Niddah 137

Chapter 137

א לרבי אליעזר מהו תחלתן וסופן בעינן והכא תחלתן איכא סופן ליכא או דילמא תחלתן אף על גב שאין סופן

1 what is the law according to R. Eliezer.1 Is it necessary2 that an examination should take place both at the beginning and at the end of the prescribed days3

ב אמר רב היא היא תחלתן אע"פ שאין סופן ורבי חנינא אמר תחלתן וסופן בעינן הכא תחלתן איכא סופן ליכא

2 [hence this case is excluded]4 since there was one at the beginning only5 but not at the end,6 or is it possible that an examination at the beginning5

ג מיתיבי ושוין בזב ובזבה שבדקו עצמן יום ראשון ויום שמיני ומצאו טהור שאין להם אלא שמיני בלבד מאן שוין לאו רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע

3 suffices although there was none at the end?6 — Rab replied: The law is the same in either case,7 an examination at the beginning sufficing although there was none at the end. R. Hanina, however, replied: It is necessary2 that there be an examination both at the beginning and at the end8

ד לא ר' יהושע ור' עקיבא

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

ה אמר רב ששת אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב נדה שהפרישה בטהרה בשלישי שלה סופרתו למנין שבעה נקיים

5 An objection was raised: But both hold the same opinion,9 where a zab 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.10

ו נדה ספירה למה לה אלא אימא זבה שהפרישה בטהרה בשלישי שלה סופרתו למנין ז' נקיים

6 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 — 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 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,13

ז אמר ליה רב ששת לרב ירמיה בר אבא רב ככותאי אמרה לשמעתיה דאמרי יום שפוסקת בו סופרתו למנין ז'

7 she may count it in the number of the seven clean days.14 'A menstruant'! What need has she for counting?15

ח כי קאמר רב לבר משלישי בר משלישי פשיטא לא צריכא כגון דלא בדקה עד שביעי

8 — Rather read: If a zabah has ascertained her separation to a state of cleanness on her third day,13 she may count it in the number of the seven clean days.14 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?16

ט ואשמועינן התם תחלתן אע"פ שאין סופן והכא קמ"ל סופן אע"פ שאין תחלתן

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

10 — When Rab spoke he meant: Exclusive of the third day.17 But if 'exclusive of the third day' is not the ruling obvious? — The ruling was necessary only in a case, for instance, where the woman18

יא איני והא כי אתא רבין אמר מתיב ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא טועה

11 did not examine herself until the seventh day,19 so that20

יב ולא ידענא מאי תיובתיה דקי"ל שבוע קמא דאתיא לקמן בלילותא מטבלינן לה ביממא לא מטבלינן לה

12 we were informed there21

יג ואי ס"ד לא בעינן ספורין לפנינו ביממא נמי נטבלינה דילמא יולדת זכר בזוב היא ועבדה לה ספורין אלא לאו שמע מינה בעינן ספורין בפנינו

13 that an examination at the beginning22 suffices although there was none at the end,23

יד ולאו מי אוקימנא כר"ע דאמר בעינן ספורין לפנינו

14 while here24

טו ומנא תימרא דלרבנן לא בעינן ספורין לפנינו דתנן טועה שאמרה יום אחד טמא ראיתי מטבילין אותה ט' טבילות

15 we were informed that an examination at the end23 suffices25

טז ז' לנדה ותרי לזיבה בין השמשות טמא ראיתי מטבילין אותה י"א טבילות

16 even though there was none at the beginning.22

יז י"א מאי עבידתייהו אמר רב ירמיה מדפתי כגון שבאת לפנינו בין השמשות

17 As it might have been presumed that only where there was an examination at the beginning,22 though there was none at the end,23 do we assume [the days to be clean], because we regard them as remaining in their presumptive state,26

יח והויין תמני לנדה ותלת לזיבה

יט לא ראיתי כל עיקר מטבילין אותה ט"ו טבילות אמר רבא האי דינא דלא דינא דייני בגלחי דאית ליה תורא לירעי חד יומא דלית ליה תורא לירעי תרי יומי

19 but not where the examination was held at their conclusion23 and27 not at their beginning,22

כ אתרמי להו יתמא בר ארמלתא יהבי ליה תורי אזל נכסינהו אמר להו דאית ליה תורא לשקול חד משכא דלית ליה תורא לשקול תרי משכי אמרי ליה מאי האי דקאמרת אמר להו סוף דינא כתחלת דינא תחלת דינא לאו מאן דלית ליה עדיף סוף דינא נמי מאן דלית ליה עדיף

20 hence we were informed [that in either case the days are regarded as clean]. But can this28 be correct seeing that29 when Rabin came30 he stated, 'R. Jose b. Hanina raised an objection [from a Baraitha dealing with] a forgetful31 woman but I do not know what his objection was', and32 we have an established rule that during the first week of her appearance before us we require her to undergo immersion in the nights33 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 days34 be counted in our presence, she35 should have been made to undergo immersion in the day time also, since it is possible that she gave birth during a zibah 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?36

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

21 — 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?37

כב אלא אימא הכי ראיתי ואיני יודע כמה ראיתי אי בימי נדה ראיתי או בימי זיבה ראיתי מטבילין אותה ט"ו טבילות אתאי קמן ביממא יהבינן לה שב לנדה

22 — 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:38 'If a forgetful39 woman stated, "I observed some uncleanness on a certain day",40 she41 is expected to undergo nine immersions, seven42 in respect of menstruation43 and two44 in respect of zibah.<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 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 — R. Jeremiah of Difti replied: This is a case, for instance, where the woman47 actually appeared before us at twilight,48 so that provision has to be made for49 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 and for three in respect of zibah.<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 'If she states, "I observed no discharge whatsoever", she is to undergo fifteen immersions'.52 Raba observed: 'This kind of law that is a negation of all reason53 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 with54 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,55 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 continued56 and whether I observed it during a menstruation period or a zibah 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 menstruation55

Previous Chapter Next Chapter