Niddah 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:

Anyone whom they call “mother,” “mother”

when they intend “grandmother”

and she is not embarrassed.

But

Rabbi Zeira and Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak

disagreed about this matter:

One said—

anyone who does not object

to being called “mother, mother.”

And one said—

anyone who is not embarrassed by this.

What is the practical difference between them?

The practical difference between them is

one who is embarrassed but does not object

and the opposite case is not possible, since whenever she objects, it is necessarily because she is embarrassed by the matter.

The Gemara returns to explain what an “interval” is, from which the three intervals are composed:

And how long

is

an interval?

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: “An average interval”

is

thirty days!

And Rava said that Rav Ḥisda

said: “An average interval” is

twenty days!

They do not disagree

since according to both of them, a woman’s practice is to see menstrual blood every thirty days, and this period of thirty days is called an “average interval.”

Rather,

one master,

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia,

counts

within the count of thirty days the ten

days

of

impurity

that may occur—namely, the seven days of niddah and the three days of zivah, if she becomes a zavah—as well as

the days

of

purity

that remain, which are twenty days out of the thirty.

And the other master,

Rav Ḥisda,

does not count

the ten

days

of

impurity

in his calculation. Therefore, in his calculation he said “twenty days,” referring to the twenty days of purity within the “average interval,” apart from the ten days of impurity; together, however, they total thirty days.

The Sages taught: If an elderly woman has gone through three intervals

and saw blood, since she is one whose blood has ceased to flow,

she is judged only from the time she saw it!

And if

another

time

three intervals passed over her, and she saw blood,

even then

she is judged only from the time she saw it,

since she still retains the presumptive status of one whose blood has ceased to flow.

But if

another

time [the third time]

three intervals passed over her, and she saw blood, she is like all women,

for she has returned to being one who sees blood; therefore

she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period and from examination to examination.

The beraita adds another passage, which the Gemara discusses and explains in several ways.

And not that she intended

her three sightings to occur at ninety-day intervals,

but even if she decreased and increased

the intervals—for example, if she saw the first time after ninety-three days, the second time after ninety-two days, and the third time after ninety-one days, or conversely, if she saw the first time after ninety-one days, the second time after ninety-two days, and the third time after ninety-three days—she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period.

The Gemara asks: How can one say

“even if she decreased

she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period,” the implication being

“it goes without saying”

that if she

intended

her three sightings for the ninetieth day, she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period?

But

on the contrary, if she intended

her sightings, then

she established a fixed cycle,

and if so,

she is judged only from the time she saw it!?

And if you would say

that the beraita is in accordance with

the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Dosa, saying

that even

a woman who has a fixed cycle imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period,

this still does not explain the wording of the beraita.

For there is a difficulty:

it should have said the opposite.

Let it say: “And not only if she decreased and increased

does she impart impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period, because she has no fixed cycle,

but even if she intended

her sightings for the ninetieth day, she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period,” in accordance with the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Dosa and do not accept the rule that “a woman who has a fixed cycle is judged only from the time she saw it”!

The Gemara answers in two different ways:

A.

Teach

in the beraita:

“Not only if she decreased and increased, but even if she intended

her sightings, she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period”; and the beraita is in accordance with the Rabbis, not Rabbi Dosa.

B.

And if you wish, say: This is what it says: “And not that she intended her sightings, but that she decreased or increased,”

and therefore she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period.

But

if she

intended

her sightings,

she established a fixed cycle, and she is judged only from the time she saw it! And whose

beraita is this?

It is Rabbi Dosa’s!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Every woman,

even one who is not close to old age,

for whom three intervals have passed

without her seeing blood—

she is judged only from the time she saw it. It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer said to the Sages:

There was an incident involving a certain young woman in Hitalu

[a place name]

who stopped

seeing blood

for three intervals, and the case came before the Sages, who said: “She is judged only from the time she saw it!”

They said to him: A time of distress is not proof!

The Gemara asks:

What is meant by “a time of distress,”

during which they did not decree retroactive impurity for the previous twenty-four-hour period in such a case?

Some say: There were years of famine,

and the Sages were concerned about the loss of pure objects.

And some say: There were many pure objects to be prepared,

for she had come into contact with many pure objects and the loss would have been great,

and the Rabbis were concerned about the loss of the pure objects.

The Sages taught: It happened that Rabbi acted in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

After Rabbi remembered

that this ruling of his was appropriate only according to Rabbi Eliezer,

he said

Rabbi:

Rabbi Eliezer is worthy of being relied upon in a time of distress!

The Gemara asks:

What is meant by

“after Rabbi remembered

Rabbi”?

If we say, after he remembered

that it had been decided

that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer but with the Rabbis,

then

how could he act in accordance with his opinion in a time of distress,

contrary to the law?

Rather, it had not been stated

explicitly

that the halakha is not like this master,

the Rabbis,

nor like that master,

Rabbi Eliezer.

And what is meant by “after he remembered”?

After he remembered that it was not a single individual who disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer,

Rabbi Eliezer,

but that many disagreed with him,

and it would ordinarily be proper to decide in accordance with the majority in their dispute with Rabbi Eliezer. Therefore

Rabbi said

Rabbi:

Rabbi Eliezer is worthy of being relied upon in a time of distress,

for in a pressing circumstance one may rule in accordance with an individual opinion as long as the halakha has not been decided and established in accordance with the majority.

The Sages taught: A young girl,

who is less than twelve years old,

whose time to see has not arrived, and who saw blood

nevertheless:

On the

first time

that she saw,

she is judged only from the time she saw it!

For she is one whose blood has ceased to flow, since her time to see has not arrived.

And even on the

second time,

she is judged only from the time she saw it!

This distinguishes her from other women whose blood has ceased to flow, who return to being women who see blood on the second occasion, because she is a young girl whose time has not yet arrived.

Only on the

third occasion

is she like all women, and she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period and from examination to examination.

This law of the beraita applies only according to Rabbi, who holds that a presumptive status is established after two occurrences. Accordingly, after the first two sightings she has acquired the presumptive status of one who sees, and she imparts impurity on the third occasion retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period; but according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, three occurrences are required to remove her from the status of a young girl, and she imparts impurity retroactively only on the fourth occasion.

The beraita continues by explaining the law of this young girl who has acquired the laws of an adult: if

three intervals pass over her

—that is, ninety days—without her seeing blood, she returns to the laws of a young girl as at first. Therefore, if she again

saw

after the ninety days,

she is judged only from the time she saw it,

like a young girl who saw blood.

And

even if this happened once more, so that

another three intervals passed over her

without her seeing, and on the ninetieth day she

saw—

she is judged only from the time she saw it.

A major innovation is stated in this law.

The beraita follows Rabbi, who holds that a presumptive status is established after two occurrences. Here, there were two sightings separated by ninety days, and it follows that she established a new fixed cycle with an interval of ninety days. If so, we should not treat the second sight, after the ninety days, as the sight of a young girl; on the contrary, we should regard it as the establishment of a fixed cycle of ninety days and say that this young girl did not return to her previous state as a young girl, but merely changed her cycle to a new cycle with an interval of ninety days. The beraita therefore teaches that nevertheless, since this concerns a young girl whose time to see has not yet arrived, we say that she returned to her state as a young girl, and therefore she is judged only from the time she saw it even on the second sight. But if, on the third occasion,

another three intervals passed over her, and she saw—

she is like all women,

for she has once again ceased to be a young girl,

and she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period and from examination to examination.

The beraita continues by explaining the law of an ordinary young girl who matured without seeing blood during her youth, and who is now an ordinary “virgin of blood”:

And when her time to see arrived

[when she became twelve years old]:

The first time—

she is judged only from the time she saw it!

For until then she had retained the presumptive status of one whose blood had ceased to flow.

The

second time—

she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four-hour period and from examination to examination,

since her time to see had arrived, and she is like all those whose blood had ceased to flow, who on the second sight already return to being like all women.

If three intervals pass over her,

after she acquired the presumptive status of one who sees in adulthood,

three intervals

during which she did not see blood,

and she saw

after ninety days—

she is judged only from the time she saw it

[and this law applies only according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that even if she is not close to old age, as long as she did not see for three intervals, she is one whose blood has ceased to flow and is judged only from the time she saw it].

The Master said:

We learned in the preceding beraita that if a young girl saw three times, and after she had been established as one who sees,

three seasons passed over her

without her seeing during them, then the next time she sees—

her impurity dates only from that time.

This halakha can be interpreted in two ways:

A. It follows only Rabbi Eliezer. It is like the case of any woman for whom three seasons passed, for according to Rabbi Eliezer, even in her youth she is considered to have ceased seeing blood, and her impurity dates only from that time.

B. This is a special law concerning a young girl. It follows the view of everyone, that after ninety days she returns to her original status, according to the law of one whose time to see has not yet arrived.

In light of this, the Gemara raises a dilemma: