Niddah 66a — the Talmud in English

And she shall marry

a husband

another

and then she is permitted to engage in intercourse. .

And if indeed

she married another,

and also with him

she saw blood on account of intercourse—

she engages in intercourse

as with her first husband:

the first time, the second time, and the third time

24. From then onward, she shall not engage in intercourse until she divorces and marries another.

She married another and saw blood on account of intercourse

also with her third husband—

she engages in intercourse the first time, the second time, and the third time.

From then onward—

she shall not engage in intercourse until she examines herself!

For after she saw on account of intercourse three times with three husbands, she has been established as “one who sees on account of intercourse” with every husband; and in order to remove her from this presumption, she requires a special examination.

How does she examine herself?

She brings a tube, and inside it—

a brush and a wad—

a piece of cloth or cotton

placed on its head

of the brush, and she examines herself with it.

If blood is found on the head of the wad

which reached the opening of the source—

it is certain that it came from the source

and she has the presumption of one who sees on account of intercourse, and is forbidden to every man.

If blood was not found on its head —

it is certain that

the blood

came from the sides,

from the walls of the corridor;

it came

and it is pure blood.

And if she has a wound in that place,

and sees blood on account of intercourse—

she attributes it to her wound

and she is permitted even to her first husband without an examination. Since the entire concern that would make her forbidden is based on establishing a veset for seeing on account of intercourse, which is a concern only by rabbinic law, therefore, if she can attribute it to a wound, she need not be concerned about her veset.

And if she has a veset

for sightings on account of intercourse, so that she does not see every time she engages in intercourse, but only if she engages in intercourse on a fixed date or after a fixed interval of time — she

attributes

her sighting on account of intercourse

to her veset

the fixed one, and is permitted to engage in intercourse when it is not the time of her veset.

But,

if the blood of her wound was different from the blood of her sighting,

at the time of intercourse ,

she does not attribute it

to her wound.

And a woman is trusted to say: “I have a wound in my source, from which menstrual blood emerges” —

the words of Rabbi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Blood from a wound that comes from the source

is

impure,

and therefore the blood of the wound, which is a primary source of ritual impurity, renders the woman impure with regard to ritually pure objects. But she is permitted to her husband!

And our Rabbis testified concerning blood of a wound that comes from the source that it is pure.

The woman remains in her state of purity and does not render ritually pure objects impure, and all the more so she is permitted to her husband.

The Gemara discusses:

What is the difference between them—

in what do Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and our Rabbis disagree?

Ulla said:

Whether

the source, its place is impure

or pure

is the difference between them.

That is: whether the very passage of the blood through the source renders it impure. Every blood, even the blood of a wound that passes through the source, becomes impure and becomes a primary source of ritual impurity, and it renders the woman impure.

Or perhaps the source itself does not render it impure. Ritual impurity is established only with regard to menstrual blood that originates in the source, but not with regard to blood of a wound that merely passes through the source and does not originate in it.

And now the Gemara returns to the law of examining the woman who sees on account of intercourse:

The Gemara asks about the form of examination using a tube: But

the tube injures her,

for it wounds the woman; and from where do we know that the blood that emerges on the head of the brush is menstrual blood? It may be the blood of the wound caused by the friction of the tube, may it not?

Shmuel said:

This examination is performed

with a tube of lead,

made of lead,

and its mouth

of the tube

is folded

bent

into it

in a manner that does not wound the woman.

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan:

Why must her first husband divorce her after she saw on account of intercourse three times? And why does he not

examine herself

with the tube examination after she saw blood

during the third intercourse with her first husband,

so that she would be permitted to engage in intercourse with him from the fourth time onward, each time by means of an examination, until she uproots the veset of seeing on account of intercourse through three times?

He said to him:

Rabbi Yohanan said to Reish Lakish: It is preferable that she divorce and marry another husband and engage in permitted intercourse with him, without needing an examination, rather than remain with her husband and rely each time on the examination. For even if she finds herself pure, there is concern regarding other occasions, lest the two of them inadvertently violate the prohibition of karet applicable to menstruation.

And the reason that we need not be concerned lest she see on account of intercourse also with the second husband is that

not all the fingers

are equal!

Therefore she is permitted to the second husband without any examination, because we attribute the sighting on account of intercourse to the finger of the first husband, which is different from the finger of the second husband.

He said to him

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan:

And let her examine herself during the first intercourse [

that is:

after

the first intercourse]

with the third husband!?

Since she saw also with the third husband during the first intercourse, she has been established as one who sees on account of three different fingers, and she must immediately become forbidden to him if she does not examine herself!

Rabbi Yohanan said to him:

Because not all forces are equal!

Through one intercourse with the third husband she has still not been established as seeing on account of intercourse, since not all acts of intercourse are equal; it is possible that the first time with the third husband she saw as a result of intercourse with great force, whereas with intercourse using little force she will not see. Therefore she need not yet be obligated to examine herself before intercourse, since it is possible to attribute that her next intercourse will be with little force and she will not see blood then.

There was a certain

woman who would see blood on account of intercourse,

who came before Rabbi.

He said to him

Rabbi

to Avdan: Go

go

frighten her!

Frighten her suddenly.

Avdan went

Avdan,

frightened her,

frightened her,

and a clot of

a lump of

blood fell from her.

Rabbi said—

This woman has been healed!

For her sightings during intercourse had been due to that blood clot.

This ruling of Rabbi also follows from the fact that the entire concern regarding the veset of one who sees on account of intercourse is only rabbinic; therefore, wherever it is possible to attribute the matter leniently, we attribute it so.

There was a certain woman

who saw blood on account of intercourse

who came before Mar Shmuel.

Shmuel said

Shmuel

to Rav Dimi bar Yosef—

Go frighten her

go frighten her!

He went

Rav Dimi bar Yosef,

frightened her, and nothing

fell from her

and not anything.

Shmuel said: This woman,

her sighting on account of intercourse is because she

fills,

becomes filled with blood,

and bursts [

the filling of blood during intercourse]

she does.

And anyone who fills and bursts—

has no remedy!

There was a certain

woman

who came before Rabbi Yohanan, who, whenever she ascended from immersion for a mitzva, would see blood,

for every night of immersion she would see blood, even before she engaged in intercourse. She came to ask Rabbi Yohanan what remedy would enable her to engage in intercourse permissibly, since she always became impure before intercourse.

He said to her

Rabbi Yohanan: You have a remedy: you can attribute your sighting of blood to the fact that

perhaps the jealousy of your townswomen has risen against you.

The envious gaze of the women of your town when they see you returning from the river after immersion for a mitzva is harming you. Therefore, the counsel given to you is—

go and engage in intercourse with him on the riverbank,

before you enter the town; then the jealousy of the townswomen will not yet harm you, since they have not yet seen you returning from the river.

Although she had established a veset for the nights of her immersion, since she always saw after immersion, she may be lenient regarding a rabbinic veset where it is possible to attribute the matter to the jealousy of the townswomen.

Some say:

He gave her another piece of advice:

he said to her

Rabbi Yohanan:

Reveal your distress to your friends,

your trouble, and then—

just as they have turned their eyes upon you on this side,

just as their eyes ruled over you on this side [because they envied you],

so they will turn their eyes upon you on the other side,

so too they will turn their eyes upon you from the other side and have mercy upon you.

And some say:

Thus

he said to her: Reveal your distress to your friends

your trouble,

so that they may ask

that they should ask

for mercy on your behalf.

And similarly

as it was taught: “And the impure person shall call out: Impure”

the leper; and the reason for his calling out is that

he must make his distress known to the public, and

then the

public asks for mercy on his behalf.

Rav Yosef said: There was an incident

there was an incident

in Pumbedita,

with a woman who suffered in this way and revealed her distress to the public,

and she was healed,

for the public asked mercy on her behalf, and she was healed.

Rav Yosef said, Rav Yehuda said, Rav said:

Rabbi instituted in the outlying areas,

which are places where there are no Torah scholars and the people are not expert in the days of menstruation and the days of abnormal discharge —

If she saw for one day—

she shall sit

in her menstruation and count

six

days

and it [

together with the day on which she saw]; together they are seven days. For there is concern that her sighting on the first day was a menstruant’s sighting, and she must count seven days: the day on which she saw and six more. Although if this sighting were a sighting of an abnormal discharge, she would need to observe only one day afterward in purity and immerse, the Sages decreed concerning that place that they should not distinguish between sightings of menstruation and sightings of abnormal discharge, since they are not expert in this.

If she saw for

two

she shall sit six

days of impurity

and they—

the two days on which she saw—making eight days altogether. For it is possible that the sighting on the first day occurred on the last day of her days of abnormal discharge, and that the days of menstruation began on the second day. Therefore she must count the seven days of menstruation from the end of her sighting, beginning with the second day; consequently, even the eighth day is forbidden because of uncertainty.

If she saw blood for

three

days—there is concern that these days are the days of her abnormal discharge; therefore

she shall sit seven

days

clean

after them. Thus, the days of concern for her impurity are at least ten days.

Rabbi Zeira said: The daughters of Israel imposed upon themselves the stringency that even when they see a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed [

which is an extremely small measure]—

they sit seven clean days for it!

This stringency is a double stringency. For according to the fundamental law, the law of counting “seven clean days” applies only to a woman with an abnormal discharge after two conditions have been fulfilled:

a. The sighting occurred during the days of abnormal discharge [which are eleven days after the seven days of menstruation].

. The extended seeing for three days.

whereas the daughters of Israel were stringent upon themselves that even if they saw during the days of niddah, and even if they saw only once a drop of blood , they would sit over it “seven clean [days]” .

He led him into the discussion [

he led, by way of conversation ]

Rava led Rav Shmuel and expounded:

a pregnant woman who

strained

during her labor

for two days,

and these days were during her days of zivah

and on

and on the fifth

she miscarried—

she shall sit seven clean [days]

as the law of a zava, even though blood of labor pains during childbirth does not convey impurity as zivah.

And Rava’s reason was:

he holds: there is no

law of purification of blood

labor in

of labor pains for a

miscarriage! And

he likewise held:

it is impossible for the opening of the womb

the womb

without blood,

and it follows that she certainly saw blood also on the third day, at the time of her giving birth.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Why specifically

why did you state specifically

“

”

— even if

she saw

something at all,

she is impure!

For Rabbi Zeira said: The daughters of Israel were stringent upon themselves, so that even when they see a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed—

they sit over it seven clean [days]!

He said to him: I said

I said

to you [that it is] a prohibition,

that she is forbidden according to the law,

and you say [that it is] a custom? Where they were stringent—

they were stringent; where they were not stringent—

where they customarily were stringent, they were stringent and she is forbidden; but where they did not customarily be stringent, she is permitted, and therefore you had to say that she is forbidden according to the law!

(They proposed to her, she was aroused, with hot water, to immerse, folds, atop, port—a mnemonic.)

Rava said: If they proposed marriage to her and she consented—

she must sit seven clean [days]

lest, because of longing for the marriage, she saw blood .

Ravina was engaged in arranging a match for his son

he was occupied with matching his son

at Rav Hanina’s house of study

with the daughter of Rabbi Hanina.

He said to him

Rabbi Hanina to Ravina:

Does the Master intend to write the marriage contract on the fourth day?

Do you wish to write the marriage contract [that is, to consummate the marriage] in four days

? He said to him: Yes

yes.

When it reached

when it arrived

the fourth

day—

he waited

he was delayed

until four

days

other

other, and thereby

the marriage was delayed

the marriage was delayed until

seven days after

after

that day

on which they proposed marriage to her .

He said to him

Rabbi Hanina to Ravina:

What is this

why were you delayed

He said to him:

And is it that

the Master does not hold by this teaching of Rava, for Rava said: If they proposed marriage to her and she consented—

she must sit seven clean [days].

He said to him: I might say that Rava said—

in the case of an adult, who sees blood

who saw blood

but in the case of a minor who does not see blood—

but in the case of a minor, who does not see blood— did he say so?

He said to him: Rava said explicitly: It makes no difference whether an adult or whether a minor.

As for an adult, what is the reason

we are concerned that she saw—

because she longs

longing for the marriage;

a minor also longs

she longs.

The following discussion concerns the matter of immersion, and in it the special laws regarding the manner of immersion of a woman in a state of niddah and a zava were repeated.

Ezra and his court were the ones who enacted that a woman in a state of niddah should wash her hair before her immersion. For according to Torah law, she does not need to wash her hair; it is sufficient for her to inspect it, to see whether there is anything in the hair that interposes during immersion. [Bava Kamma 82a, and Rashi there].