Niddah 137

לרבי אליעזר מהו

what is the law according to R. Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, in the case of an examination on the first and the seventh, regards all the seven days as clean. ');">¹</span>

תחלתן וסופן בעינן והכא תחלתן איכא סופן ליכא

Is it necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the seven days are to be regarded as clean. ');">²</span>

או דילמא תחלתן אף על גב שאין סופן

that an examination should take place both at the beginning and at the end of the prescribed days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'their beginning and their end'. ');">³</span>

אמר רב

[hence this case is excluded]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the days are regarded as unclean, ');">⁴</span>

היא היא תחלתן אע"פ שאין סופן

since there was one at the beginning only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the first of the seven days. ');">⁵</span>

ורבי חנינא אמר

but not at the end,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the seventh day, the examination having taken place on the eighth. ');">⁶</span>

תחלתן וסופן בעינן הכא תחלתן איכא סופן ליכא

or is it possible that an examination at the beginning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the first of the seven days. ');">⁵</span>

מיתיבי

suffices although there was none at the end?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the seventh day, the examination having taken place on the eighth. ');">⁶</span>

ושוין בזב ובזבה שבדקו עצמן יום ראשון ויום שמיני ומצאו טהור שאין להם אלא שמיני בלבד

— Rab replied: The law is the same in either case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it it', the seven days are regarded as clean in both cases. ');">⁷</span>

מאן שוין

an examination at the beginning sufficing although there was none at the end. R. Hanina, however, replied: It is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the seven days are to be regarded as clean. ');">²</span>

לאו רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע

that there be an examination both at the beginning and at the end<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'their beginning and their end'. ');">⁸</span>

לא ר' יהושע ור' עקיבא

[hence this case is excluded] since there was one at the beginning only but not at the end.

אמר רב ששת אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב

An objection was raised: But both hold the same opinion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and equal'. ');">⁹</span>

נדה שהפרישה בטהרה בשלישי שלה סופרתו למנין שבעה נקיים

where a <i>zab</i> and a zabah examined themselves on the first day and on the eighth day and found themselves clean, that they may count the eighth day only as clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that they have only the eighth day'. ');">¹⁰</span>

נדה ספירה למה לה

Now who are referred to in the expression 'both hold the same opinion'? Is it not R. Eliezer and R. Joshua?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who agree in this case with R. Akiba though they differ from him where the examination took place on the first and the seventh. How then could Rab maintain his view on the ruling of R. Eliezer? ');">¹¹</span>

אלא אימא

— No; R. Joshua and R. Akiba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But R. Eliezer maintains, as Rab stated, that since the examination on the first day proved the person to be clean all the seven days also are regarded as clean. ');">¹²</span>

זבה שהפרישה בטהרה בשלישי שלה סופרתו למנין ז' נקיים

R. Shesheth citing R. Jeremiah b. Abba who had it from Rab stated: If a menstruant has ascertained her separation to a state of cleanness on her third day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since her discharge first appeared. ');">¹³</span>

אמר ליה רב ששת לרב ירמיה בר אבא

she may count it in the number of the seven clean days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the clean days may begin to be counted from that day. ');">¹⁴</span>

רב ככותאי אמרה לשמעתיה דאמרי יום שפוסקת בו סופרתו למנין ז'

'A menstruant'! What need has she for counting?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None, since a menstruant becomes clean after seven days irrespective of whether these were clean or not. ');">¹⁵</span>

כי קאמר רב לבר משלישי

— Rather read: If a zabah has ascertained her separation to a state of cleanness on her third day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since her discharge first appeared. ');">¹³</span>

בר משלישי פשיטא

she may count it in the number of the seven clean days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the clean days may begin to be counted from that day. ');">¹⁴</span>

לא צריכא כגון דלא בדקה עד שביעי ואשמועינן התם תחלתן אע"פ שאין סופן והכא קמ"ל סופן אע"פ שאין תחלתן

Said R. Shesheth to R. Jeremiah b. Abba: Did then Rab pronounce his ruling in agreement with the view of the Samaritans who ruled that the day on which a woman ceases to have her discharge may be counted by her in the number of the prescribed seven days?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 33a. ');">¹⁶</span>

דמהו דתימא

— When Rab spoke he meant: Exclusive of the third day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The counting beginning from the following day. ');">¹⁷</span>

תחלתן אף על פי שאין סופן הוא דאמרינן דאוקמינהו אחזקייהו אבל סופן אע"פ שאין תחלתן לא קמ"ל

But if 'exclusive of the third day' is not the ruling obvious? — The ruling was necessary only in a case, for instance, where the woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though her discharge ceased on the third day. ');">¹⁸</span>

איני והא כי אתא רבין אמר

did not examine herself until the seventh day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the beginning of the counting was not in a condition of ascertained cleanness. ');">¹⁹</span>

מתיב ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא טועה ולא ידענא מאי תיובתיה

so that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab adopting two relaxations of the law. ');">²⁰</span>

דקי"ל שבוע קמא דאתיא לקמן בלילותא מטבלינן לה ביממא לא מטבלינן לה

we were informed there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where Rab stated that R. Eliezer holds the woman clean if she examined herself on the first and the eighth. ');">²¹</span>

ואי ס"ד לא בעינן ספורין לפנינו ביממא נמי נטבלינה דילמא יולדת זכר בזוב היא ועבדה לה ספורין

that an examination at the beginning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the first day. ');">²²</span>

אלא לאו שמע מינה בעינן ספורין בפנינו

suffices although there was none at the end,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the seventh. ');">²³</span>

ולאו מי אוקימנא כר"ע דאמר בעינן ספורין לפנינו

while here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the last cited ruling of Rab. ');">²⁴</span>

ומנא תימרא דלרבנן לא בעינן ספורין לפנינו דתנן

we were informed that an examination at the end<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the seventh. ');">²³</span>

טועה שאמרה יום אחד טמא ראיתי מטבילין אותה ט' טבילות ז' לנדה ותרי לזיבה

suffices<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To justify the assumption that all the six preceding days were also clean, ');">²⁵</span>

בין השמשות טמא ראיתי מטבילין אותה י"א טבילות

even though there was none at the beginning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the first day. ');">²²</span>

י"א מאי עבידתייהו

As it might have been presumed that only where there was an examination at the beginning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the first day. ');">²²</span>

אמר רב ירמיה מדפתי

though there was none at the end,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the seventh. ');">²³</span>

כגון שבאת לפנינו בין השמשות והויין תמני לנדה ותלת לזיבה

do we assume [the days to be clean], because we regard them as remaining in their presumptive state,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, owing to the examination, was known to be one of cleanness. ');">²⁶</span>

לא ראיתי כל עיקר מטבילין אותה ט"ו טבילות

but not where the examination was held at their conclusion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the seventh. ');">²³</span>

אמר רבא

and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'although'. ');">²⁷</span>

האי דינא דלא דינא דייני בגלחי דאית ליה תורא לירעי חד יומא דלית ליה תורא לירעי תרי יומי

not at their beginning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the first day. ');">²²</span>

אתרמי להו יתמא בר ארמלתא יהבי ליה תורי אזל נכסינהו

hence we were informed [that in either case the days are regarded as clean]. But can this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's ruling that it is not necessary to make sure that each of the seven days individually has been a clean one, ');">²⁸</span>

אמר להו

be correct seeing that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I am not, for surely'. ');">²⁹</span>

דאית ליה תורא לשקול חד משכא דלית ליה תורא לשקול תרי משכי

when Rabin came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon, ');">³⁰</span>

אמרי ליה

he stated, 'R. Jose b. Hanina raised an objection [from a Baraitha dealing with] a forgetful<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'erring'. ');">³¹</span>

מאי האי דקאמרת

woman but I do not know what his objection was', and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So with BaH. Cur. edd. 'for'. ');">³²</span>

אמר להו

we have an established rule that during the first week of her appearance before us we require her to undergo immersion in the nights<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since of each night it might be said that it is the one following the seventh day of the period of uncleanness prescribed after the birth of a male child. ');">³³</span>

סוף דינא כתחלת דינא

but we do not require her to undergo immersion in the day time. Now if it could be entertained that it is not necessary that the days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Following zibah. ');">³⁴</span>

תחלת דינא לאו מאן דלית ליה עדיף

be counted in our presence, she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a zabah undergoes immersion on her seventh clean day. ');">³⁵</span>

סוף דינא נמי מאן דלית ליה עדיף

should have been made to undergo immersion in the day time also, since it is possible that she gave birth during a <i>zibah</i> period and had completed the counting on that day. Must it not consequently be inferred from the ruling that it is necessary for the counting to take place in our presence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently it must; and thus an objection arises against Rab. ');">³⁶</span>

הכא נמי ומה היכא דאמרה ראיתי סגי לה אי בתשע טבילות אי בי"א טבילות היכא דקאמרה איהי לא ראיתי בעיא חמש עשרה טבילות

— But have we not explained this ruling to be in agreement with the view of R. Akiba who ruled that it was necessary for the counting to take place in our presence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, since the Rabbis differ from R. Akiba, Rab may follow their view. ');">³⁷</span>

אלא אימא הכי

— And whence do you infer that according to the Rabbis it is not necessary for the counting to take place in our presence? — From what was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. marg. Glos. Cur. edd., 'for we learnt'. ');">³⁸</span>

ראיתי ואיני יודע כמה ראיתי אי בימי נדה ראיתי או בימי זיבה ראיתי מטבילין אותה ט"ו טבילות

'If a forgetful<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'erring'. ');">³⁹</span>

אתאי קמן ביממא יהבינן לה שב לנדה

woman stated, "I observed some uncleanness on a certain day",<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But she is unable to say whether it happened on the same, or on any other day, or whether that day was one of the days of her menstruation or of her zibah. ');">⁴⁰</span> she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to perform the precept of immersion at the proper time and at the earliest possible moment. ');">⁴¹</span> is expected to undergo nine immersions, seven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the following seven nights, if she arrived in the day time. ');">⁴²</span> in respect of menstruation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 482, n. 12. ');">⁴³</span> and two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the day time. ');">⁴⁴</span> in respect of <i>zibah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the first day of her arrival she must undergo immersion since it is possible that the previous day was one of her zibah period and her discharge appeared that day (a woman who experienced a discharge on one of the days of her zibah period awaits one day, viz., the following one, and on that day she undergoes immersion in the day time). On the second day of her arrival she again undergoes immersion for a similar reason, since it is possible that the day on which her discharge had appeared was not the previous one but the day of her arrival. On the third day no immersion is necessary since it is certain that on the second there was no discharge. ');">⁴⁵</span> If she states, "I observed some uncleanness at twilight", she is to undergo eleven immersions'. 'Eleven'! For what purpose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. why should more immersions be required in this case, where she states that her discharge took place at twilight, than in the former where she does not specify the time of day. ');">⁴⁶</span> — R. Jeremiah of Difti replied: This is a case, for instance, where the woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who did not merely state during the day that her discharge took place at twilight. ');">⁴⁷</span> actually appeared before us at twilight,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And stated that her discharge occurred either earlier or possibly at that very moment when it is doubtful whether it was day or night. ');">⁴⁸</span> so that provision has to be made for<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and they are'. ');">⁴⁹</span> eight immersions in respect of menstruation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to the seven immersions as in the former case (beginning on the night that followed the twilight at which she arrived) there must be one on the eighth night because it is possible that her discharge took place actually at the twilight of her arrival which was part of the following night, so that the menstruation period did not terminate until the seven following days have passed and her cleanness is attained by her immersion on the last, which is the eighth night after her arrival. ');">⁵⁰</span> and for three in respect of <i>zibah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She performs the first two immersions for the same reason as in the former case, since it is possible that her discharge in zibah took place on the day prior to her arrival (so that immersion must be performed immediately at the twilight when she arrived) or on that day (so that immersion has to be performed on the following day). She must also undergo immersion on the third day since it is possible that the discharge occurred at the twilight at which she arrived and that that time was a part of the night, so that she was unclean on the day following, and having waited the second day she becomes clean on the third when the immersion is performed. ');">⁵¹</span> 'If she states, "I observed no discharge whatsoever", she is to undergo fifteen immersions'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed presently. ');">⁵²</span> Raba observed: 'This kind of law that is a negation of all reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this law that is no law'. ');">⁵³</span> is in vogue at Galhi where there is a law that one who owns a bull must feed the town's cattle one day while one who owns no bull must feed them on two days. Once they had occasion to deal with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it happened to them'. ');">⁵⁴</span> an orphan the son of a widow. Having been entrusted with the bulls [to feed] he proceeded to kill them, saying to the people, "He who owned a bull shall receive one hide and he who owned no bull shall receive two hides". "What", they said to him, "is this that you say?" "The conclusion of this process", he answered them, "follows the same principle as the beginning of the process. Was it not the case with the beginning of this process that one who owned nothing was better off? Well, at the conclusion of the process too, one who owned nothing is better off". Here also: If where a woman states, "I observed a discharge", it suffices for her to undergo either nine immersions or eleven immersions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained supra. ');">⁵⁵</span> should it be necessary for her, where she states, "I observed no discharge whatsoever", to undergo fifteen immersions?' — Rather read thus: If she states, 'I observed a discharge and I do not know how long it continued<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. whether it appeared on one day only or on three days. ');">⁵⁶</span> and whether I observed it during a menstruation period or a <i>zibah</i> one', she is to undergo fifteen immersions. For if she appeared before us in the day-time we allow her seven days in respect of menstruation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained supra. ');">⁵⁵</span>