Niddah 68a (סח.) — the Talmud in English

That is sufficient

for you to come tomorrow

tomorrow—

you should have come tomorrow to appease me, so that I would immerse.

And

Rav Naḥman

understood what she was saying to him:

Why did she say this to him? Because she had not combed her hair during the day.

He said:

Is it that

my uncle

lacks pots

to heat

water in them,

or that he lacks

stools

to sit on,

or that

he lacks servants,

that you did not comb your hair during the day? You can comb your hair now and immerse tonight! And from here Rav Adda of Sura proved that a woman may comb her hair at night and immerse.

Rava taught: A woman combs her hair on Friday eve and immerses on Saturday night.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: But Ravin sent in his letter: A woman should not comb her hair on Friday eve and immerse on Saturday night.

And consider for yourself: How

every woman

combs her hair during the day and immerses at night—

does this

not

require immersion immediately after combing, and this is not the case!

Rather, they said that she should comb her hair during the day, lest at night she not comb it properly because she is hurrying to return home and engage in marital relations. That is to say, they permitted her only with difficulty to distance the combing from the immersion and advance it to the day, because they were concerned that she would not comb properly at night. But they did not permit her to distance it so greatly as to comb her hair on Friday eve.

He then

returned

and set

Rava,

the amora, as the speaker

beside him,

and taught: The statements that I told you before were mistaken.

Rather, this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A woman should not comb her hair on Friday eve and immerse on Saturday night,

and consider for yourself: How can she comb her hair during the day and immerse at night—

does this not require immersion adjacent to the combing, and this is not the case!

And the halakha is: A woman combs her hair during the day and immerses at night.

And the halakha is: A woman should comb her hair only at night. (Rather,) this halakha contradicts that halakha!

It is not difficult; this

is when it is possible, whereas this

is when it is not possible—

that is, every woman who immerses on a weekday must advance the combing to the day. However, when this is not possible because it is Saturday night, she combs her hair and immerses at night, and she does not advance her combing to Friday eve.

Mishna:

Introduction

A woman who saw blood during her days of menstruation is henceforth presumed to see blood, even after the seven days of menstruation have passed and the days fit for ziva have begun, so long as she has not examined herself and found that the source of her blood has ceased.

This examination is called “a verification of ritual purity,” or “a cessation-of-impurity examination.”

The tanna’im disagree in the Mishna below whether it is possible to perform “a verification of ritual purity” and thereby establish that the bleeding ceased even before the end of the seventh day [although the ritual purification itself, through immersion, will take place only at the beginning of the night of the eighth day], or whether there is concern that she may see blood again after the verification of ritual purity, in which case an examination before the end of the seven days of impurity has no significance. Three opinions are explained in our Mishna—

a. The first opinion—the opinion of the first tanna.

A menstruating woman who examined herself

on

the

seventh

day

of her seven days of menstruation,

in the morning

only,

and found

herself to be

pure, and at twilight

of the seventh day

did not perform [

the cessation-of-impurity examination, as she did not examine herself at the end of the seventh day of her menstruation and immersed on the night of the eighth day, at the completion of her days of menstruation], she is presumed pure.

Since her blood ceased flowing on the morning of the seventh day, she need not be concerned that the blood continued to flow afterward.

And

therefore, even if

after some days she examined

herself during the days fit for ziva,

and found

herself to be

impure—

she is presumed pure

until now, as we say that this blood has arrived only now, and until now she was presumed pure by virtue of the morning examination of the seventh day.

The Mishna continues by explaining the stringency of the examination required to establish a cessation of impurity from her days of menstruation:

If she examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself impure.

And at twilight

she did not examine herself, and it follows that she

did not perform

a verification of purity through an examination, then even

after some time,

after her immersion,

she examined herself and found herself pure—

she is presumed impure,

since she was found impure in her last examination during her days of menstruation, we are concerned that she remained in her state of impurity, that the blood continued to flow during her days of ziva, that her immersion was ineffective, and she is consequently a possible major zava.

The Mishna now returns to explain the first ruling:

That same woman who examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself pure, but afterward did not perform a verification of purity at the end of the seventh day, and whom we regarded as pure with regard to her seeing blood, nevertheless, if she saw blood after several days, she is—

rendered impure retroactively from time to time and from examination to examination

as is the law with regard to any woman who has no established menstrual cycle: Before seeing blood she has a presumption of purity, but nevertheless, when she sees blood, the Sages decreed that she becomes impure retroactively , even when she sees during her days of ziva [when they decreed retroactive impurity even for blood seen during the days of ziva, although during those days she is presumed to be one from whom blood has ceased, since seeing blood on those days is defined by the Torah as seeing blood “not at the time of her menstruation”].

There is an additional novelty here: Although it was clarified above [on page 39] that a woman does not establish a menstrual cycle during her days of ziva, this applies only in the sense that she need not be concerned for that cycle, since during her days of ziva she is presumed to be one from whom blood has ceased. However, she does establish a menstrual cycle during her days of ziva with regard to retroactive impurity if she nevertheless saw blood.

And

therefore, when she sees blood during her days of ziva—

If she has an established menstrual cycle

fixed

her current status is sufficient,

and she does not become impure retroactively, like any woman who has an established menstrual cycle and sees blood at the time of her cycle.

b. The second opinion—the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

One may not rely on the morning examination on the seventh day; rather—

Anyone who did not perform a cessation of impurity

through an examination

of purity

on the seventh day

from the afternoon offering onward—

she is presumed impure!

Since she did not examine herself in accordance with the law at the end of the day and did not establish a cessation of impurity from her seven days of menstruation, we presume her impure, as though she continued to see blood, and that her immersion was ineffective.

c. The Mishna presents a third opinion, that of “the later Sages.”

And the Sages say:

Even

if she examined herself before the seventh day, and even if

on the second day of her menstruation [that is, on the second day of the seven days of menstruation]

[that is, on the second day of the seven days of menstruation]

she examined herself and

already then

found herself pure,

her source is considered sealed.

Therefore, even if she did not examine herself again until the end of the seven days of menstruation,

and at twilight

of the seventh day

did not perform

a verification of purity, and immersed—

And after some time,

after the day of her immersion,

she examined herself and found herself impure,

even so—she is

presumed pure.

There is no concern that she saw blood again afterward. Therefore, we do not suspect that she is a zava; rather, she is presumed pure. [With regard to pure items that she touched, she renders them impure retroactively from time to time and from examination to examination.]

Gemara:

It was stated,

we learned with regard to a woman who did not establish a cessation of purity, who did not examine herself as required during her days of menstruation, and three days passed over her during the days fit for ziva—

Rav said:

She is

certainly a zava,

and after counting seven clean days she brings an offering, and it is eaten, as is the law with regard to a definite sin offering of a zava. Since she did not ascertain that her source had ceased, she is presumed to have continued seeing blood, as though it were certain to us that her source continued to flow during the days of ziva as well.

And Levi said:

She is

a possible zava.

She brings an offering due to uncertainty, but it is not eaten.

The manner in which Rav and Levi disagree was not explained, and therefore the Gemara discusses:

With regard to which case

of the Mishna were the statements of Rav and Levi said?

If we say it is with regard to the beginning

of the Mishna, which discusses a case in which she examined herself only on the morning of the seventh day and found herself pure, but did not examine herself from the afternoon offering onward—

But

“she is presumed pure,” it teaches! Rather, it is with regard to the latter clause,

where she examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself impure, did not perform a verification of purity at the end of the day, and immersed; and after several days she examined herself and found herself pure. Since she did not establish a cessation of purity during her days of menstruation, there is concern that perhaps she saw blood for three days during her days of ziva and subsequently ceased seeing it. Rav and Levi disagree whether she is a definite zava or a possible zava.

Granted,

Levi’s opinion that she is

“a possible zava,” we can say

is understandable, because since she did not establish a cessation of purity, as she had no pure examination on the seventh day, neither in the morning nor in the evening, there is concern that perhaps she saw blood on the eighth, ninth, and tenth days, which are days of ziva.

But

Rav’s opinion that she is

“a definite zava”

how

can we say

this?

For she examined herself

after several days

and found herself pure,

and if so, the examination that she performed during the days fit for ziva provides no proof that she saw blood. How, then, can it be established with certainty that she is a zava merely because she did not establish a cessation of purity from her menstruation?

Rather, when the dispute

was stated

between Rav and Levi—

the statement was reported as an independent teaching

on its own;

it was stated

and was not said with regard to the words of the Mishna.

And this is the subject of Rav and Levi’s dispute:

A menstruating woman who examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself impure, and at twilight did not establish a cessation of purity, and after several days

during the days of ziva

examined herself and found herself impure—

Rav said: She is a definite zava, and Levi said: She is a possible zava.

The Gemara explains:

Rav said: She is a definite zava, since initially

in her examination on the seventh day

she was found impure, and now

she was also

found impure;

she is therefore

certainly impure,

as she was presumed to be seeing blood from the seventh day until now, and it follows that she saw blood for three consecutive days.

And Levi said: A possible zava—

perhaps she ceased

seeing blood

in the interim,

since during her days of ziva she is considered one from whom blood has ceased, and there is no presumption that her source certainly continued to flow during the days fit for ziva. The blood found at the beginning and at the end does not prove that there was bleeding throughout the intervening period.