Niddah 69a (סט.) — the Talmud in English

According to Rabbi Eliezer,

who deems her fit when she examined herself only on the first and seventh days—

what is the ruling?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Does

the beginning and the end are required,

meaning that it was only because they found themselves pure both on the first and on the seventh day—the beginning and the end of the days of purity—that Rabbi Eliezer established all the days as having presumptive status of purity?

And

if

here,

where she examined herself on the first and eighth days, there is only

the beginning,

but

there is no end,

and therefore she begins counting only from the eighth day?

Or perhaps, the beginning

alone in a state of purity is required,

even though there is no end

in a state of purity. Since the days of cleanliness began with an examination, this examination is sufficient to establish all seven days of cleanliness as having presumptive status of purity?

Rav said: It is—

it is.

The beginning, even though there is no end!

That is, if they examined themselves on the first and eighth days, their status is like that of those who examined themselves on the first and seventh days: all of them are counted.

And Rabbi Ḥanina said: The beginning and the end are required.

But

here,

there is only

the beginning—

there is—but

there is no

end—

there is none!

The Gemara raises an objection: And they agree the Gemara will immediately clarify who those who agree are]

[the Gemara will immediately clarify who “they” are]

with regard to a zav and a zava who examined themselves on the first day and on the eighth day and found themselves pure, that they have no

days to

count except the eighth day!

The Gemara analyzes this:

Who are “those who agree”?

What,

is it not

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua,

who dispute Rabbi Akiva with regard to the first and seventh days, but agree with him with regard to the first and eighth days? This proves in accordance with Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement that Rabbi Eliezer requires both the beginning and the end, and it is a difficulty against Rav.

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

Actually, according to Rabbi Eliezer, an examination on the first day alone is sufficient. And who are “those who agree” mentioned in the beraita?

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva!

Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with Rabbi Akiva that it is impossible to count only the first day among the seven; but specifically with regard to the first and seventh days, which would be suitable to join together had she examined herself on every day, Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rabbi Akiva.

Rav Sheshet said that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said:

A niddah who established her ritual purity

on the

third

day of her

count

counts it as the third day of the count of seven days of cleanliness!

The Gemara expresses surprise:

A niddah—

what need is there for

a count of seven days of cleanliness

for her!?

Rather, say: A zava who established her ritual purity on the third day of her

count

counts it as the third day of the count of seven days of cleanliness!

Rav Sheshet said to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba:

Did

Rav,

as you stated in his name, say that she may count the day on which she establishes her ritual purity as one of the seven days of cleanliness—

did he state his teaching in accordance with the Kutim? For they say:

The Kutim say:

The day on which she establishes her ritual purity—

she counts it as one of the seven-day count!

For the Samaritans err and regard part of the first day [after she established her ritual purity] as an entire day.

Rather, necessarily,

when Rav said

“apart from the third day,”

he meant that she does not count the day on which she establishes her ritual purity.

The Gemara asks:

Apart from the third day—

isn’t that obvious!?

And it answers:

No, it is necessary,

for example, where she did not examine herself

at all after establishing her ritual purity on the third day of her ziva status [neither on the first day of the count of seven days of cleanliness, nor on any of the subsequent days],

until

the

seventh day,

on which alone she examined herself.

And Rav teaches us

two leniencies:

There,

above, when Rav said that according to Rabbi Eliezer an examination on the first day alone is sufficient, Rav taught us:

The beginning—

even though there is no end.

And here, he teaches us—

the end, even though there is no beginning.

And Rav needed to teach us this additional innovation.

For it might have been said

that only

“the beginning, even though there is no end,” is what we say,

for

we establish them

for the entire day

on the basis of their presumptive status

after she examined herself on the first day.

But “the end, even though there is no beginning”—not—

and seven days of cleanliness would not be established for her.

He teaches us

that since she established her ritual purity before beginning to count the seven days of cleanliness, and at the end as well she found herself pure, we establish all the days as pure!

From the fact that Rav ruled that an examination on the first day alone, or on the seventh day alone, is sufficient, it is proven that he holds that it is not necessary for all seven days to be counted and examined . But this is difficult:

Is that so? But when Ravin came, he said: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, raised an objection

against Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said [above, 29a] that a pregnant woman who crossed a river and miscarried into it, and does not know whether she miscarried a fetus—or whether it was merely a mass of fluid—brings the offering of a woman who gave birth, and it may be eaten, because “most women give birth to a viable fetus,” and not merely to fluid.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, challenged him from the aforementioned beraita concerning a woman who is

uncertain

about her count—for example, a pregnant woman who left her place and returned empty-handed, and we do not know what she gave birth to; likewise, we do not know whether she is a zava or a niddah. She is not given days of purity, because we are concerned that she miscarried only fluid, and we do not follow the majority of women who give birth to viable fetuses.

Ravin added:

And I do not know what his objection is!

Perhaps the reason she is not given days of purity is that she does not know when she gave birth. It is possible that she gave birth to a viable fetus a long time ago, but that the days of purity have already elapsed.

And

we have established

and clarified in the discussion there that the beraita speaks of a case where

she comes to us during the first week

and we do not know her status of impurity or purity—

we immerse her at night on every night, in case the days of impurity following childbirth have ended on that night; for immersion at its proper time is a mitzva]. A niddah and a woman who has given birth immerse at night. A zava immerses by day!

[on every night, in case the days of impurity following childbirth ended on that night, since immersion at the proper time is a mitzva].

[A menstruating woman and a woman who gave birth immerse at night; a woman with a discharge immerses during the day]!

However,

we do not immerse her by day!

We do not worry each day that she may be immersed during the day in case she has now become pure from ziva impurity, for a zava’s immersion is by day. The reason is that as long as she has not counted before us seven examined days of cleanliness, she cannot become pure from ziva impurity.

And if it could enter your mind

that Rav’s view is correct, that an examination on the seventh day alone is sufficient, and

we do not require

all seven days to be

counted before us with certainty as clean]—

[with certainty as clean],

we should also immerse her by day,

every morning, because

perhaps she is a woman who gave birth to a male while in a state of ziva

and she has completed

“

counted” days: seven days of cleanliness have already passed over her without her examining herself during them. If so, we should be concerned each morning that this may now be the seventh day of cleanliness, and she should perform the examination of the seventh day and immerse immediately, since immersion at its proper time is a mitzva!?

meaning that seven clean days have already passed for her without her examining herself during them. If so, we must be concerned each morning that this is now the seventh clean day, on which she must perform the seventh-day examination and immerse immediately, since immersion at the proper time is a mitzva!? Rather, no; infer from this

Rather, is it not clear from this that we do not worry that the seven days of cleanliness may have ended without her examining herself, because

we require

seven days

counted

and examined

before us,

that she examine herself on each of them—and this is a difficulty against Rav!?

The Gemara answers:

Did we not establish did we not establish this beraita above]

[did we not explain] above that that beraita is in accordance

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who

is the one who

said: “

We require

seven days

counted

with certainty as clean

before us,”

whereas Rav stated his ruling according to Rabbi Eliezer.

The Gemara asks:

And from where do you say that according to the Sages we do not require

all seven days of cleanliness to be

counted before us—

As we learned:

A woman who is

uncertain

about her count, as she does not know whether she is in the days of niddah or in the days of ziva,

who said: “I saw one impure day,”

but I do not know when, and it is possible that it was even today—

she is immersed

starting on the day she made this statement,

nine immersions:

seven for niddah

at night

and two for ziva

by day.

And the order of her immersions is as follows:

On the very day that she arrived, she immerses that same day, because perhaps she was a minor zava yesterday, and today she is observing one day corresponding to one day and is obligated to immerse that day .

Likewise, on the following day she immerses during the day, because we must be concerned that perhaps she saw blood yesterday, before coming before us, and now she is observing one day corresponding to one day. On the third day she may no longer immerse, because it is certain that she did not see blood on the second day.

Similarly, she immerses at night following the day on which she came before us, because perhaps the seven days of her niddah status ended on that day; and likewise on each of the six nights following it.

And if that uncertain woman said:

“I saw something impure during twilight,”—

she is immersed eleven times.

The Gemara expresses surprise:

Eleven

immersions—

what are they for?

Why should it matter that she saw blood during twilight? She came before us during the day, and from that point she is immersed twice for the status of a minor zava and seven times for niddah; it makes no difference when she saw the blood!?

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: For example,

she came before us during twilight

and said that she did not know when she saw the blood; it is possible that she saw it during this very twilight!

And in such a case there would be

for her

eight

immersions

for niddah and three for ziva!

She must immerse eight times for her niddah status, because on each of the seven nights, beginning with the first night after the twilight at which she came before us, she must immerse in case her seven days of niddah status have now ended.

Likewise, she must be concerned that perhaps she saw blood during the twilight at which she came before us. Twilight is a period of uncertainty, possibly day and possibly night. Thus, it is possible that the sighting occurred during the night, and that night is the first day of her seven days of niddah. Consequently, she must also immerse on the eighth night, which is the night on which she may become pure from niddah impurity.

And the three immersions for her ziva status are:

a. She immerses immediately, during the same twilight at which she came before us, because perhaps she was a minor zava yesterday, and today she is observing one day corresponding to one day and is obligated to immerse that day; it is possible that it is still day during this twilight.

b. She immerses the following morning, because perhaps she saw the blood during the twilight yesterday, when she arrived, and the sighting occurred while it was still day; consequently, on the following day she is observing that day and is obligated to immerse on it.

c. And on the morning of the day following that, she immerses once more, because perhaps her sighting during twilight occurred after nightfall. Consequently, only on the following day is she observing one day corresponding to one day and obligated to immerse on it.

The Gemara brings the continuation of the beraita:

And if that uncertain woman said:

“I did not see anything at all,”—

she is immersed fifteen times. That is: eight immersions for her niddah status, at night, and seven immersions for her ziva status, in the morning.

[That is: eight immersions for menstruation at night, and seven immersions for discharge during the day.]

Rava said:

Rava wondered about the final ruling in the beraita and said of it:

“Is this a law that

is a genuine law, or is it

not a law”—

the judges of Galḥei!

This ruling of the beraita is like the rulings issued in “Galḥei.” In that place, called “Galḥei,” they would judge improperly and issue unworthy rulings. For example, with regard to grazing animals, their practice was to graze, by rotation, on each person’s day, all the animals belonging to the townspeople together. Their ruling was as follows [improperly]:

A person

who has an ox

and therefore has an ox is obligated

to graze

the town’s animals

for one day.

But one

who has no ox

is obligated

to graze

the town’s animals

for two days!

The Gemara relates:

It happened to them

that a person who guarded the animals was

an orphan, the son of a widow,

who had no ox at all; nevertheless, they compelled him to graze all the town’s animals for two days.

He went

that orphan,

and slaughtered them,

and slaughtered all the animals.

He said to them

this orphan, when they came to divide the hides of the animals:

One who has an ox—

let him take one hide,

the hide of one animal.

One who does not have an ox—

let him take two hides—

he should take two hides!

They said to him—

What is this?

How does one who does not have an animal receive twice as many hides as one who has animals?

He said to them: The conclusion of the judgment

that I rendered

is like the beginning of the judgment

that you rendered!

The beginning of the judgment—is it not that one who does not have an animal is better,

since you obligated him to guard for two days?

The conclusion of the judgment as well,

also with regard to the division of the hides,

one who does not have an animal—

is better!

And Rava continues his statement:

Here too,

the same applies to the matter of the fifteen immersions—

and if, where she said, “I saw,” it is sufficient for her with nine immersions

if she saw during the day,

or with eleven immersions

if she saw during twilight, then

where she herself says, “I did not see”—

does she require fifteen immersions!?

Rather, say it this way:

the version of the beraita must be

“I saw, but I do not know

during

how many

days

I saw,”

and likewise, I do not know

whether I saw during the days of niddah or whether I saw during the days of zavah—

she is immersed fifteen times.

These fifteen immersions are dependent on the time when she comes before us:

If

she came before us during the day—

we give her seven

immersions at night

for niddah,

beginning with the first night.