Niddah 69a — the Talmud in English

For Rabbi Eliezer

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

what

are the sides of the uncertainty?

Is it that

we require their beginnings and their ends,

for only because they found themselves pure both on the first and on the seventh, which are the beginning and the end of the days of purity, did Rabbi Eliezer establish all the days in a presumption of purity.

And

if

here,

she examined herself on the first and on the eighth, only

their beginning exists,

but

their end does not exist,

and therefore she begins counting only from the eighth day?

Or perhaps, their beginning

in purity alone is required,

even though there is no end

in purity. For since the days of cleanliness began with an examination, this examination is sufficient to establish all seven days of cleanliness in a presumption of purity?

Rav said: It is—

it is.

Their beginning, even though there is no end!

That is to say, if they examined themselves on the first and eighth days, their law is like that of those who examined themselves on the first and seventh days: they count all of them.

And Rabbi Hanina said: We require their beginnings and their ends.

But

here,

only

their beginning—

exists,

but

their end—

does not exist!

An objection was raised: And they agree

and the Gemara will immediately clarify who those who agree are—

concerning a zav and a zava who examined themselves on the first day and on the eighth day and found [themselves] pure, that they have

to count

only the eighth day!

The Gemara examines this:

Who are “they agree”?

What,

not—

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua,

who dispute Rabbi Akiva regarding the first and seventh [days], but agree with him regarding the first and eighth [days]? And this proves in accordance with Rabbi Hanina, that Rabbi Eliezer requires their beginning and their end, and it is a difficulty against Rav.

The Gemara rejects [this]:

No!

In fact, according to Rabbi Eliezer, an examination on the first day alone is sufficient. And who are the “they agree” taught in the beraita?—

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva!

For Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with Rabbi Akiva that it is impossible to count the first day alone out of the seven; and only regarding the first and seventh days which would have been fit to join together had she examined herself on all the days, does Rabbi Yehoshua disagree with Rabbi Akiva.

Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba in the name of Rav:

A menstruating woman who separated herself in purity

on day

three of hers—

counts it

as the third day

of the count of seven clean days!

The Gemara is astonished:

A menstruating woman—

a count

of seven clean days—

why does she need it!?

Rather, say: A zava who separated herself in purity on the third day of hers—

counts it as the third day

of the count of seven clean days!

Rav Sheshet said to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba:

But is

Rav,

who, as you said in his name, ruled that she can count the day on which she stops [bleeding] in purity as part of the seven clean days—

stating his teaching like the Kutim!? For they say:

The Kutim:

The day on which she stops—

she counts it as part of the seven!

For the Samaritans err and consider part of the first day [after she stopped in purity] as the entire day.

Rather, necessarily,

when Rav said

except for the third day,

she does not count the day on which she stops [bleeding].

The Gemara asks:

Except for the third day—

is it obvious!?

And it answers:

No; it is necessary,

for example, where she did not examine

herself at all after she stopped in purity on the third day of her ziva [neither on the first day of the count of the seven clean days nor on the other days after it],

until

the

seventh day,

on which alone she examined herself.

And he teaches us

two leniencies of Rav:

There,

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

Their beginning—

even though there is no end.

And here, he teaches us—

their end, even though there is no beginning.

And Rav needed to teach us this additional innovation.

For you might have said

only

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

for

we establish them

for the entire day

in their presumption

after she examined herself on the first day.

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

and seven clean days are not effective for her.

He teaches us

that since she stopped in purity before beginning to count the seven clean days, and at their end as well she found herself pure, we establish all the days as being in purity!

And 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 , and it is difficult:

It is not so! For when Ravin came, he said: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina 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 the wind alone caused it, 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 wind.

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina challenged him from the aforementioned beraita concerning a woman who is

mistaken

in 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, and likewise do not know whether she is a zava or a menstruating woman—for she is not given days of purity, because we are concerned that she did not miscarry a fetus but only wind, and we do not follow the majority of women who give birth to a viable fetus.

And Ravin added:

And I do not know what his objection is!

For perhaps the reason that she is not given days of purity is that she does not know when she gave birth, and perhaps she gave birth to a viable fetus a long time earlier, but the days of purity have already elapsed.

And

we have established

and it was clarified for us in the discussion there that the beraita speaks of a situation in which

in the first week when she comes before us

we do not know her state of impurity or purity—

at night we immerse her [each and every night, perhaps the days of impurity of a woman who gave birth ended on that day, for immersion at its proper time is a mitzva]. [

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

The immersion of a menstruating woman and of a woman who gave birth is at night. The immersion of a zava is during the day]!

But

during the day we do not immerse her!

And we are not concerned each day to immerse her during the day, perhaps she is now becoming pure from the impurity of ziva, whose immersion is during the day. The reason is that as long as she has not counted before us seven clean and examined days, she cannot become pure from the impurity of ziva.

And if it should enter your mind

according to Rav’s words, 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]—

we should also immerse her during the day,

every morning, because

perhaps she is a woman who gave birth as a zava

and she accomplished for herself “

counted,”

for seven clean days have already passed over her without her examining herself during them. If so, we should be concerned each morning that perhaps it is now the seventh clean day, and she must perform on it the examination of the seventh day and immerse immediately, for immersion at its proper time is a mitzva!?

Rather, is it not, learn from this

that from the fact that we are not concerned that perhaps the seven clean days ended without her examining herself,

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] above that same beraita

as [the view of] Rabbi Akiva, who

is the one who

said, “

we require

seven days

counted

with certainty as clean

before us,” whereas Rav stated his words according to Rabbi Eliezer.

whereas Rav stated his ruling according to Rabbi Eliezer.

The Gemara asks:

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

all seven days of cleanliness to be

counted before us—

For we learned:

a woman who is

mistaken

in her count, who does not know whether she is in the days of menstruation 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—

they immerse her

beginning from the day she said this,

nine immersions—

seven for menstruation

at night

and two for ziva

during the day.

And the order of her immersions is:

On the very day that she arrived, she immerses during the day, because perhaps yesterday she was a minor zava and today she is observing one day corresponding to one day, and she is obligated in immersion on 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 is now observing one day corresponding to one day. And on the third day she may no longer immerse, because on the second day she certainly did not see [blood].

Likewise, she immerses at night after the day on which she came before us, because perhaps the seven days of her menstruation ended on that day, and likewise on the six nights following it.

And if that mistaken woman said:

“I saw impurity at twilight”—

they immerse her eleven immersions.

The Gemara is astonished:

Eleven

immersions—

what are they for?

Why should it matter to us that she saw [blood] at twilight? She came before us during the day, and from now they immerse her for two immersions of a minor zava and seven for menstruation, and it makes no difference when she saw the blood!?

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: For example,

she came before us at twilight

and said that she does not know when she saw [blood], and it is possible that she saw it at this very twilight!

And there would be

in such a case

eight

immersions

for menstruation, and three for ziva!

She must immerse the eight immersions for her menstruation because on each of the seven nights, beginning with the first night after the twilight at which she came before us, she must immerse, perhaps her seven days of menstruation have now ended.

Likewise, she must be concerned that perhaps she saw [blood] at that twilight at which she came before us. For twilight is an uncertainty, whether day or night; thus it is possible that the sighting was already at night, and this night is the first day of her seven days of menstruation. Therefore she must also immerse on the eighth night, which is the night on which she can become pure from the impurity of menstruation.

And the three immersions for her ziva are:

a. She immerses immediately, during that 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 on that day; and it is possible that now, at twilight, it is still day.

b. She immerses the following morning, because perhaps she saw [blood] at yesterday’s twilight when she arrived, and the sighting was while it was still day; consequently, on the following day she observes it and is obligated to immerse on it.

c. And on the day after that she immerses once more in the morning, because perhaps her sighting at twilight occurred after night had begun, and consequently she observes one day corresponding to one day only on the following day and is obligated to immerse on it.

The Gemara brings the continuation of the beraita:

And if that mistaken woman said:

“I did not see [blood] at all”—

they immerse her fifteen immersions.

[That is: eight immersions for her menstruation at night, and seven immersions for her ziva in the morning.]

Rava said:

Rava was astonished at the final law in the beraita and said about it:

This is the law of

a “

non-law”—

the judges of Galḥei!

This law of the beraita is like the laws judged by the “Galḥei.” In that place called “Galḥei,” they judged improperly and issued unsuitable rulings. For example, concerning the grazing of animals, their practice was to graze in rotation, each person on his day, the animals of all the townspeople together. And this was their ruling [improperly]:

A person

who has an ox

who has an ox is obligated

to graze

the town’s animals

one day.

But one

who does not have an ox

is obligated

to graze

the town’s animals

two days!

And the Gemara relates:

It happened to them

that a person guarded the animals—

an orphan, the son of a widow,

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

He went

that orphan,

slaughtered them, and

slaughtered all the animals.

He said to them:

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

the one who has an ox—

let him take one hide,

the hide of one animal.

The one who does not have an ox—

let him take two hides—

let him take two hides!

They said to him—

what is this?

How does it come about that one who does not have an animal receives twice as many hides as one who has animals?

He said to them: The end of the judgment

that I judged

is like the beginning of the judgment

that you judged!

The beginning of the judgment—is it not that the one who does not have is favored,

since you obligated him to guard for two days.

The end of the judgment likewise,

also in the division of the hides,

the one who does not have—

is favored!

And Rava continues his words:

here too,

the same is the law of fifteen immersions—

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

if she saw during the day,

or with eleven immersions

if she saw at twilight, then

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

does she require fifteen immersions!?

Rather, say it this way:

it is necessary that the reading of the beraita is:

“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 I saw during the days of zivah—

they immerse her fifteen times.

And these fifteen immersions are dependent on the time of her coming before us:

If

she came before us during the day—

we assign her seven

immersions at night

for niddah,

beginning from the first night.