raised a doubt:

“Why did the Sages not enumerate”—

what does this come to include?

Rav Yosef said: It comes to include a woman whose head feels heavy, whose limbs feel heavy, who trembles and belches,

a case that the Sages did not enumerate in their Mishna of bodily menstrual patterns; therefore, she must experience this pattern three times in order to establish it.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

What does this teach us

[the expression here means: What is he telling us?]

But

it is stated explicitly in the Mishna, for Rabba bar Ulla explained

that the phrase “and similarly in such cases” in the Mishna teaches us about a woman whose head feels heavy, who trembles and belches. If so, this pattern is included among the patterns enumerated by the Sages. And according to the position attributed by Shmuel to the Sages—that “why did the Sages not enumerate” requires three occurrences—one occurrence alone should suffice for this pattern?!

Rather, Abaye said:

Shmuel, who said according to the Sages that “why did the Sages not enumerate” requires three occurrences, intended

to include

a menstrual pattern established when she

ate garlic and saw blood

in this manner three times, or

ate onions

three times

and saw blood,

and likewise when she

chewed peppers and saw blood. [

The novelty of this pattern is that it does not result from the woman’s nature but from her actions ,

for as long as she does not eat garlic or peppers, she will not see blood as a result of her bodily nature; therefore, she must establish this pattern through three occurrences.]

Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this teaching

that Shmuel said, “With regard to days, two; for bodily patterns, one.”

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: You yourself told it to us, and you told it to us concerning

the following Mishna [at the end of the folio]: “

If she was accustomed to see blood on the fifteenth day, and she changed

and began seeing

on the twentieth day, both this and that are prohibited,

as she must be concerned both for the fifteenth day, which had been established for her, and for the twentieth day, on which she saw most recently. And if she saw

three times on the twentieth day—

the fifteenth day is permitted,

as she need no longer be concerned for it,

and she established the twentieth day

alone as the day of her menstrual pattern, because

a woman does not establish a menstrual pattern until she establishes it three times.”

Accordingly, she must see blood three times on the twentieth day in order for her pattern to change from the fifteenth day to the twentieth day.”

And you told us concerning it:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is the statement of Rabbi Gamliel the son of Rabbi, who said in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

that a menstrual pattern is established only after at least three occurrences.

But the Sages

disagree

and say

that it is not necessary to establish a menstrual pattern through three occurrences. Consequently, changing a pattern also does not require three occurrences. Rather, if she

saw

once, she established a pattern

and does not need to change

it another time

or repeat it three times!

And we said to you:

If

“to change,” you told us

that she need not do so because she establishes a pattern after one occurrence—

is it necessary to ask about “repeating it three times”?

And you told us:

What I said, “she does not need

to change”—

refers to

bodily patterns [such as yawning and the like], because she establishes them after one occurrence. And what I said, “she does not need

to repeat it three times”—

refers to

patterns based on

days,

because she establishes them after two occurrences.

And the Gemara asks:

Let us say

concerning the Mishna’s statement that she must establish a menstrual pattern through three occurrences:

“This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,”

who maintains everywhere that an established presumption is established only through three occurrences, and whose opinion is likewise the accepted halakha everywhere. Why, then, did Shmuel need to say concerning menstrual patterns, “This is the statement of Rabbi Gamliel the son of Rabbi, who said it in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel”?

Shmuel teaches us this—

that Rabbi Gamliel the son of Rabbi held like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Mishna:

We learned in the preceding Mishna that a woman who has a bodily menstrual pattern is judged according to the time of her discovery and does not render ritually pure items impure retroactively. The Mishna explains:

If she was accustomed to see blood at the beginning of her bodily patterns:

If she regularly saw blood at the beginning of a yawn or a shivering fit, then

all ritually pure items that she handled during her bodily patterns are impure.

Her time of menstrual pattern was established at the beginning of the bodily pattern; therefore, all the ritually pure items that she touched from the beginning of the bodily pattern are impure, even though she saw the blood only later.

But if she was accustomed to see blood only

at the end of her bodily patterns

then

all ritually pure items that she handled during her bodily patterns are pure.

Her time of menstrual pattern was established only at the end of the bodily pattern; therefore, there is no need to be concerned about items handled by her during the period of the bodily pattern.

This law applies also with regard to marital relations: the time of her menstrual pattern is determined according to her established practice of seeing blood—at the beginning or at the end of the bodily pattern [in a bodily pattern, the entire day is not prohibited; only the period in which the bodily pattern occurs is prohibited, and within that period itself the time of the pattern is determined according to her practice of seeing blood, at its beginning or at its end] .

It is not only in the case of a bodily pattern that the pattern is established for the time of the pattern alone, and she does not render items impure or become prohibited throughout the entire day. Rather—

Rabbi Yosei says: Even days and hours are menstrual patterns!

This means that even with a pattern based on days, such as an interval pattern or a monthly pattern, if she establishes a pattern of seeing blood at a fixed hour, she is prohibited to her husband only during that hour and not throughout the entire day.

For example:

If she was accustomed to see blood at sunrise—

she is prohibited only at sunrise,

and she is permitted during the preceding nighttime hours. She is likewise permitted during the hours following sunrise if she has not yet seen blood as she usually does.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If she was accustomed to see blood at sunrise,

only

the entire day—

is hers!

She is not prohibited during the daytime; that is “hers,” during which she is permitted. But during the preceding night she is prohibited throughout. Since she saw blood at night [the phrase “at sunrise” is understood as referring to the end of the night, close to sunrise], the entire night is “the season of the menstrual pattern.” The same law applies if she regularly saw blood during the day: according to Rabbi Yehuda, she is prohibited during the day and permitted at night. [And with regard to a bodily pattern, Rabbi Yehuda concedes.] The following day, despite being only a short time after the time of her menstrual pattern, she is not prohibited at all, because the prohibited “season” of the pattern is only the day or the night.

Gemara:

The Mishna explains the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei concerning the case, “She was accustomed to see blood at sunrise.”

This is a defined period at sunrise and is not a full hour.

And the Gemara asks:

The tanna taught: How did Rabbi Yosei say, “Days and hours are menstrual patterns,”

with regard to establishing a pattern for an hour during the rest of the day?

The Gemara explains:

If she was accustomed to see blood every twentieth day, and every six hours—

her menstrual pattern was established for the sixth hour of the twentieth day.

If the twentieth day arrived and she did not see blood

at its beginning,

she is forbidden to engage in intercourse during all of the first six hours, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,

because they expound from the verse, “And you shall separate the children of Israel from their impurity,” that the Jewish people are obligated to separate from their wives close to the time of their expected menstrual onset .

And Rabbi Yosei permits her until six hours,

that is, until the beginning of the sixth hour.

And she is concerned during the six hours

throughout the entire sixth hour, which is the hour of her expected onset.

If six hours passed and she did not see blood—

she is forbidden to engage in intercourse for the entire day, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,

and even if she examined herself at the time of the expected onset and was found pure, and she knows that she did not see blood as she usually does, she is nevertheless forbidden, because the prohibition of the ona adjacent to the expected onset applies throughout the entire day.

And Rabbi Yosei permits her from the afternoon prayer onward,

that is, from the beginning of the seventh hour, and this permission also applies with regard to taharot: she is permitted to handle them after the time of the expected onset has passed and she examined herself and was found pure.

We learned in the Mishna:

If she was accustomed

to see blood at sunrise, Rabbi Yehuda says: The entire day is hers.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But was it not taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The entire night is hers,

and she is forbidden only at the end of the night, at the time of sunrise. The same applies on the following day: she is permitted during the nighttime hours preceding sunrise.

The Gemara answers:

This is not difficult.

This—

that she is permitted at night—

is referring to a case where she usually sees at the beginning of the day,

for since the sighting occurred during the day, the day is rendered forbidden.

And this—

that she is permitted during the day and forbidden at night—

is referring to a case where she usually sees at the end of the night,

for even the final moment of the night is still considered night .

One teaching states: Rabbi Yehuda forbids her before her expected onset and permits her after her expected onset.

And another teaching states:

Rabbi Yehuda

forbids her after her expected onset and permits her before her expected onset.

This is not difficult.

This

that he forbids her before her expected onset—

is referring to a case where she usually sees at the end of the night,

and he forbids her from its beginning.

This

that he forbids her after her expected onset—

is referring to a case where she usually sees at the beginning of the day,

and therefore he forbids her from its beginning until its end. [The same law applies if she usually sees at the beginning of the night, in which case she is forbidden after her expected onset, and if she usually sees at the end of the day, in which case she is forbidden before her expected onset.]

Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

that she is forbidden throughout the entire ona.

The Gemara challenges this:

But did Rava say this?

But it was taught: “And you shall separate the children of Israel from their impurity”—

from here Rabbi Yirmeya said: This is a warning to the Jewish people that they must separate from their wives close to their expected onset.

And how much time is that?

Rava said: An ona.

Does this not mean, another ona!

That they are obligated to separate during the ona preceding the ona of the expected onset?

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

That same ona!

The Gemara asks:

And the two statements

in which Rava ruled that she is obligated to separate for one ona—

why do I need them?

It answers:

It is necessary: For had he taught us only this,

that the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna,

I would have said that this applies to taharot.

One might have thought that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei applies only with regard to taharot, for which the laws were made especially stringent .

But with regard to her husband, no,

for he would have thought that she is permitted during the ona of the expected onset and is forbidden only at the actual time of the expected onset, in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

And had we derived it from that statement

of Rabbi Yirmeya,

I would have said that “close to her expected onset”

which Rabbi Yirmeya forbade

means another ona. It teaches us—

that she is forbidden during

that same ona

alone, both with regard to her husband and with regard to taharot.

Mishna:

If she was accustomed to see

every

fifteenth day

from her immersion—that is, at intervals of twenty-two days between one sighting and the next —

and she changed

her menstrual pattern once

to see on the twentieth day

from her immersion—that is, on the twenty-seventh day from the previous sighting—

both this and that are forbidden,

for in the following month she must be concerned for the fifteenth day, and if she did not see on that day, she must also be concerned for the twentieth day .

If she changed twice to the twentieth day,

so that the next sighting also occurred only after twenty days and not on the day established for her menstrual pattern, namely, the fifteenth day,

both this and that are forbidden,

for she must still be concerned the next time for both days.

If she changed three times to the twentieth day—

the

day

fifteenth

is permitted,

and she established

the twentieth day as a new menstrual pattern, and she is forbidden on this day on all subsequent occasions until she uproots it three times.

and she is forbidden on this day on all subsequent occasions until she nullifies this expected period by failing to see blood on it three times.

And this is because

a woman does not establish a menstrual pattern for herself until she establishes it three times, and she does not become pure from the established menstrual pattern

until it is

uprooted from her three times 134 .