Niddah 9b — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

all whom they call “mother,” “mother,” [

when their intention is “grandmother”]

and she is not ashamed.

But

Rabbi Zeira and Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak

disagreed about this:

One said—

any woman who does not object

to being called “mother, mother.”

And one said—

any woman who is not ashamed of this.

What is the difference between them?

There is a difference between them in the case of a woman who is

ashamed but does not object [

and the reverse is impossible, for anyone who objects does so precisely because she is ashamed of the matter].

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

And how long

is it

an interval?

Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: “An average interval”.

That is

thirty days!

And Rava said in the name of Rav Chisda: “An average interval,”

which is

twenty days!

And they do not disagree [

for according to both of them, it is the way of a woman to see from thirty days to thirty days, and this period of thirty days is called “an average interval”].

Rather,

the Master,

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia,

counts

within the count of thirty days also the ten

days

of

impurity

that are possible [that is, seven days of niddah and three days of zivah, if she becomes a zavah], and also the

days

of

purity

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

And the Master,

Rav Chisda,

does not count

in his count the ten

days

of

impurity,

and therefore he said in his count, “twenty days”; his intention is to the twenty days of purity within the “average interval,” apart from the ten days of impurity, but together they are thirty days.

The Sages taught: An elderly woman over whom three intervals passed

and she saw, since she is “one from whom blood has ceased”—

her present time is sufficient!

And if

again

once

three intervals passed over her, and she saw,

even then

her present time is sufficient,

for she is still presumed to be “one from whom blood has ceased.”

But if

again

a time [the third time]!

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

for she returned to being one who sees blood, and therefore she

imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four hours and from examination to examination. [

And the beraita adds another section, which the Gemara discusses and explains in several ways].

And not that she directed

her three sightings to ninety days,

but even if she shortened and lengthened [

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

And we raised it: How can one say

“even if she shortened

she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four hours,” whose meaning is—

and it is not necessary

if she

directed

her three sightings to the ninetieth day, that she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four hours!

But

on the contrary, when she directed

her sightings, she

established a menstrual cycle for herself,

and if so,

her present time is sufficient!?

And if you would say

that the beraita is according to

the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Dosa, who say

that even

a woman who has a menstrual cycle imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four hours,

this still does not explain the wording of the beraita.

For it is difficult: should it not

have said the opposite?

And let it say: “And not only if she shortened and lengthened

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

but even if she directed

her sightings to the ninetieth day, she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four hours, according to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Dosa, and do not accept the law, “A woman who has a menstrual cycle—her present time is sufficient”?!

The Gemara answers in two distinct ways:

A.

Teach

in the beraita:

“Not only if she shortened and lengthened, but even if she directed

her sightings, she imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four hours,” and the beraita is according to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Dosa.

B.

And if you wish, say: This is what it says: “And not that she directed her sightings, but that she shortened or lengthened,”

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

But

if

she directed

her sightings, she

established a menstrual cycle for herself, and her present time is sufficient! And who is

this beraita according to?

It is Rabbi Dosa! We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Every woman,

even if she is not close to old age,

over whom three intervals passed

during which she did not see

—

her present time is sufficient. It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer said to the Sages—

“An incident occurred involving a certain young girl in Hittelu [

a place-name]

who stopped

seeing

for three intervals, and the incident came before the Sages, and they said: ‘Her present time is sufficient!’”

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

And we raised it:

What is “a time of distress,”

during which they did not decree retroactive impurity from the previous twenty-four hours in such a case?

Some say: It was years of famine,

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

And some say: There were many pure items to be dealt with, for she had touched many pure items and the loss was great,

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

The Sages taught: An incident occurred, and Rabbi acted in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

After Rabbi remembered

that this ruling of his accorded only with the words of Rabbi Eliezer,

he

said

Rabbi:

“Rabbi Eliezer is sufficient to rely upon in a time of distress!”

And we raised it:

What is

“after Rabbi remembered

Rabbi”?

If you say, after he remembered

that it had been decided

that the halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer but according to the Rabbis.

If so—

in a time of distress, how did he act according to him,

contrary to the law?

Rather, it was not stated

explicitly

“the halakha is not according to the Master,”

the Sages,

“and not according to the Master,”

Rabbi Eliezer.

And what is “after he remembered”—

after he remembered that it was not a single individual who disagreed with him

Rabbi Eliezer,

but many disagreed with him,

and it is proper to decide according to the majority in their disagreement with Rabbi Eliezer. Therefore

Rabbi

said—

“Rabbi Eliezer is sufficient to rely upon in a time of distress,”

for in a place of distress it is possible to rule according to an individual as long as the halakha has not been decided and established according to the majority.

The Sages taught: A young girl,

who is younger than twelve years,

whose time to see has not arrived, and she saw

nevertheless:

On the

first time

that she saw—

her present time is sufficient!

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

And even on the

second time—

her present time is sufficient!

And in this she differs from the other women from whom blood has ceased, who return to being women who see on the second time, because she is a young girl whose time has not yet arrived.

And only on the

third time—

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

And this law of the beraita is only according to Rabbi, for according to him a presumption is established after two times; therefore, on the first two occasions she was established as one who sees, and she imparts impurity retroactively on the third occasion. But according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, three times are required to remove her from the category of a young girl, and only on the fourth occasion does she impart impurity retroactively] .

The beraita continues to explain the law of this young girl who had received the laws of an adult: if three intervals passed over her

which are ninety days, during which she did not see blood, she returns to the laws of a young girl as at first. Therefore, if she again

saw

after the ninety days—

her present time is sufficient

as with a young girl who saw blood.

And even if this occurred again, when

three intervals again passed over her

without seeing, and on the ninetieth day she

saw—

her present time is sufficient.

A great novelty is stated in this law. For the beraita follows Rabbi, according to whom a presumption is established after two occurrences. Here there were two sightings separated by ninety days, and it follows that she establishes through them a new cycle with an interval of ninety days. If so, we need not regard the second sighting after ninety days as the sighting of a young girl; on the contrary, we should attribute it to the establishment of a ninety-day cycle, and say that this young girl did not return to her former state as a young girl, but merely changed her cycle to a new cycle with an interval of ninety days. It follows that the beraita teaches as a novelty that nevertheless, since it concerns a young girl whose time has not yet arrived, we say that she returned to her state as a young girl; therefore her present time is sufficient even with the second sighting. But if it occurred on the third occasion that

three intervals again passed over her, and she saw—she

is like all women,

for she ceased once again to be a young girl,

and imparts impurity retroactively from the previous twenty-four hours and from examination to examination.

The beraita continues by explaining the law of an ordinary young girl who grew up, who did not see in her youth and is now an ordinary “virgin of blood”:

And when her time to see arrived [

when she became twelve years old]:

The first time—

her present time is sufficient!

For until now she had been presumed to be one from whom blood had ceased.

The

second time—

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

for her time to see has arrived, and she is like all those “from whom blood has ceased,” who on the second sighting already return to being like all women.

Three intervals passed over her, after she became established as one who sees in her adulthood, three intervals

she renders impure retroactively from the previous twenty-four hours and from examination to examination,

since she has reached the age at which she is expected to see blood, and she is like all women presumed not to see menstrual blood, who at the second sighting return to being like all other women.

during which she did not see,

and she saw

after ninety days—

her present time is sufficient [

and this law is 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 from whom blood has ceased and her present time is sufficient].

after ninety days—

her present time is sufficient

and this law follows only the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that even if she is not close to menopause, as long as three intervals passed without her seeing blood, she is presumed not to see menstrual blood, and her present time is sufficient].

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 again

three intervals passed over her

during which she did not see, then the next time she sees

her hour suffices.

This ruling can be interpreted in two ways:

a. It applies only according to Rabbi Eliezer. For she is like any woman upon whom three intervals passed, such that according to Rabbi Eliezer, even in her youth, she becomes one whose blood has ceased, and her hour suffices.

b. This is a special law concerning a young girl. And it accords with everyone, for after ninety days she returns to her original status, like one whose time to see has not yet arrived.

In light of this, the Gemara is uncertain: