Niddah 67b — the Talmud in English

Three

tresses that are tied are not tightened, and therefore

do not constitute an interposition.

Two

tresses that are tied,

I do not know

whether they are tightened sufficiently that they should constitute an interposition.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: We have no case

that constitutes an interposition

except

one tress

alone,

which is tightened היטב, but two are not tightened, and therefore they do not constitute an interposition.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: By Torah law.

By Torah law,

the majority

of the hair or the majority of the body, where there is an interposition,

when one is particular about it,

meaning that one is particular about the interposition and intends to remove it—

it constitutes an interposition. 59 .

The majority, and one is not particular about it—

it does not constitute an interposition.

And they decreed

the Sages

regarding a majority about which one is not particular—

because of a majority about which one is particular—

because if a majority about which one is not particular did not constitute an interposition in immersion, people would err and validate even a majority about which one is particular.

And they decreed regarding a minority about which one is particular—

because of a majority about which one is particular—

for if they would validate a minority about which one is particular, they would err and permit even a majority about which one is particular.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And let them also decree regarding a minority about which one is not particular, because of a minority about which one is particular!

And it answers:

That itself,

the law that a minority about which one is particular itself constitutes an interposition, is only because of a

decree; and shall we arise and make a decree for the sake of a decree?

Rav said: A menstruant

who immerses according to Torah law

at her proper time,

on the night following the seventh day of her menstruation [according to Torah law, before the daughters of Israel imposed stringency upon themselves],

immerses only at night,

and she cannot immerse on the seventh day. In this, the immersion of a menstruant differs from the immersion of a woman with a prolonged flow, who immerses on the seventh day of the counting of seven clean days.

But when it is not her proper time,

when the night of her immersion, on the night following the seventh day, passed and she did not immerse on it,

she immerses

the next day

whether during the day or at night.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whether at her proper time or not at her proper time, she immerses only at night—

because of her daughter’s incidental learning!

So that the daughter who sees her mother immersing during the day should not come to err and think that she too can immerse on the seventh day during the day.

And Rav retracted his view,

and Rav too retracted his ruling.

For Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: A menstruant, whether at her proper time or not at her proper time, immerses only at night—

because of her daughter’s incidental learning!

Rav Idi instituted in

the city of

Nehardea that they immerse on the eighth day—

because of lions

[out of fear of lions]!

He instituted that

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov in

the city of

Papuna

should immerse during the day on the eighth day—

because of thieves!

He instituted that

Rav Yehuda in

the city of

Pumbedita

should immerse during the day on the eighth day—

because of the cold,

the cold that prevailed there at night! He instituted that

Rava in

the city of

Meḥoza

should immerse during the day on the eighth day—

because of the Abulaye

[the gentile city gatekeepers]!

Rav Pappa said to Rava and Abaye: Since,

given that

nowadays,

now

all of them,

all women who see blood, even menstrual blood, the Sages have made them

like women with a suspected prolonged flow,

and therefore they count seven clean days after they stop seeing blood—if so,

let them immerse

let them immerse

during the day

during the

seventh

day, since seven days of menstruation have already passed and she is concerned only because of the suspicion of a prolonged flow, why can she not immerse during the day?

Abaye and Rava replied:

Because of Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the purification of a woman with a prolonged flow from her impurity: “And she shall count for herself seven days

and afterward she shall become pure.”

The verse comes to teach us:

“Afterward”—afterward for all of them, so that no impurity should interrupt

between the seven days of purification, but she should count seven clean days continuously in purity—these are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Shimon says: “And afterward she shall become pure”—

after the act,

after she counted part of the seventh day,

she shall become pure

through immersion!

But the Sages said: It is forbidden to do so,

to immerse on the seventh day,

lest she come into uncertainty,

for it is possible that she will see later during the day and retroactively invalidate her purity. Therefore, it is forbidden for her to immerse, because if she immerses she may have marital relations, and through these relations she enters into a possible liability of karet.

Rav Huna said: A woman may wash her hair on Sunday and immerse on Tuesday—

for so

we find that

a woman washes her hair on Friday eve and immerses on Saturday night,

because she cannot wash her hair on Shabbat, and we infer what is possible from what is impossible.

And likewise,

a woman washes her hair on Sunday and immerses on Wednesday—

for so a woman washes her hair on Friday eve and immerses on the night following a Festival that occurs after Shabbat.

And likewise,

a woman washes her hair on Sunday and immerses on Thursday—

for so a woman washes her hair on Friday eve and immerses on the night following the two Festivals of Rosh Hashanah that occur after Shabbat.

And Rav Ḥisda said: In all of them,

at those times when it is impossible to bring the washing of the hair close to the immersion —

we say

that she does not wash her hair close by, but to learn from here regarding ordinary weekdays, on the basis of “

for so

we find”—

we do not say.

Rather,

where it is possible—

it is possible,

and she should bring it close. But only

where it is not possible—

it is not possible.

And Rav Yeimar said: Even “

for so”—

we also say.

Except

outside

for a woman who washes her hair on Sunday and immerses on Thursday.

For on the night following the two Festivals of Rosh Hashanah that follow Shabbat, it does not apply,

for they did not permit her to distance it so greatly, even on Rosh Hashanah that occurs after Shabbat.

For it is possible that she wash her hair at night and immerse at night,

and it is preferable to wash at night rather than to distance the washing so greatly from the immersion.

Marimar expounded: The halakha is in accordance with Rav Ḥisda,

that we do not infer “possible” from “impossible,”

and as Rav Yeimar answers,

that she should not wash her hair on Friday eve and immerse on the night following Rosh Hashanah, but should wash her hair on the night following Rosh Hashanah.

It was raised as a question to them: What is the law regarding a woman washing her hair at night and immersing at night?

Did the Sages decree that it is forbidden to wash her hair at night, lest she hurry to immerse and not wash properly, or did they not decree?

Mar Zutra—

forbids.

And Rav Ḥinnana of Sura—

permits—

he permits it.

Rav Adda said to him

[of Sura]

to (Rav Ḥinnana of Sura)

[Mar Zutra]:

Was this not what happened with the wife

of

the

exilarch Abba Mari, who became angry,

who quarreled with her husband and did not wish to immerse?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak went to appease her. And she said to him: What is there now,

why have you come now, for you have no reason to urge me to immerse any longer tonight?