Niddah 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

And if you say

that a wind pregnancy is considered a complete pregnancy, then likewise a wind birth

is a proper birth.

And if so, why does she become a zava? For the blood that flows because of

difficulty immediately preceding birth—

the Torah has declared her pure!?

Rav Pappa said:

In fact, a wind birth is not considered a birth, and likewise a wind pregnancy is not considered a pregnancy. And there is no difficulty with the law of the beraita: Why do we not render the pure items impure retroactively after it became clear that this was a wind pregnancy? Because

set aside the impurity extending from one time to the next—

which is only an impurity

by rabbinic enactment;

therefore, they were lenient in this matter and treated a wind pregnancy as an ordinary pregnancy.

Rav Pappa said:

One must distinguish between a wind pregnancy and a wind birth. Although a wind is not a fetus, and a woman who gives birth to it while experiencing blood due to difficulty is called a zava, nevertheless, with regard to the law of the impurity extending from one time to the next that applies to a menstruating woman, we say that she is judged only from the time she discovers the blood.

The reason for this matter is:

Is this not the reason

in the case of an ordinary pregnant woman, that she is judged only from the time she discovers the blood,

but because her head weighs heavily upon her and her limbs weigh heavily upon her

and therefore her blood has ceased to flow? And if so,

here too,

in the case of a wind pregnancy,

her head and limbs weigh heavily upon her,

and her blood has ceased to flow; therefore, as a matter of basic law, she is judged only from the time she discovers the blood.

Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: She saw

blood

and afterward,

immediately after she saw it,

her pregnancy became discernible—

what is the law?

Do we say,

since at the time she saw the blood her pregnancy was not discernible, she becomes impure

retroactively,

or perhaps, since it was immediately prior to it,

the discernment of the pregnancy,

that she saw the blood, she does not become impure

retroactively, but is judged only from the time she discovers the blood?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira to Rabbi Yirmeya:

Is this not the reason

in the case of a pregnant woman

but because her head weighs heavily upon her and her limbs weigh heavily upon her?

But in the case of this woman, who saw blood before her pregnancy became discernible, although the sighting occurred immediately before it, ultimately,

at the time she saw the blood—

her head did not weigh heavily upon her and her limbs did not weigh heavily upon her!

Every woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle is obligated to examine herself at the time of her cycle; if she did not examine herself, she has the presumptive status of being impure as a matter of uncertainty. Later in the Gemara, the Sages disagree whether the obligation to examine herself [and the impurity as a matter of uncertainty if she did not examine herself] is by Torah law or by rabbinic enactment.

The novel point in this obligation to examine herself is that the woman cannot rely on the fact that she did not feel anything and did not see blood. Rather, she is obligated to examine herself, whether by Torah law or by rabbinic enactment, and if she did not examine herself, she is impure as a matter of uncertainty.

An old man asked Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Her fixed cycle arrived during her pregnancy,

after her pregnancy had become discernible,

and she did not examine herself

in the examination required at the time of her cycle—

what is the law?

The old man added and explained his question:

This matter that

I am asking

concerns only

the view of the one who says, “fixed cycles are by Torah law” [

that the obligation to examine herself at the time of the cycle, as well as the impurity as a matter of uncertainty if she did not examine herself, are by Torah law].

And this is what

I am asking:

What is the law? Since fixed cycles are by Torah law,

an examination is required even during her pregnancy, and since she did not examine herself, she is impure as a matter of uncertainty.

Or perhaps, since her blood has ceased to flow

because she is pregnant,

she does not require an examination at all?

But according to the one who says that fixed cycles are rabbinic, and by Torah law she may rely on the fact that she did not feel anything and did not see blood at the time of her cycle, it is obvious that in the case of a pregnant woman, whose blood has ceased to flow, the Sages did not initially require an examination.

The basis of the old man’s question is: To what extent can one rely on the presumption that a pregnant woman is considered one whose blood has ceased to flow, so that we can waive the Torah obligation to examine herself at the time of her cycle?

Rabbi Zeira said to him,

the old man:

You have learned it—

the answer to this question, for the presumption that her blood has ceased to flow is effective to prevent the Torah obligation to examine herself.

As we learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says:

A woman who has a fixed cycle,

if she was in hiding and the time of her cycle arrived and she did not examine herself,

she is

pure.

Because

the

fear

that she experiences while in hiding

causes the blood to cease flowing.

She may rely on the presumption that her blood has ceased to flow without examining herself.

Rabbi Zeira proves that this presumption is effective even according to the one who says that the obligation to examine herself is by Torah law:

The reason is that there is fear,

which is why we declared her pure without an examination.

But if there is no fear, and her cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is impure,

and an examination afterward will not help her, since she did not examine herself at the time of the obligation, at the time of her cycle. But according to the one who says that fixed cycles are rabbinic, she may examine herself even afterward, and if she finds herself pure afterward, she is pure.

Thus,

Rabbi Meir holds that

the menstrual cycles are mandated by Torah law.

And despite the fact that the obligation to examine is mandated by Torah law,

since there is anxiety,

the

blood is

presumed to have

withdrawn,

and one relies on this presumption in place of an examination mandated by Torah law,

and an examination is not required.

If so,

here too,

in the case of a pregnant woman, since

her blood is presumed to have withdrawn,

it is possible to rely on this presumption

and an examination is not required

in order to render her pure.

We learned in the Mishna: “A nursing woman”—

“until she weans [her child]. And so on.”

The Sages taught: If a nursing woman’s child dies within twenty-four months

[which is the period of nursing,]

she is like all other women, and she renders ritually impure retroactively for a period of twenty-four hours and from examination to examination,

because the sighting of blood depends not on the period of nursing but on actual nursing.

Therefore, if she was nursing him continuously

and continued nursing for

four or five years—

“her time is sufficient”; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon say: “Their time is sufficient”

for nursing women

throughout the entire twenty-four months,

even if they stopped nursing in the middle of that period. For the reason that they do not see blood is the pain of childbirth, which causes their limbs to become disjointed, and not nursing.

Therefore, if she nursed him for four or five years,

and she saw blood after twenty-four months, she

renders impure retroactively for a period of twenty-four hours and from examination to examination.

The Gemara explains the reasoning of the tanna’im who dispute one another in the beraita:

If you wish to say, according to Rabbi Meir—

the blood

of menstruation, as a result of nursing,

becomes spoiled and is transformed into milk,

and therefore everything depends on nursing.

But

according to Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon,

the reason that a nursing woman does not see blood is

that her limbs become disjointed

from the childbirth,

and her vitality

[that is, her blood]

does not return until twenty-four months,

whether or not she is nursing.

The Gemara explains the wording of the beraita: “

Therefore,” according to Rabbi Meir—

why do I need it?

Since Rabbi Meir said that if she stopped nursing within twenty-four months the blood returns, it is evident that the matter depends solely on actual nursing. If so, it is obvious that the same applies if she continues nursing after twenty-four months: nursing prevents the sighting of blood, since according to Rabbi Meir the twenty-four-month period is entirely irrelevant. If so, what is the meaning of “therefore”?

The Gemara answers that the word “therefore” in Rabbi Meir’s statement is only

because of “

therefore”

of Rabbi Yosei,

as the tanna wished to employ similar wording in both statements.

And “therefore” according to Rabbi Yosei—

why do I need it?

Since the matter depends solely on the twenty-four months after childbirth, because during that period her limbs become disjointed, it is obvious that afterward she will see blood, even if she continues nursing.

Lest you say that Rabbi Yosei holds both reasons,

that the blood becomes spoiled and is transformed into milk, as well as that “her limbs become disjointed,” and therefore, if she continues nursing after twenty-four months, she will not see blood because the blood becomes spoiled and is transformed into milk,

it teaches us “therefore” according to Rabbi Yosei: the reason is solely that her limbs become disjointed. Therefore, even if she continues nursing after twenty-four months, nursing will not prevent the return of her blood.

“therefore” of Rabbi Yosei: the reason is only that her limbs are dislocated. Therefore, even if she continues nursing after twenty-four months, the nursing will not prevent the return of her blood.

It was likewise taught:

as the Gemara explained the reasoning of the tanna’im who dispute one another:

“The blood becomes spoiled and is transformed into milk”—

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: “Her limbs become disjointed, and her vitality does not return to her until twenty-four months.”

Rabbi Ela'i said: “What is the reason

for this view,

of Rabbi Meir?”

As it is written: “Who can produce what is pure from what is impure—

is it not the One?” [that is: Who can transform something impure, such as menstrual blood, into something pure, such as milk, if not God, who is the One of the universe?]

And

And the Sages,

how do they interpret this verse?

Rabbi Yohanan said: “This is semen, which is

itself

impure, but the

person

created from it—

is pure.”

And Rabbi Elazar says: “These are the waters of the purification rite,

mixed with the ashes of the red heifer.

The one who sprinkles

the water

and the one upon whom the water is sprinkled

the water

are pure,

whereas

one who touches

the water

is impure.”

And we raised an objection:

But

if

the one who sprinkles

the waters of purification is

pure, as it is written: “And the one who sprinkles the waters of purification—

shall launder his garments,”

which implies that he and his garments become impure?

And we answer:

What does “the one who sprinkles”

in the verse mean?

One who touches!

And we challenge this:

But it is written

also

“the one who sprinkles,” and it is written

also

“one who touches,”

which proves that the one who sprinkles is not the one who touches, but that they are two separate people?

Furthermore,

the verse explicitly distinguishes between the law of the one who sprinkles and that of the one who touches,

in that

the

one who sprinkles must launder

his garments, whereas the

one who touches does not require the laundering of

garments; rather, he himself remains impure until evening. How, then, can it be said that “the one who sprinkles” in the verse refers to one who touches?

And we answer:

Rather, what does “the one who sprinkles”

whom the Torah says becomes impure mean? It means one who

carries

the waters of purification. But one who sprinkles the waters of purification on the impure person does not become impure.

But if so, the Gemara asks:

Let the verse write, “

and

one who carries

the waters of purification shall launder his garments.” Why did the verse say “the one who sprinkles”?

And we answer: The fact that the verse says “the one who sprinkles”

teaches us

that the carrier of the waters of purification does not become impure unless

he carries

[that is, carries them]

in the measure required for sprinkling.

And we challenge this:

This works according to the one who says, “Sprinkling requires a measure,”

and therefore the carrier does not become impure until he carries the amount required for sprinkling.

But according to the one who says

“sprinkling does not require a measure,”

what can be said?

And we answer:

Even according to the one who says “

sprinkling does not require a measure,”

that statement applies

to the fact that there is no required measure of the water used for sprinkling

on the back of the person

[being purified].

But in a vessel,

the vessel from which the water is sprinkled,

a measure is required!

[Therefore, if that measure is lacking, the person carrying the water remains pure.]

As we learned in a Mishna: “How much water must there be

in the vessel

for it to contain ‘the amount required for sprinkling’?”

Enough for him to immerse

[so that he can immerse in the water the]

heads

of the

stalks

of the hyssop [by means of which they would sprinkle the impure person to purify him],

and sprinkle!

And this is

with regard to this matter—that the one who sprinkles and the one upon whom the water is sprinkled are pure, whereas one who touches the water is impure—

as Solomon said: “

I said:

I will become wise,

but

it,

the wisdom concealed in the laws of the waters of purification,

is far from me!”

We learned in the Mishna:

“Who is an old woman? Any woman upon whom three periods have passed close to her old age!”

And we raised an objection:

What are the circumstances?

When is the period of

“close to her old age”? Rav Yehuda said: “Any woman about whom her companions say: ‘She is an old woman.’”