Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah

Folio 10a

'If another three 'onahs have passed over her and then again she observed a discharge it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observed it'. What is the ruling where she again observes discharges at the end of single 'onahs?³  — R. Kahana citing R. Giddal who had it from Rab replied: After the first time it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observed the discharge but after the second time she causes uncleanness retrospectively for twenty-four hours or from her previous examination to her last examination. Whose view does this⁴  represent? That of Rabbi who laid down that if a thing has occurred twice presumption is established.⁵  Read then the final clause:⁶  'If subsequently three 'onahs have passed over her and then she again observed a discharge, it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observed it'. Does not this agree only with the view of R. Eliezer?⁷  And should you reply that it in fact represents the view of Rabbi but that in the case of [an interval of three] 'onahs he holds the same view as R. Eliezer, [it could be retorted]: Does he indeed hold the same view seeing that it was stated, 'After he reminded himself'?⁸  — The fact is that it represents the view of R. Eliezer but⁹  [in respect of presumption in the case of] menstrual periods he is of the same opinion as Rabbi.¹⁰

A stain [discovered by one who had not yet reached the age of menstruation] between her first and second [observation of a discharge] is regarded as clean,¹¹  but as regards one discovered between her second and third observation, Hezekiah ruled: It is unclean, while R. Johanan ruled: It is clean. 'Hezekiah ruled: It is unclean', since, when she observed [a discharge for the third time] she becomes unclean [retrospectively],¹²  her stain also¹³  causes her to be unclean; 'while R. Johanan ruled: It is clean,' for this reason: Since¹⁴  she was not yet confirmed in the condition of presumptive menstruation¹⁵  she cannot be regarded as unclean on account of her stain.

1. After the one discharge at the end of the three 'onahs respectively.
2. Sc. does it suffice for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observes the discharge or is her uncleanness to be retrospective? The reasons for and against are discussed in Rashi.
3. V. p. 63, n. 10.
4. The ruling that after the second time she is already in a condition of presumptive menstruation.
5. Infra 64a, Keth. 43b, Yeb. 26a.
6. The case of one who 'had attained the age of menstruation'.
7. Who ruled in our Mishnah: FOR ANY WOMAN OVER WHOM HAVE PASSED THREE 'ONAHS IT SUFFICES … TO RECKON FROM THE TIME SHE OBSERVED IT.
8. Supra 9b q.v., from which it is evident that only after much hesitation and reluctance did he follow R. Eliezer's view.
9. As regards the difficulty of establishing presumption after two occurrences.
10. Who in all cases holds that two occurrences constitute presumption.
11. I.e., it is not deemed to be due to menstrual blood. Cf. supra 5a.
12. Which shows that her presumptive menstruation begins after her second discharge.
13. Since it appeared at a period of (cf. prev. n.) presumptive menstruation.
14. At the time the stain was discovered.
15. This condition being established retrospectively only after the appearance of a third discharge.

'Ulla stated: R. Johanan who had it from R. Simeon b. Jehozadak⁶  ruled, 'If a young girl who had not yet attained the age of menstruation observed a discharge, her spittle or her midras-uncleanness in the street⁷  after a first discharge and after a second discharge is clean,⁸  and her stain is also clean'; but I do not know [whether the last ruling]⁹  was his own or his Master's.¹⁰  In what practical issue could this matter? — In respect of establishing the ruling¹¹  to be the view of one authority¹¹  against two authorities.¹²  When Rabin and all the other seafarers came¹³  they stated that the ruling was in agreement with the view of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak.

R. Hilkiah b. Tobi ruled: In the case of a young girl who had not yet reached the age of menstruation¹⁴  a discharge of menstrual blood, even if it continued¹⁵  throughout all the seven days,¹⁶  is regarded as a single observation.¹⁷  [Since you say,] 'Even¹⁸  if it continued'¹⁵  it follows that there is no necessity to state that the law is so¹⁹  where there was a break.²⁰  But is not this contrary to reason, seeing that a break would cause the discharge to be like two separate observations? — Rather read: In the case of a young girl who had not yet reached the age of menstruation,¹⁴  a discharge of menstrual blood that²¹  continued throughout all the seven days²²  is regarded as a single observation. R. Shimi b. Hiyya ruled: Dripping is not like an observation.²³  is But does not the woman in fact observe it?²⁴  — Read: It is not like a continuous discharge but like one broken up.²⁵  Does this²⁶  then imply that the continuous discharge²⁷  was one like²⁸  a river?²⁹  — Rather read: It is only like a continuous discharge.³⁰

Our Rabbis taught: It is established that the daughters of Israel before reaching the age of puberty are definitely³¹  in a condition of presumptive cleanness and the [elder] women need not examine them. When they have reached the age of puberty they are definitely³¹  in a condition of presumptive uncleanness and [elder] women must examine them. R. Judah ruled: They must not examine them with their fingers³²  because they might corrupt them,³³  but they dab them with oil within and wipe it off from without and they are thus self examined.³⁴

R. JOSE RULED: FOR A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY etc. A Tanna recited in the presence of R. Eleazar, 'R. Jose ruled: As for a woman in pregnancy and a nursing woman over whom three onahs have passed it suffices for her³⁵  [to reckon her³⁵  period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observation of the flow]'. 'You', the other remarked, 'began with two³⁶  and finished with one;³⁷  do you perchance mean: A pregnant woman who was also³⁸  a nurse,³⁹  and this⁴⁰  teaches us incidentally the law that [in respect of an interval of three 'onahs]⁴¹  the days of a woman's pregnancy supplement those of her nursing and those of her nursing supplement those of her pregnancy? As it was taught: 'The days of her pregnancy supplement those of her nursing and the days of her nursing supplement those of her pregnancy. In what manner? If there was a break⁴²  of two 'onahs during her pregnancy and of one during her nursing, or of two during her nursing and one during her pregnancy, or of one and a half during her pregnancy and one and a half during her nursing, they are all combined into a series of three 'onahs'.⁴³  One can well understand the ruling that 'the days of her pregnancy supplement those of her nursing' since this is possible where a woman became pregnant while she was still continuing her nursing. But how is it possible that 'the days of her nursing⁴⁴  supplement those of her pregnancy'?⁴⁵  — If you wish I might reply: This is possible in the case of a dry birth.⁴⁶  And if you prefer I might reply: Menstrual blood is one thing and birth blood is another thing.⁴⁷  And if you prefer I might reply: Read the first clause only.⁴⁸

OF WHAT DID THEY SPEAK WHEN THEY LAID DOWN THAT IT SUFFICES [FOR THEM TO RECKON] THEIR [PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME [OF THEIR DISCOVERY OF THE FLOW]'? etc. Rab stated: This⁴⁹  refers to all of them,⁵⁰  and Samuel stated: This⁴⁹  was learnt only in respect of a virgin⁵¹  and an old woman⁵²  but for pregnant or nursing women⁵³  it suffices for them, throughout all the days of their pregnancy and throughout all the days of their nursing respectively to reckon their uncleanness from the time of their observing a flow. In the same manner R. Simeon b. Lakish stated: This⁵⁴  refers to all of them; while R. Johanan stated: This was learnt only in respect of a virgin and an old woman but for pregnant or nursing women it suffices throughout all the days of their pregnancy and throughout all the days of their nursing respectively to reckon their uncleanness from the time of their observing the flow. This dispute⁵⁵  is analogous to one between Tannas. [For it was taught]: If pregnant or nursing women were

1. Against Hezekiah.
2. In the case of the latter the blood is assumed to be that of the wound caused by a first intercourse which is exempt from the laws of uncleanness. If on the following day, however, the colour of the discharge changed the woman becomes unclean, but a bloodstain discovered after intercourse (cf. infra 60a) is nevertheless clean. Why then should a stain in the former case be unclean on account of the subsequent discharge? (V. Tosaf.).
3. The discharge of the wound (cf. prev. n.).
4. So that there is a double reason why the stain should be regarded as clean. For (a) it might be attributed to blood that issued from a foreign body and (b) even if it is to be attributed to blood of the woman's own body that blood might have been the secretion of the wound (v. Tosaf.).
5. And if the stain is due to blood that originated from the woman's body it could not be other than menstrual which causes uncleanness.
6. This is not the scholar of the same name mentioned in Sanh. 26a who was spoken of disparagingly in the presence of R. Johanan (R. Tam.). The one here mentioned was a teacher of R. Johanan whose honour the latter would have protected had anything derogatory been said against him in his presence.
7. I.e., if it was discovered in a public place and it is uncertain whether the girl was a menstruant at that time.
8. As presumptive menstruation had not yet been established uncleanness cannot be imposed in a doubtful case (cf. prev. n.).
9. Concerning the stain.
10. R. Simeon b. Jehozadak's.
11. Of Hezekiah (supra 10a).
12. R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Jehozadak; and the law would accordingly be in agreement with the majority. If R. Johanan, however, gave the ruling in his own name alone Hezekiah is opposed by one authority only and the law need not necessarily be against him.
13. From Palestine to Babylon.
14. Lit., 'whose time to see (the menses) has not arrived'.
15. Lit., 'she pours'.
16. The normal period of menstruation.
17. Sc. until there were two more observations her period of uncleanness does not begin retrospectively but from the time she observes the discharge.
18. Emphasis on this word.
19. That the discharge 'throughout all the seven days is regarded as a single observation'.
20. Though it was followed by a renewal of the discharge.
21. Omitting 'even' (cf. supra n. 9) used in the first version supra.
22. The normal period of menstruation.
23. Lit., 'one who drips is not like one who sees'. This is now assumed to mean that dripping is not regarded even as a single observation.
24. The dripping. How then can it be maintained that it is not regarded even as one observation (cf. prev. n.)?
25. I.e., like a number of separate observations. By the time the dripping ceases completely the woman is deemed to be in a confirmed condition of presumptive menstruation and any subsequent discharge causes her uncleanness to be retrospective.
26. The distinction drawn between 'dripping' and a 'continual discharge'.
27. Since it is regarded as a single observation.
28. Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'also'.
29. Sc. without a stop. But is this likely? No woman surely could survive a discharge of blood that was continuous for seven days.
30. It is regarded as one observation and the girl is not subject to retrospective uncleanness before she has experienced two more menstrual discharges.
31. Lit., 'behold they'.
32. Lit., 'with the hand'.
33. By teaching them unnatural gratification (Jast.). Aliter: They might injure them with their nails (Rashi).
34. Since at puberty an application of oil induces the menstrual flow.
35. The use of the sing. for the plural is discussed presently.
36. 'A woman in pregnancy and a nursing woman'.
37. By using the sing. (cf. prev. n. but one).
38. Rendering the waw as 'who' instead of 'and'.
39. A woman, for instance, (v. infra) who became pregnant while she was still nursing her last-born child.
40. Since the same law applies also to one who is pregnant only.
41. Which exempts a woman from retrospective uncleanness.
42. In the menses.
43. Infra 36a.
44. Between which and pregnancy there must be the childbirth and consequent bleeding.
45. Would not the bleeding at childbirth interrupt the bloodless interval of the three 'onahs?
46. So that there is no bleeding (cf. prev. n. but one) to interrupt the three 'onahs.
47. I.e., the latter does not in any way interrupt the interval of the former.
48. Lit., 'one', viz., 'the days of her pregnancy supplement those of her nursing', omitting the final clause, 'the days of her nursing … pregnancy'.
49. The statement just quoted the conclusion of which is that 'AT A SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATION SHE CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY-FOUR HOURS'.
50. Sc. the four classes enumerated earlier in our Mishnah.
51. Who, after two observations, may well be deemed to have reached the age of presumptive menstruation.
52. Who also, since after the interruption she had her menses twice, may be assumed to be reverting to her former status of presumptive menstruation while the interruption might be attributed to a mere delay in the appearance of the discharge.
53. Whose menstrual flow must normally cease and any discharge of blood on whose part, however often that may occur (cf. Tosaf.), can only be regarded as an irregular and passing phase.
54. For notes on the statements of R. Simeon b. Lakish and R. Johanan cf. those on the statements of Rab and Samuel supra.
55. Between the Amoras mentioned regarding a pregnant and a nursing woman.