Niddah 68a — the Talmud in English

That suffices

that is enough

Come tomorrow —

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

And Rav Naḥman knew

Rav Naḥman

what she was saying to him:

why she said this to him — because she had not shampooed during the day.

He said:

and is it so that

my uncle

pots for heating water in them

are you lacking,

and is it so that

stools

that one sits upon

are you lacking,

and is it so that

servants are you lacking,

that you did not shampoo during the day? Behold, you can shampoo now and immerse tonight! And from here Rav Adda of Sura proved that a woman is permitted to shampoo at night and immerse.

Rava expounded: A woman shampoos on the eve of Shabbat and immerses at the conclusion of Shabbat.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: But Ravin sent in his letter: A woman should not shampoo on the eve of Shabbat and immerse at the conclusion of Shabbat.

And wonder about yourself: how

every woman

shampoos during the day and immerses at night —

behold

is it not so that

we require immersion immediately after shampooing, and there is none!

Rather, they said that she should shampoo during the day, lest at night she not shampoo well because she is hurrying to return to her home and have relations. And this is what it means: they only barely permitted her to distance the shampooing from the immersion and advance it to the day, because they were concerned that she would not shampoo properly at night. But they did not permit her to distance it so much and advance the shampooing to the eve of Shabbat.

He returned

he went back

and placed

and stationed

Rava, the amora, over it

beside him,

and expounded: The things that I said before you are an error in my hands.

Rather, this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A woman should not shampoo on the eve of Shabbat and immerse at the conclusion of Shabbat,

and wonder about yourself: how does she shampoo during the day and immerse at night —

behold, we require immersion adjacent to the shampooing, and there is none!

And the halakha is: A woman shampoos during the day and immerses at night.

And the halakha is: A woman should shampoo only at night. (Rather,) this halakha is difficult against that halakha!

It is not difficult, this —

where it is possible, this —

where it is not possible —

And this means that every woman who immerses on a weekday must advance and shampoo during the day. However, where it is not possible because it is the conclusion of Shabbat, she shampoos and immerses at night and does not advance her shampooing to the eve of Shabbat.

Mishna:

Introduction

A woman who saw blood during her days of menstruation is from then onward presumed to be one who sees blood, even after the seven days of menstruation have passed and the days fit for zivah have begun, as long as she has not examined herself and found that the flow of her blood had stopped.

This examination is called “separation in purity” or “cessation of purity.”

And the tannaim disagreed in the Mishna below whether it is possible to “separate in purity” and thereby establish that the blood stopped even before the end of the seventh day (although the purity itself through immersion will be only at the beginning of the eighth night), or whether there is concern that she will see blood again after the separation in purity, and an examination before the end of the seven days of impurity has no value. Three opinions are explained in our Mishna —

a. The first opinion — the opinion of the first tannaitic authority.

A menstruant who examined herself

on

the day

the

seventh

of the seven days of her menstruation,

in the morning

only,

and found

herself to be

pure, and at twilight

of the seventh day

did not separate

[that is, cease] in purity, for she did not examine herself at the end of the seventh day of her menstruation, and she immersed on the night of the eighth day, at the completion of her days of menstruation, she is presumed pure.

Since her blood stopped flowing in the morning of the seventh day, she need not be concerned lest the blood continued to flow afterward.

And

therefore, even if

after some days she examined

herself during the days fit for zivah,

and found

herself to be

impure —

she is presumed pure

until now, for we say that this blood has come only now, and until now she was presumed by us to be pure by virtue of the morning examination of the seventh day.

And the Mishna continues to explain the stringency of the examination required for separation in purity from her days of menstruation:

She examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself impure.

And at twilight

she did not examine herself, and it was found that she

did not separate

in purity through an examination. Then even

after some time,

after her immersion,

she examined herself and found herself pure —

she is presumed impure,

since in her last examination during her days of menstruation she was found impure, we are concerned that she remained in her impurity, that the blood continued to flow also during her days of zivah, and her immersion was ineffective, and she is a doubtful major zavah.

And now the Mishna returns to explain the first ruling:

That same woman who examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself pure, and afterward did not separate in purity at the end of the seventh day, and we established her as pure with regard to her seeing, nevertheless, if she saw after several days, she is

rendered impure retroactively from period to period and from examination to examination

according to the law of every woman who has no fixed cycle, who before her seeing has a presumption of purity, and nevertheless, when she sees blood, the Sages decreed that she becomes impure retroactively , also when she sees during the days of zivah [that they decreed retroactive impurity also for blood that she sees during the days of zivah, even though during those days she has the status of one whose blood has ceased, for seeing during those days is defined by the Torah as seeing “not at the time of her menstruation”].

And an additional novelty: although it was clarified above [on page 39] that a woman does not establish a fixed cycle during the days of zivah, this applies only with regard to the fact that she need not be concerned for it, since during the days of zivah she has the status of one whose blood has ceased; but she does establish a fixed cycle during the days of zivah with regard to retroactive impurity in a case where she saw blood in any event.

And

therefore, when she saw blood during the days of zivah —

If she has a fixed cycle

fixed

it is sufficient for her that hour,

and she does not render impure retroactively, like every woman who has a fixed cycle and sees 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 —

Any woman who did not separate,

through an examination,

in purity

on the seventh day

from the afternoon offering onward —

she is presumed impure!

Since she did not examine herself according to its law at the end of the day and did not separate in purity from her seven days of menstruation, we establish her as impure, as one who will continue to see blood, and her immersion was ineffective.

c. And the Mishna presents a third opinion, that of the “later Rabbis.”

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]

she examined and

already then

found herself pure,

her flow is considered stopped.

And 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 separate

through an examination of purity, and immersed —

And after some time,

after the day of immersion,

she examined herself and found herself impure,

even so —

she is presumed pure.

There is no concern that she saw again afterward. Therefore, we are not concerned lest she is a zavah; rather, she is presumed by us to be pure. [And regarding pure items that she touched, she renders them impure from period to period and from examination to examination.]

Gemara:

It was stated,

we learned with regard to a woman who did not separate in purity, who did not examine herself during her days of menstruation according to its law, and three days passed over her during the days fit for zivah —

Rav said:

she is

certainly a zavah,

and after she counts seven clean days she brings an offering, and it is eaten as the offering of a definite sin offering is eaten, since she did not clarify that her flow had stopped, she is presumed to be one who sees blood, as though it were certain to us that her flow continued to issue also during the days of zivah.

And Levi said:

she is

a doubtful zavah.

And she brings an offering because of the doubt, but it is not eaten.

And it was not explained in what manner Rav and Levi disagreed. Therefore, the Gemara discusses:

With regard to which

which part of the Mishna were the words of Rav and Levi stated?

If you say, with regard to the beginning

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

but

“she is presumed pure” is taught! Rather, with regard to the end,

where she examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself impure, did not separate in purity at the end of the day, immersed, and after several days examined herself and found herself pure. Since she did not separate in purity during her days of menstruation, there is concern lest she saw throughout three days during her days of zivah and afterward ceased seeing, and Rav and Levi disagreed whether she is a zavah — certain or doubtful.

It is understandable

that Levi’s opinion, that she is

“a doubtful zavah,” we say,

is understood, because since she did not separate in purity, since she had no pure examination on the seventh day, neither in the morning nor in the evening, there is concern lest she saw on the eighth, ninth, and tenth days, which are days of zivah.

But

Rav’s opinion, that she is

“certainly a zavah,”

how

do we say this? —

And

she examined herself

after several days

and found herself pure,

and if so, there is no evidence from an examination that she performed during the days fit for zivah that she saw blood. If so, how can it be established that she is certainly a zavah on the basis of the fact that she did not separate in purity from her menstruation?

Rather, when it was stated

when the dispute was stated

between Rav and Levi —

the teaching as an independent matter

by itself

was stated,

it was stated not with regard to the words of the Mishna.

And this is how Rav and Levi disagreed:

A menstruant who examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself impure, and at twilight did not separate, and after several days

during the days of zivah

examined herself and found herself impure —

Rav said: She is certainly a zavah; and Levi said: She is a doubtful zavah.

And the Gemara explains:

Rav said: She is certainly a zavah, since initially

in her examination on the seventh day

she was found impure, and now

also

she was found impure,

she is

certainly impure,

for she was presumed to be one who sees from the seventh day until today, and it follows that she saw for three consecutive days.

And Levi said: A doubtful zavah —

perhaps she ceased

seeing

in between,

for since during the days of zivah she is considered one whose blood has ceased, she has no presumption that her flow certainly continued to issue also during the days fit for zivah. The blood found at the beginning and at the end does not prove that there was seeing throughout all the intervening time.