Niddah 66a (סו.) — the Talmud in English

And she marries

another husband

and

she is then permitted to engage in intercourse .

But if she indeed

marries another husband,

and also with him

sees blood due to intercourse—she

may engage in intercourse

as she did with her first husband:

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

24. From that point onward, she may not engage in intercourse until she divorces and marries another husband.

If she marries another husband and sees blood due to intercourse

also with her third husband—she

may engage in intercourse the first, second, and third times.

From that point onward—she

may not engage in intercourse until she examines herself!

After she has seen blood due to intercourse three times with three husbands, she has thereby been established as one who sees blood due to intercourse with every husband. In order to remove this presumption, she requires a special examination.

How does she examine herself?

She brings a tube, and inside it—

a brush and a wad of material

—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

that reached the opening of the uterus—

it is certain that it came from the uterus,

and she retains the presumption of one who sees blood due to intercourse and is forbidden to every man.

If blood is not found on its head —

it is certain that

the blood came

from the sides,

from the walls of the vaginal canal;

it came

from there, and it is pure blood.

And if she has a wound in that place,

and sees blood due to 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 render her forbidden is based on establishing a menstrual cycle for seeing blood due to intercourse, and this concern is only rabbinic, if she can attribute the blood to a wound, she need not be concerned about that cycle.

And if she has an established cycle

for seeing blood due to intercourse, so that she does not see blood every time she engages in intercourse, but only when she engages in intercourse on a fixed date or after a fixed interval of time — she may

attribute

her sighting due to intercourse

to her established cycle,

and she is permitted to engage in intercourse when it is not the time of her cycle.

But if

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

at the time of intercourse , she

may not attribute it

to her wound.

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

these are Rabbi’s words.

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

is

impure,

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

And our Sages testified concerning blood from a wound that comes from the uterus that it is pure.

The woman remains pure and does not render taharot impure, and certainly she is permitted to her husband.

The Gemara discusses this:

What difference is there between them

—on what do Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and our Sages disagree?

Ulla said:

Whether

the uterus, in its place, is impure

or pure

is the difference between them.

That is: Does the blood itself become impure merely by passing through the uterus? Every blood—even blood from a wound that passes through the uterus—becomes impure and assumes the status of a primary source of ritual impurity, and it renders the woman impure.

Or does the uterus itself not render blood impure? Rather, impurity is assigned only to menstrual blood that originates in the uterus, but not to blood from a wound that merely passes through the uterus and does not originate there.

The Gemara now returns to the law concerning the examination of a woman who sees blood due to intercourse:

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

the tube injures her,

for it wounds the woman; how do we know that the blood emerging on the head of the brush is menstrual blood? Perhaps it is the blood of the wound caused by friction from the tube?

Shmuel said:

This examination is performed

with a lead tube,

made of lead,

whose mouth

of the tube is

folded

bent

inward,

in a manner that does not injure the woman.

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan:

Why must her first husband divorce her after she has seen blood due to intercourse three times? Why may she not

examine herself

with the tube after seeing blood

during the third act of 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 menstrual cycle of seeing blood due to intercourse through three occurrences?

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 requiring an examination, rather than remain with her husband and rely each time on an examination. For even if she finds herself pure, there is concern that on other occasions the two of them might inadvertently violate the prohibition of niddah, whose violation carries the penalty of karet.

And the reason there is no need to be concerned that she may see blood due to intercourse with her second husband as well is because

not all fingers

are equal!

Therefore, she is permitted to the second husband without any examination, because we attribute the sighting due to intercourse to the first husband’s organ, which differs from that of the second husband .

He said to him

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan:

And let her examine herself during the first act of intercourse [

that is,

after

the first act of intercourse

with the third husband!?

Since she also saw blood with the third husband during the first act of intercourse, she has been established as one who sees blood due to three different organs, and she should immediately become forbidden to him if she does not examine herself!

Rabbi Yohanan said to him:

Because not all acts of strength are equal!

Through one act of intercourse with the third husband, she has not yet been established as one who sees blood due to intercourse, since not all acts of intercourse are equal. It is possible that the first act with the third husband caused her to see blood because it was performed with considerable force, whereas she will not see blood during an act performed with less force. Therefore, she need not yet be required to examine herself before intercourse, since it is possible to attribute that her next act of intercourse will be performed with less force and she will not see blood during it.

There was a certain

woman who would see blood due to intercourse

who came before Rabbi.

Rabbi said

to

Avdan: Go

and

frighten her!

Startle her suddenly.

Avdan went

and

frightened her,

startling her,

and a clot of

a mass of

blood fell from her.

Rabbi said—

This woman has been cured!

Her sightings during intercourse had been caused by that blood clot.

This ruling of Rabbi also derives from the fact that the entire concern regarding the menstrual cycle of one who sees blood due to intercourse is only rabbinic. Therefore, wherever it is possible to attribute the matter in a lenient manner, we do so.

There was a certain woman

who saw blood due to intercourse

who came before Mar Shmuel.

Shmuel said

to

Rav Dimi bar Yosef—

Go and frighten her

go and startle her!

Rav Dimi bar Yosef went

and

frightened her, but nothing

fell from her

at all.

Shmuel said: This woman

saw blood due to intercourse because she

fills,

becoming filled with blood, and

bursts [

the blood-filled area during intercourse]

she does.

And anyone who fills and bursts—

has no remedy!

There was a certain

woman

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

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

He said to her

Rabbi Yohanan said to her: You have a remedy. You can attribute your sighting of blood to the possibility that

the jealousy of your fellow townswomen has entered you.

The envious looks of the women of your town when they see you returning from the river after immersion for the mitzva are harming you. Therefore, the advice appropriate for you is:

Go and engage in intercourse with him on the riverbank,

before you enter the town, when the jealousy of the women of the town has not yet affected you, since they have not yet seen you returning from the river .

Although she had established a menstrual cycle for the nights of her immersion, as she would always see blood after immersion, she may be lenient regarding a rabbinic menstrual cycle when it is possible to attribute the matter to the jealousy of the women of the town.

Some say:

He gave her another piece of advice:

Rabbi Yohanan said to her:

Reveal your distress to your companions,

and then—

just as their eyes were upon you on this side,

as their eyes had affected you in this respect [because they envied you

],

so their eyes will be upon you on the other side,

and they will take pity on you.

And some say:

This is what

he said to her: Reveal your distress to your companions

your distress

so that they will seek

that they should seek

mercy for you.

And similarly,

as it is taught in a beraita: “And the impure one shall call out, ‘Impure!’”

This refers to the leper, and the reason he calls out is that

he must make his distress known to the public, and

then the

public will seek mercy for him.

Rav Yosef said: There was an incident

there was a case

in Pumbedita,

involving a woman who suffered in this manner and made her distress known to the public,

and she was healed,

because the public sought mercy for her.

Rav Yosef said, and Rav Yehuda said, and Rav said:

Rabbi instituted in the outlying areas,

where the inhabitants were not learned in Torah and were not knowledgeable about the days of niddah and zivah —

If she saw for one day—she

shall sit

in her niddah status and count

six

days

and it [

together with the day on which she saw blood] constitutes seven days. There is concern that her sighting on the first day was a sighting of niddah, in which case she must count seven days: the day on which she saw blood and six additional days. Although if this sighting had been a sighting of zivah she would need to observe only one day afterward in purity and then immerse, the Sages decreed concerning that place that they should not distinguish between sightings of niddah and sightings of zivah, since its inhabitants were not expert in the matter.

If she saw blood over

two

she shall sit six

days of impurity

and they

the two days on which she saw blood, making eight days in total. It is possible that the sighting on the first day occurred on the final day of her days of zivah, and that the days of niddah began on the second day. Therefore, she must count the seven days of niddah from the end of her sighting, beginning with the second day, with the result that even the eighth day is forbidden due to uncertainty.

If she saw blood for

three

days—there is concern that these are her days of zivah, and therefore

she shall sit seven

days

clean

after them. It follows that the days during which she is suspected of being impure are at least ten days.

Rabbi Zeira said: The daughters of Israel adopted a stringency upon themselves 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. According to the fundamental law, the requirement to count “seven clean days” applies only to a zavah after two conditions have been fulfilled:

a. The sighting occurred during the days of zivah [which are eleven days after the seven days of niddah].

B. The continuous sighting lasts three days.

Whereas the daughters of Israel imposed this stringency upon themselves: even if they saw during the days of Niddah, and even if they saw only a single drop of blood , that they must observe “seven clean days” .

He led him into conversation [

leading him, by way of conversation ]

Rava led Rav Shmuel and expounded:

A pregnant woman who

suffered labor pains

during childbirth

for two days,

and these days were during her days of zivah,

and on

the fifth

day she miscarried—

she must observe seven clean days

as a zava, even though blood accompanying the difficulty of childbirth does not render a woman impure with the impurity of zivah.

The reason for Rava’s ruling is as follows:

he holds that there is no

rule of purity for blood accompanying the difficulty of

labor in

childbirth

of a fetus that is miscarried! And

he likewise held that

the opening of the womb cannot occur

without

blood,

and it follows that she certainly saw blood on the third day as well, when she gave birth.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Why specifically

did you state specifically

“

she suffered labor pains for two days”—

even

if she

saw anything at all,

she is impure!

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

they observe seven clean days because of it!

He said to him: I said

I told

you that it is a prohibition,

that she is prohibited by law,

and you are speaking of a custom? Where they imposed a stringency—

they imposed a stringency; where they did not impose a stringency—

where they adopted the stringency, they imposed it and she is prohibited; but where they did not adopt the stringency, she is permitted. Therefore, it was necessary for you to state that she is prohibited by law!

They proposed her, she became agreeable, with hot water, to immerse, folds, on top of, harbor—a mnemonic.

Rava said: If they proposed marriage to a woman and she agreed—

she must observe seven clean days,

lest she saw blood on account of her anticipation of the marriage .

Ravina was engaged on behalf of his son

he was occupied with arranging a match for his son

at the academy of Rav Ḥanina

with the daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina.

He said to him

Rabbi Ḥanina said to Ravina:

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

Do you intend to write the marriage contract [that is, to solemnize the marriage] in four days?

He said to him: Yes—

yes.

When he reached

when he arrived

at four

days, he

waited

he delayed

until four

days

later

other days, and thereby

the marriage was delayed

the marriage was delayed until

seven days after

after

that day

on which they had proposed marriage to her .

He said to him

Rabbi Ḥanina said to Ravina:

What is this?

Why did you delay?

He said to him:

And did

the Master not accept Rava’s ruling, for Rava said: If they proposed marriage to a woman and she agreed—

she must observe seven clean days?

He said to him: Granted that Rava said—

in the case of an adult woman who sees blood,

who saw blood,

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

did he say so?

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

In the case of an adult, what is the reason—

there is concern that she saw—

because she anticipates

the marriage,

a minor also anticipates

she too anticipates it.

The following passage discusses immersion and presents the laws specific to the manner of immersion for a woman who is a Niddah or a zava.

Ezra and his court instituted that a woman who is a Niddah must comb her hair before immersion. For by Torah law, she need not comb her hair; it is sufficient for her to inspect it to ensure that there is nothing in her hair that constitutes an obstruction to immersion. [Bava Kamma 82a and Rashi there].