Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah

Folio 68a

Raba delivered the following discourse: A woman may wash her head on the Sabbath eve⁴  and perform immersion at the termination of the Sabbath.⁵  Said R. Papa to Raba: But did not Rabin send in his letter the message that 'a woman must not wash her head on the Sabbath eve and perform immersion at the termination of the Sabbath'? And, furthermore, is it not surprising to yourself that a woman should be allowed to⁶  wash her head in the day time and perform immersion at night seeing that it is required that immersion should follow immediately after the washing of the head, which is not the case here? Raba subsequently appointed an amora⁷  in connection with this matter and delivered the following discourse: The statement I made to you is an erroneous one,⁸  but in fact it was this that was reported in the name of R. Johanan, 'A woman may not wash her head on the Sabbath eve and perform immersion at the termination of the Sabbath'; and, furthermore, it would be surprising that a woman should be allowed to⁶  wash her head in the day time and perform immersion at night seeing that it is required that immersion should closely follow the washing of the head, which would not be the case here. But the law is that a woman may wash her head in the day time and perform immersion at night. And the law is that a woman may wash her head at night only.⁹  But does not a contradiction arise between the one law and the other? — There is no contradiction: The former refers to a case where washing in the day time is possible while the latter refers to one where this is impossible.¹⁰

MISHNAH. IF A MENSTRUANT EXAMINED HERSELF ON THE SEVENTH DAY¹¹  IN THE MORNING AND FOUND HERSELF TO BE CLEAN, AND AT TWILIGHT¹²  SHE DID NOT ASCERTAIN HER SEPARATION,¹³  AND AFTER SOME DAYS SHE EXAMINED HERSELF AND FOUND THAT SHE WAS UNCLEAN, BEHOLD SHE IS¹⁴  IN A PRESUMPTIVE STATE OF CLEANNESS.¹⁵  IF SHE EXAMINED HERSELF ON THE SEVENTH DAY¹⁶  IN THE MORNING AND FOUND THAT SHE WAS UNCLEAN, AND AT TWILIGHT¹⁷  SHE DID NOT ASCERTAIN HER SEPARATION,¹³  AND AFTER A TIME SHE EXAMINED HERSELF AND FOUND THAT SHE WAS CLEAN, BEHOLD SHE IS¹⁴  IN A PRESUMPTIVE STATE OF UNCLEANNESS.¹⁸  SHE¹⁹  CONVEYS, HOWEVER, UNCLEANNESS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS RETROSPECTIVELY OR DURING THE TIME BETWEEN THE LAST AND THE PREVIOUS EXAMINATION, BUT IF SHE HAD A SETTLED PERIOD, IT SUFFICES FOR HER TO BE DEEMED UNCLEAN FROM THE TIME OF HER DISCHARGE. R.²⁰  JUDAH RULED: ANY WOMAN WHO DID NOT,²¹  FOLLOWING THE AFTERNOON, ASCERTAIN HER SEPARATION TO A STATE OF CLEANNESS IS REGARDED AS BEING IN A PRESUMPTIVE STATE OF UNCLEANNESS.²²  BUT THE SAGES RULED: EVEN IF SHE EXAMINED HERSELF ON THE SECOND DAY OF HER MENSTRUATION AND FOUND THAT SHE WAS CLEAN, AND AT TWILIGHT SHE DID NOT ASCERTAIN HER SEPARATION, AND AFTER A TIME SHE EXAMINED HERSELF AND FOUND THAT SHE WAS UNCLEAN, SHE IS REGARDED AS BEING IN A PRESUMPTIVE STATE OF CLEANNESS.²³

GEMARA. It was stated: Rab ruled: She²⁴  is a certain zabah, but Levi ruled: She is a doubtful zabah. What do they refer to? If it be suggested: To the first clause [it could be objected]: Was it not stated, BEHOLD SHE IS IN A PRESUMPTIVE STATE OF CLEANNESS? If, on the other hand, they refer²⁵  to the final clause,²⁶  one can well see the logic of regarding the woman²⁷  as a doubtful zabah,²⁸  but why also²⁹  a certain zabah seeing that she has examined herself and found that she was clean?³⁰  The fact is that when the statements of Rab and Levi were made they were given as independent rulings:³¹  If a menstruant examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was unclean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation, and after some days she examined herself and found that she was unclean, Rab ruled: She is a certain zabah, but Levi ruled: She is a doubtful zabah. 'Rab ruled: she is a certain zabah', since she was previously found to be unclean and now also she was found to be unclean, she must be definitely unclean. 'But Levi ruled: She is a doubtful zabah', because it might be assumed that the discharge may have been discontinued in the intervening time.

1. Viz., that she had not washed her head before nightfall.
2. Tashteke. Aliter: Bath chairs. Aliter: Combs.
3. To bring, and warm up the water. This proves that the washing of the head may take place the same night.
4. Friday.
5. Saturday night.
6. Lit., 'and wonder at yourself how'.
7. To expound and clarify his discourse to the public.
8. Lit., 'they ate an error in my hand'.
9. Sc. immediately before immersion.
10. Where, for instance, immersion is due on a night that follows a Sabbath or a festival day.
11. After her first discharge, sc. on the last day of her seven days period of menstruation.
12. When the prescribed menstruation period terminates.
13. Lit., 'she did not separate', sc. did not examine herself to make sure of the separation of her clean, from her unclean days.
14. In regard to the days intervening between the seventh and the one on which she found herself unclean.
15. It being assumed that the discharge did not occur before the moment she had discovered it. All clean things which she handled between the time of her immersion (on the night following the seventh day) and the time of her last examination are consequently regarded as clean.
16. After her first discharge, sc. on the last day of her seven days' period of menstruation.
17. When the prescribed menstruation period terminates.
18. Since she was known to be unclean on the seventh day and at its twilight she did not ascertain that the discharge had ceased.
19. In the case dealt with in the first clause.
20. V. margl. gl. Cur. edd., 'and R.'
21. On the seventh day.
22. Even though she examined herself earlier in the day and found that she was clean.
23. The examination on the second day being sufficient to establish a presumptive cleanness.
24. This is explained presently.
25. Lit., 'but'.
26. SHE EXAMINED HERSELF … IN THE MORNING AND FOUND THAT SHE WAS UNCLEAN AND AT TWILIGHT SHE DID NOT ASCERTAIN HER SEPARATION.
27. According to Levi.
28. Since on the seventh day in the morning she was still unclean and since at twilight of that day it was not ascertained that she was clean, it may well be suspected that there was a discharge on the eighth, ninth and tenth in consequence of which she would become a zabah.
29. According to Rab.
30. In consequence of which it might justifiably be assumed that as she was now found clean she was also clean previously.
31. Not in connection with our Mishnah.

SHE CONVEYS, HOWEVER, UNCLEANNESS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS RETROSPECTIVELY. Must it be conceded that this²  represents an objection against a view of Raba, since Raba stated: This³  tells that⁴  a woman during the days of her zibah does not⁵  cause twenty-four hours retrospective uncleanness? — But was not an objection against Raba raised once before?⁶ — It is this that we meant: Must it be conceded that an objection may be raised against Raba from this Mishnah also? — Raba can answer you: When it was stated, SHE CONVEYS, HOWEVER, UNCLEANNESS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS RETROSPECTIVELY, the reference was to the beginning of this chapter, viz., to a girl who observed a discharge while she was still in her father's house.⁷  As it might have been presumed that, since clean days intervened, the discharge should be regarded as one at the beginning of her menstruation and she⁸  should in consequence convey no retrospective uncleanness for twenty-four hours, hence we were informed [that she does].

BUT IF SHE HAS A SETTLED PERIOD. Must it be conceded that this⁹  presents an objection against the view of R. Huna b. Hiyya cited in the name of Samuel, since R. Huna b. Hiyya citing Samuel stated: This¹⁰  tells that a woman cannot establish for herself a regular period¹¹  during the days of her zibah? — R. Huna b. Hiyya can answer you: When we ruled that 'a woman cannot establish for herself a regular period during the days of her zibah' we meant that it is not necessary for her¹²  to have a change of period three times for the purpose of abolishing a settled period because we maintain that her blood is suspended; and, since her blood is suspended, IT SUFFICES FOR HER TO BE DEEMED UNCLEAN FROM THE TIME OF HER DISCHARGE.

R. JUDAH RULED. It was taught: They said to R. Judah, Had her hands been lying in her eyes¹³  throughout twilight you would have spoken well, but now, since it might be assumed that she experienced a discharge as soon as she removed her hands, what practical difference is there between the case where she ascertained her separation to a state of cleanness on the seventh day following the afternoon and that where she has ascertained her separation to a state of cleanness on the first day? 'On the first day'! Is there any authority who holds such a view?¹⁴  — Yes; and so it was taught: Rabbi stated, 'I once asked R. Jose and R. Simeon when they were underway: What is the law where a menstruant examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation,¹⁵  and after some days she examined herself and found that she was unclean? And they replied:¹⁶  Behold such a woman is in a presumptive state of cleanness. What, I asked, is the law where she examined herself on the sixth, fifth, fourth, third or second? And they replied: There is no difference. As regards an examination on the first day I did not ask, but it was a mistake on my part that I did not ask. For is she not on all these days in a state of presumptive uncleanness and yet as soon as the discharge ceased it is deemed to have completely ceased, so also in regard to the first day as soon as the discharge ceased it may be deemed to have ceased completely'.¹⁷  What view, however, did he¹⁸  hold at first?¹⁹  — [That the woman is unclean] since there is²⁰  the presumption of an open source.

MISHNAH. IF A ZAB AND A ZABAH²¹  EXAMINED THEMSELVES ON THE FIRST DAY²²  AND FOUND THEMSELVES CLEAN AND ON THE SEVENTH DAY²²  ALSO AND FOUND THEMSELVES CLEAN, BUT DID NOT EXAMINE THEMSELVES DURING THE OTHER, INTERVENING, DAYS, R. ELIEZER RULED: BEHOLD THESE ARE IN A PRESUMPTIVE CONDITION OF CLEANNESS. R. JOSHUA RULED: THEY ARE ENTITLED [TO RECKON AS CLEAN] ONLY THE FIRST DAY AND THE SEVENTH DAY. R. AKIBA RULED: THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RECKON AS CLEAN THE SEVENTH DAY ALONE.²³

GEMARA. It was taught: Said R. Eliezer to R. Joshua, According to your view²⁴  you would be counting with interruptions; but did not the Torah state, After that she shall be clean,²⁵  'after' meaning 'after all of them', implying that no uncleanness may intervene between them?²⁶  — Said R. Joshua to him: But do you not agree that a zab who²⁷  observed an emission of semen²⁸  or a nazirite who²⁹  walked under overshadowing branches or mural projections³⁰  counts with interruptions though the Torah said,³¹  But the former days shall be void?³²  And R. Eliezer?³³  — All is well there³⁴  since the All Merciful has said,³⁵  So that he is unclean thereby,³⁶  implying that it renders void one day only.³⁷  And if the imposition of a restriction³⁸  be suggested, on account of the possibility of mistaking one uncleanness for another,³⁹  it could be retorted: A zab would not be mistaken for one who emitted semen. All is also well⁴⁰  with a nazirite who walked under overshadowing branches or mural projections, since Pentateuchally it is necessary⁴¹  that the [overshadowing] tent shall be a proper one and it is only the Rabbis who enacted the ruling⁴²  as a preventive measure, and no one would mistake a Rabbinic law for a Pentateuchal one; but here,⁴³  if we were to take into consideration the possibility of a doubtful observation,⁴⁴  one might mistake this case for one of a certain observation.⁴⁵

It was taught: R. Jose and R. Simeon stated, The view of R. Eliezer is more feasible than that of R. Joshua, and the view of R. Akiba is more acceptable than those of all of them, but the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer.

The question was raised: If a zab or a zabah examined themselves on the first day⁴⁶  and on the eighth day⁴⁷  and found that they were clean while on the other days they did not examine themselves,

1. Referred to in the second clause of our Mishnah (cf. prev. n. but five).
2. The ruling that if after the passing of her menstruation period a woman found that she was unclean (the first clause in our' Mishnah) her uncleanness is retrospective for twenty-four hours (the third clause of our Mishnah which, as explained supra, is an interpretation of the first).
3. The first clause of the second Mishnah supra 38b: Throughout all the eleven days a woman is in a presumptive state of cleanness.
4. Since during the zibah period the menstrual flow is suspended.
5. After the first discharge.
6. Of course it was, supra 39a where the objection remained unsolved.
7. Supra 64b. In such a case Beth Hillel ruled that intercourse is permitted all night, and to this our Mishnah adds that if the woman found subsequently that she was unclean, her uncleanness is retrospective for twenty-four hours.
8. As a virgin who experienced a discharge for the first time.
9. That IF SHE HAS A SETTLED PERIOD and she observed a discharge at that period in the days of her zibah, IT SUFFICES FOR HER TO BE DEEMED UNCLEAN FROM THE TIME OF HER DISCHARGE, It is now assumed that this ruling of our Mishnah referred to the case where AFTER SOME DAYS (viz., after the termination of the menstruation period and during one of zibah) SHE EXAMINED HERSELF AND FOUND THAT SHE WAS UNCLEAN.
10. The first clause of the second Mishnah supra 38b: Throughout all the eleven days a woman is in a presumptive state of cleanness.
11. Though menstruation began on the same date in three consecutive months.
12. In the days of her zibah.
13. Euphemism.
14. That an examination whereby uncleanness was established on the first day has the same validity as one on the seventh day.
15. From her state of uncleanness to that of cleanness.
16. Lit., 'they said to me' (Emden). Cur. edd. 'they said to him'.
17. A question as to the first day might consequently have elicited the same reply as the one concerning the other days mentioned.
18. Rabbi.
19. When he was reluctant to put the question to them.
20. On the first day.
21. Whose discharge has ceased.
22. Of the prescribed seven days.
23. Since it is possible that during the intervening days they have experienced a discharge which caused the counting of the previous days to be null and void.
24. That the first and the seventh days are counted,
25. Lev, XV, 28.
26. How then could the five days that are presumably unclean be allowed to intervene?
27. While he was counting, after the termination of his zibah, the prescribed number of seven days.
28. Which renders him unclean for one day while on the following day he resumes his counting from the interrupted number.
29. While counting the thirty days prescribed for him.
30. Under which lay parts of a corpse. As the branches and the projections have the character of a doubtful 'tent' the nazirite is subject to uncleanness for one day only, and on the following one he continues his interrupted counting.
31. Where a longer uncleanness interrupted the counting.
32. Num, VI, 12.
33. How in view of this argument of R. Joshua can he maintain his ruling?
34. The case of a zab who emitted semen where an interrupted counting is allowed.
35. About such an uncleanness.
36. Lev. XV, 32, emphasis on the last word.
37. Lit., 'its day'.
38. That interrupted counting should not be allowed,
39. And, as a result, such interrupted counting would also be allowed in the case of a discharge of zibah.
40. With the permission for interrupted counting.
41. If corpse uncleanness is to be conveyed by overshadowing.
42. That even an imperfect 'tent' conveyed uncleanness for one day.
43. The case discussed by R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.
44. On the days on which no examination took place; and, in consequence, those days would not be counted,
45. And, assuming that on the uncounted days the woman was definitely unclean, one would also allow interrupted counting in the case of the intervention of a certain uncleanness.
46. Of the seven that must be counted after a zibah before cleanness is attained.
47. Cf. prev. n. The eighth day is the one that follows the period of the seven prescribed days in which obviously it is not included.