Niddah 19

Chapter 19

א הדר קחזיא בעונות מאי אמר רב גידל אמר רב פעם ראשונה ושניה דיה שעתה שלישית מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה
1 What is the ruling where<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the one discharge at the end of the three 'onahs respectively. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> she again observes discharges at the end of subsequent single 'onahs?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> — R. Giddal citing Rab replied: After the first time and after the second time it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time of her observation of the discharge, but after the third time she causes uncleanness retrospectively for twenty-four hours or from her previous examination to her last examination.
ב ועוד עברו עליה ג' עונות וראתה דיה שעתה הדר קחזיא בעונות מאי
2 '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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 63, n. 10. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג אמר רב כהנא אמר רב גידל אמר רב פעם ראשונה דיה שעתה שניה מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה
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 this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that after the second time she is already in a condition of presumptive menstruation. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> represent? That of Rabbi who laid down that if a thing has occurred twice presumption is established.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 64a, Keth. 43b, Yeb. 26a. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד מני רבי היא דאמר בתרי זימני הוי חזקה
4 Read then the final clause:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of one who 'had attained the age of menstruation'. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> '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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled in our Mishnah: FOR ANY WOMAN OVER WHOM HAVE PASSED THREE 'ONAHS IT SUFFICES&nbsp;… TO RECKON FROM THE TIME SHE OBSERVED IT. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> 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'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 9b q.v., from which it is evident that only after much hesitation and reluctance did he follow R. Eliezer's view. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה אימא סיפא עברו עליה ג' עונות וראתה דיה שעתה אתאן לר"א
5 — The fact is that it represents the view of R. Eliezer but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As regards the difficulty of establishing presumption after two occurrences. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> [in respect of presumption in the case of] menstrual periods he is of the same opinion as Rabbi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in all cases holds that two occurrences constitute presumption. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו וכי תימא רבי היא ובעונות סבר לה כר"א ומי סבר לה והא לאחר שנזכר קאמר אלא ר"א היא ובוסתות סבר לה כרבי
6 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is not deemed to be due to menstrual blood. Cf. supra 5a. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> 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],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that her presumptive menstruation begins after her second discharge. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> her stain also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it appeared at a period of (cf. prev. n.) presumptive menstruation. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> causes her to be unclean; 'while R. Johanan ruled: It is clean,' for this reason: Since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time the stain was discovered. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> she was not yet confirmed in the condition of presumptive menstruation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This condition being established retrospectively only after the appearance of a third discharge. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ז כתם שבין ראשונה ושניה טהור שבין שניה ושלישית חזקיה אמר טמא רבי יוחנן אמר טהור חזקיה אמר טמא כיון דאילו חזיא מטמאה כתמה נמי טמא ורבי יוחנן אמר טהור כיון דלא אתחזקה בדם כתמה נמי לא מטמינן לה
7 she cannot be regarded as unclean on account of her stain.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter