Niddah 68b (סח:) — the Talmud in English

And likewise Levi taught in a baraita

[regarding the case explained in the latter clause of the Mishna, in which she examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself impure, but did not perform a concluding examination in purity]:

After the days,

after several days had passed following the seventh day on which she had been impure, she returned and examined herself—

whether she examined herself and found herself pure, or whether she examined herself and found herself impure—

she is a woman of uncertain ziva status.

We learned in the Mishna: If a woman examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself pure, but did not examine herself at twilight, she retains the presumptive status of purity. Nevertheless, if she sees blood after several days, she renders pure items impure retroactively,

and she renders them impure from the preceding twenty-four hours:

This impurity occurred within the eleven days designated as the days of ziva. If so—

The Gemara asks:

Shall we say that this is a refutation of Rava?

As Rava said

regarding the earlier Mishna [38b]: Throughout all eleven days she retains the presumptive status of purity. The innovation of the Mishna is—

to say that a woman does not render items impure retroactively within her days of ziva.

The reason is that since during those days she is presumed to be removed from the likelihood of bleeding, the Sages did not institute a decree concerning her, lest she had become impure retroactively.

The Gemara is astonished:

What difficulty is this?

Why was it necessary to raise a difficulty against Rava,

and did we not

[is it not the case that]

refute him

we already raised a difficulty

against Rava once

[earlier, on page 39a,] from another source, and his ruling was rejected?

The Gemara explains:

This is what we are saying:

Its intention is to ask:

Shall we say

that

this too, from our Mishna, is a refutation of Rava

as well?

Rava could say to you: When it teaches, “she renders items impure from the preceding twenty-four hours,”

it is not referring to the cases discussed in our Mishna, which concern the days of ziva. Rather,

it refers to the beginning of our chapter—

to the statement, “if she saw blood while she was still in her father’s house,”

for Beit Hillel say that in the case of a young girl who saw blood while she was still in her father’s house and then married, only the entire first night is granted to her [during which her blood is attributed to the blood of virginity and therefore does not render items impure]; but if she sees blood after the first night, she renders pure items impure retroactively from the preceding twenty-four hours.

Our Mishna needed to state this because

it might have entered your mind to say: Since pure days interrupted them,

for the blood she saw during the first night is considered pure, and since the concern regarding her blood ceased for the duration of that night, her subsequent sighting is no longer treated as the blood of an adult woman who has already seen blood. Rather, she returns to the status of a young girl who had never before seen blood, and the blood she sees thereafter is considered

the beginning of her menstruation,

like a virgin who sees blood for the first time, regarding whom her time determines her status, as the Sages did not decree retroactive impurity upon her,

and she would not render items impure from the preceding twenty-four hours.

It teaches us

the tanna of the Mishna that since she had previously been accustomed to seeing blood, the interruption of the period of the wedding night is not taken into consideration, and she continues to render items impure retroactively from the preceding twenty-four hours .

The rule that she renders items impure retroactively from the preceding twenty-four hours applies only to a woman who has no established cycle. But in the case of one who has an established cycle, we learned in our Mishna:

“A woman who has an established cycle

her time determines her status.”

The Gemara asks:

Shall we say that this is a refutation of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, who said it in the name of Shmuel?

As Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Shmuel:

The statement we learned earlier [38b], that throughout all eleven days of ziva she retains the presumptive status of purity, means

to tell you that a woman does not establish an established cycle during her days of ziva.

Since during the days of ziva she is presumed to be removed from the likelihood of bleeding, she cannot establish a cycle during them. If so, the following difficulty arises: How can it be stated that this woman, who sees blood during her days of ziva, has her time determine her status if she has an established cycle, when it is impossible to establish a cycle during the days of ziva?

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya could say to you: When we say, “a woman does not establish a cycle during her days of ziva,”

this does not include every aspect of the laws of establishing a cycle. Rather, we say that she does not establish a cycle only in order to be lenient,

as she does not require three occurrences to uproot it.

Even if she saw blood three times at the expected time during her days of ziva, she need not uproot that cycle three times; it is sufficient for her to uproot it once, and thereafter she need not be concerned about the day of the cycle, because

we say that her blood is in abeyance.

But, on the other hand,

and since her blood is in abeyance—

it certainly follows that we should say

her time determines her status!

That is, she should be treated leniently and considered to establish a cycle [as long as it has not been uprooted once] with regard to not rendering items impure retroactively. Since her blood is in abeyance, her time determines her status.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says—

“As for any woman who did not separate herself in purity from the afternoon-offering time onward, she retains the presumptive status of impurity,” because her examination in the morning cannot be relied upon.

It was taught in a baraita: They said to Rabbi Yehuda: If only

if

her hands had been placed before her eyes throughout all the twilights, you would have spoken well,

for if she were obligated to examine herself throughout the entire twilight period at the conclusion of the seventh day, it would be understandable that one must always be concerned during her days of menstruation lest she again see blood.

But

now,

when she does not examine herself throughout the entire period, but only “from the afternoon-offering time onward,”

say:

let us be concerned lest

when she removed her hands

she saw blood!

And if so,

what difference is there between separating herself in purity on the seventh

day of her menstruation

from the afternoon-offering time onward, and separating herself in purity on the first day of her menstruation?

For in either case, even when she examines herself at twilight, we are not certain that she did not see blood after removing her hands, in which case her immersion was not valid. And if we are not concerned that she saw blood afterward, why can she not examine herself even before the seventh day, and even on the first day?

The Gemara is astonished:

On the first day

of her sighting [when her flow is still open, since it opened on that day]—

is there anyone who says

that she can cease her flow in purity on that day? Yet the question addressed by the Sages to Rabbi Yehuda is precise: They apparently validate her even if she separated herself in purity on the first day of her sighting.

The Gemara answers:

Yes!

There is one who says that it is possible to separate oneself in purity even on the first day of her menstruation. Although the flow opened only that day, it can cease on that same day; therefore, if she examined herself and found herself pure, we say that the flow has now closed.

And was it not taught

[in agreement with this,]

Rabbi said: I asked Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, when they were traveling on the road: In the case of a menstruating woman who examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself pure, but did not separate herself in purity at twilight,

in purity,

and afterward, after several days, examined herself and found herself impure—

what is the ruling?

They said to me—

She retains the presumptive status of purity!

This is in accordance with the statement of the Sages in our Mishna.

Afterward I asked them: What is the ruling if she separated herself in purity when

she examined herself on the sixth, fifth, fourth, third, and second

days

what is the ruling?

They said to me—

It makes no difference!

There is no distinction—and she is pure .

But what is the law if she examined herself

on the first day—

I did not ask

about this at all.

And I erred in not asking,

because the question I asked applies even if she examined herself on the first day of her menstruation, and it stands to reason that if I had asked them about the first day, they would have answered me that it is possible to separate oneself in purity even on the first day .

For is it the case that all

the days of the seven days of menstruation

do not stand with the presumptive status of impurity,

and nevertheless—

since the flow

of blood

ceased, it ceased,

and she retains the presumptive status of purity? If so, if she examined herself on the day

of the first day as well,

she should retain the presumptive status of purity, because

since the flow

of blood

ceased, it ceased!

And initially,

at the outset,

what did Rabbi think

when he did not ask them at all?—

Since her flow had been established as open

on the first day of her sighting, it was reasonable to say that she could not cease it on that day .

Mishna:

A man with a gonorrheal discharge and a woman with a gonorrheal discharge who examined

themselves on the

first

day

of the counting of the seven clean days [after they had previously ceased their flow in purity]

and found themselves pure; and on the seventh day

they performed another examination

and found themselves pure, but did not examine themselves on the other intervening days—

Rabbi Eliezer says: They retain the presumptive status of purity,

so all seven days count toward the seven clean days.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: They have only the first day and the seventh day,

since they examined themselves only on those days.

Rabbi Akiva says: They have only the seventh day,

because only an examined day can be counted, and the days must be consecutive rather than intermittent.

Gemara:

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: According to your statement—

you count intermittently,

the first day and the seventh day,

and

the Torah

said: “And she shall count for herself seven days,

and

afterward she shall become pure.”

And we derive:

“Afterward”—

after all of them!

Her purification must come after all seven days together, when they are consecutive, with no impurity—or suspicion of impurity—interrupting between them! Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer:

And

do

you not concede that in the case of a man with a gonorrheal discharge who experienced a seminal emission

in the middle of the counting of the seven clean days, he does not count the day of the sighting, which is impure, but may continue counting the clean days on the following day, despite the fact that his counting is intermittent?

Likewise,

and

do you not concede to me

with regard to a nazirite who walked over “covered branches and protruding branches,”

which involve uncertain tent impurity,

that he counts intermittently

the thirty days of his nazirite status, omitting the day on which he was possibly rendered impure?

And

if

the Torah had said,

with regard to a nazirite who was certainly rendered impure,

“the first days shall fall away,”

he would not continue counting the remaining days after becoming pure from his impurity, but would begin counting them anew. It is thus evident that even where the Torah requires consecutive counting, this does not necessarily exclude all intermittent counting?

The Gemara explains:

And Rabbi Eliezer

rejects Rabbi Yehoshua’s arguments, and also rejects the possibility that the Sages instituted a decree concerning a man with a gonorrheal discharge and a nazirite that they must invalidate their entire count retroactively:

For

granted, there,

in the case of a man with a gonorrheal discharge who experienced a seminal emission, he counts the seven clean days while omitting the day of the seminal emission, because an explicit verse teaches us this, as it is stated regarding the ziva impurity of a man with a gonorrheal discharge:

“to render her impure through it,”

the Merciful One said

that only ziva invalidates the count of the seven clean days. But regarding a seminal emission, the Merciful One said

that it invalidates only that day

alone.

And if it is because of the possibility of confusion

that the Sages might institute a decree requiring a man with a gonorrheal discharge who experienced a seminal emission to count anew, so that he would not err if he saw ziva during the seven clean days—

a man with a gonorrheal discharge is not confused with one who experienced a seminal emission!

Likewise,

a nazirite who walked over covered branches and protruding branches also

need not be a concern because he counts intermittently, since

by Torah law, a proper tent

[one that certainly constitutes a tent]

is required

in order to render a nazirite impure, and in a case of uncertainty he is not rendered impure by Torah law.

And

only

the Sages instituted a decree

of impurity

and the Sages’ decree is not confused with a Torah law!

Therefore, the Sages need not decree that a nazirite rendered impure due to uncertainty invalidate his entire nazirite status because of a decree lest he be confused with a nazirite who was certainly rendered impure.

But here,

in the case of a zavah who examined herself only on the first day and on the seventh day—even rabbinically we have no basis to decree that she may not count the intervening days, because—

if we are concerned

rabbinically that she should not count them, because

perhaps she saw something of uncertain status,

and she would count only the first and seventh days,

they will come

to err

and confuse this with a definite case,

and say: If on the first and seventh days she found herself pure, while on the intervening days she found herself impure, she may count the first and seventh days with the intervening days omitted, thereby coming to a transgression of Torah law. For according to everyone, if she saw blood in the middle of the seven clean days, all the days preceding it become invalid .

It was taught

in the Mishna above [7b]:

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon said: The words of Rabbi Eliezer appear more reasonable than the words of Rabbi Yehoshua,

for if Rabbi Yehoshua is concerned that she may have seen blood on the intervening days, he should not allow her even to count the first day.

And the words of Rabbi Akiva

appear more reasonable

than the words of all of them,

as all seven days must be counted and examined.

But—

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who counts all the days!

They raised a question:

A zav or a zavah who examined themselves on the first day

of the seven clean days

and on the eighth day, and found themselves pure, but did not examine themselves on the other days,

with the result that the conclusion of the count, on the seventh day, was not accompanied by an examination establishing purity.