Niddah 68b — the Talmud in English

And Levi likewise taught in a baraita [on the case explained in the Mishna at the end, that she examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself impure, and did not establish her status as pure at the end of the day]:

regarding the case stated in the final clause of the Mishna: she examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself impure, but did not establish a clean interval at the end of the day:

After the days,

having passed several days after the seventh day on which she was impure, she again examined herself—

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

she is in doubt whether she is a zava.

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 between sunset and nightfall, she is presumed pure. Nevertheless, if she sees blood after several days, she renders the pure items impure retroactively,

and she renders them impure from time to time:

And this impurity is within the eleven days of the days of ziva. If so—

The Gemara asks:

Let us say that this is a refutation of Rava.

For Rava said concerning the earlier Mishna [38b]: During each of the eleven days she is presumed pure; the innovation of the Mishna is

to say:

that a woman does not render [items] impure from time to time within her days of ziva.

And the reason for the matter is that since during those days she is “removed from blood,” the Sages did not fear to decree concerning her that perhaps she had become impure retroactively.

The Gemara is astonished:

What difficulty is this?

Why did you need to raise a difficulty against Rava,

and did we not

[indeed, did we not]

refute him

already objected

to Rava once

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

The Gemara explains:

This is what we are saying:

Its intention is to discuss

let us say

whether

there is likewise a refutation of Rava from this

also from our Mishna!

Rava could say to you: When it teaches, “She renders [items] impure from time to time,”

it is not referring to the cases explained in our Mishna, which are during the days of ziva, but rather

it refers to the beginning of our chapter—

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

as Beit Hillel said: They granted a young girl who saw blood while she was still in her father’s house and then married only the entire first night [so that her blood would not render [items] impure, since it is attributed to virginal blood]; and if she sees blood after the first night, she renders pure items impure from time to time.

And our Mishna needed to state this, because

it might enter your mind to say: Since pure days interrupt for her,

for the blood that she saw on the first night is pure; and since, for the duration of this night, she ceased being subject to concern regarding her blood, we no longer regard the sighting of her blood as the blood of an adult who has seen blood, but rather she returns to the law of a young girl who has never before seen blood, and the blood that she sees subsequently is considered

as the beginning of her menstruation,

like a virgin who sees blood for the first time, whose time is sufficient, for they did not decree impurity retroactively concerning her,

and she would not render [items] impure from time to time.

It teaches us

the tanna of the Mishna that since previously she had been accustomed to seeing blood, one must not take into account the interruption of the period of the wedding night, and she continues to render [items] impure from time to time.

And the fact that she renders [items] impure from time to time applies only to a woman who has no menstrual cycle; but if she has one, we learned in our Mishna:

“A woman who has a menstrual cycle

her time is sufficient.”

The Gemara asks:

Let us say that this is a refutation of Rav Huna bar Hiyya in the name of Shmuel?

For Rav Huna bar Hiyya said in the name of Shmuel:

The matter that we learned above [38b], that during all eleven days of ziva she is presumed pure, is

to tell you that a woman does not establish a menstrual cycle for herself during her days of ziva.

Since during the days of ziva she is “removed from blood,” she cannot establish a menstrual cycle during them. If so, it is difficult: how can we say that this woman, who sees during her days of ziva, if she has a menstrual cycle, her time is sufficient, when it is impossible to establish a menstrual cycle during the days of ziva?!

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

it does not include all the rules of establishing a menstrual cycle; rather, we say that she does not establish a menstrual cycle only as a leniency,

for she does not require three occurrences in order to uproot it,

for even if she saw three times at the time of her ziva, she need not uproot them three times; rather, it is sufficient for her to uproot it once, and she again need not be concerned about the day of her menstrual cycle, because

we say that her blood is removed.

But on the other hand,

and since her blood is removed—

surely all the more so we should say

her time is sufficient!

That one should be lenient with her and say that she does establish a menstrual cycle [as long as it has not been uprooted once] with regard to the fact that she is not concerned retroactively: since her blood is removed, her time is sufficient.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says—“

Anyone who did not establish herself as pure from the afternoon offering onward is presumed impure,” because one cannot rely on her examination in the morning.

It was taught: They said to Rabbi Judah: If only

these

were her hands placed before her eyes throughout all the periods between sunset and nightfall, you would be speaking well,

for if she were obligated to examine herself during the entire period between sunset and nightfall at the conclusion of the seventh day, it would be understandable that one must always be concerned during the days of her menstruation that perhaps she would return and see blood.

But

now,

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

say:

Let us be concerned that perhaps

when she removed her hands—

she saw blood!

And if so,

what difference is there whether she established herself as pure on the seventh

day of her menstruation

from the afternoon offering onward, or whether she established herself as pure on the first

day of her menstruation? For in every case, even when she examines herself between sunset and nightfall, we are not certain that she did not see blood after removing her hands, and it follows that her immersion was not according to law. And if we are not concerned that she will see 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 channel is still open—for it opened on that day]—

is there anyone who says

that she can cease in purity on it?! And the question of the Sages to Rabbi Judah is precise: they validate her even if she established herself as pure on the first day of her sighting!

The Gemara answers:

Yes!

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

And was it not taught

[agreeably]:

Rabbi said: I asked Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon when they were walking on the road: A menstruating woman who examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself pure, but between sunset and nightfall did not establish herself as pure

in purity,

and after the days examined herself and found herself impure—

what is the law?

They said to me—

She is presumed pure!

And this is in accordance with the words of the Sages in our Mishna.

And afterward I asked them: If she established herself as pure when

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

days

what is the law?

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

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 is reasonable that if I had asked them about the first day, they would also have answered me that it is possible to establish oneself as pure even on the first day.

For is it the case that all

the days of the seven days of menstruation

do not stand under a presumption of impurity,

and nevertheless—

since the flow ceased

the channel of blood,

it ceased,

and she is presumed pure? If so, when she examined herself on

the first day as well,

she is presumed pure, because

since the flow ceased

the channel of blood,

it ceased!

And initially

at the outset,

what did Rabbi think

that he did not ask them at all?—

Since the channel was established as open

on the first day of her sighting, there was basis to say that she cannot cease on it.

Mishna:

A man with a flux and a woman with a flux who examined

themselves on the day

of the

first

of the count of the seven clean days [after they had previously ceased in purity]

and found themselves pure. And on the seventh day

they performed an additional examination

and found themselves pure. And they did not examine themselves during the other intervening days—

Rabbi Eliezer says: They are presumed pure,

for all seven days count toward their count of seven clean days.

Rabbi Joshua 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 only consecutive days, not alternating days.

Gemara:

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Joshua: According to your words—

you count intermittently,

the first and the seventh—and

the

Torah

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

after the

she shall become pure.””

And we expound:

“After”—

after all of them!

Her purity must be after all seven days together, when they are consecutive, so that impurity—or a concern of impurity—does not interrupt between them!? Rabbi Joshua said to Rabbi Eliezer:

And

do

you not concede that a man with a flux who saw a seminal emission

in the middle of the count of seven clean days does not count the day of the sighting, on which he is impure, but may continue counting the clean-day count on the following day, even though this is an intermittent count?

And likewise,

and

do you not concede to me

in the case of a nazirite who walked over “canopies and projecting branches,”

which are a doubtful impurity of a tent,

that he counts intermittently

the thirty days of his nazirite term, skipping that day on which there was a doubt that he became impure?

And

if

the Torah had said,

concerning a nazirite who became certainly impure,

“the first days shall fall away,”

he would not continue counting the remainder of the days after becoming pure from his impurity, but would return to count them from the beginning. It follows that even where the Torah requires a consecutive count, this does not necessarily exclude every intermittent count?

The Gemara explains:

And Rabbi Eliezer

rejects Rabbi Joshua’s arguments, and likewise rejects the idea that the Sages should decree, concerning a man with a flux and a nazirite, that they must retroactively invalidate their entire count:

For

granted, there

in the case of a man with a flux who saw a seminal emission, he counts the seven clean days while skipping the day of the seminal emission, because an explicit verse teaches us this, as it is stated concerning the ziva impurity of a man with a flux—“

to render her impure through it,”

the Merciful One said,

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

that it invalidates only its day

alone.

And if it is because of the possibility of confusion

that the Sages should decree that a man with a flux who saw a seminal emission return and count anew, so that he not err if he sees ziva during the seven clean days—

a man with a flux is not confused with one who had a seminal emission!

And likewise,

a nazirite who walked over canopies and projecting branches also

has no need for concern that he counts intermittently, because

by Torah law a substantial tent [A0269]][certain]

[that is, a definite one]

we require

in order to render a nazirite impure, and in a case of doubt he does not become impure at all by Torah law.

And

only

the Sages decreed

impurity upon him,

and the Sages are not confused with Torah law!

Therefore, there is no reason to decree concerning a nazirite who became impure through doubt that he should invalidate his entire nazirite term because of a decree lest one confuse him with a nazirite who became certainly 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 upon her that she may not count the intervening days, because—

if we are concerned

rabbinically not to count them, because

perhaps she saw questionably,

and she counts only the first day and the seventh day,

they will come

to err

and exchange it for certainty,

and say that if on the first and the seventh days she found [herself] pure, while on the intervening days she found [herself] impure, she may count the first and seventh days intermittently, and thereby come to a stumbling block in a matter of Torah law. For according to everyone, if she saw in the midst of the seven hidden clean days, all the days preceding that

It was taught

in the Mishna above [7b]:

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

for if Rabbi Yehoshua is concerned that she saw during the intervening days, he should not count even the first [day].

And the words of Rabbi Akiva

appear

[more correct] than those of them all,

for we require that all seven days be counted and examined.

But—

the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who counts all the days!

They raised a dilemma:

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

of the seven clean days,

and on the eighth day, and found [themselves] pure. But they did not examine [themselves] on the other days,

and it emerges that their conclusion, on the seventh day, was not through an examination of purity.