Niddah 20

Chapter 20

א מתקיף לה ר' אלעאי וכי מה בין זו לבתולה שדמיה טהורין א"ל ר' זירא זו שירפה מצוי וזו אין שירפה מצוי

1 R. Elai demurred:1 But what is the difference between this class of woman and a virgin [just married] whose blood is clean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.). ');">2 — R. Zera replied: In the case of the latter her secretion3 is frequent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.). ');">4

ב אמר עולא א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק תינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות וראתה פעם ראשונה ושניה רוקה ומדרסה בשוק טהור כתמה נמי טהור ולא ידענא אם דידיה אם דרביה

2 but in that of the former her secretion is not frequent.5 'Ulla stated: R. Johanan who had it from R. Simeon b. Jehozadak<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">6

ג למאי נפקא מינה למיהוי דבריו של אחד במקום שנים

3 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

ד כי אתא רבין וכל נחותי ימא אמרוה כר"ש בן יהוצדק

4 and her stain is also clean'; but I do not know [whether the last ruling]9

ה אמר רב חלקיה בר טובי תינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות אפילו שופעת כל ז' אינה אלא ראיה אחת אפילו שופעת ולא מבעיא פוסקת אדרבה פוסקת הויא לה כשתי ראיות

5 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">12

ו אלא תינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות ושופעת כל ז' אינה אלא ראיה אחת

6 When Rabin and all the other seafarers came13 they stated that the ruling was in agreement with the view of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak.

ז אמר רב שימי בר חייא מדלפת אינה כרואה והא קחזיא אימא אינה כשופעת אלא כפוסקת

7 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

ח מכלל דשופעת (נמי) כי נהרא אלא אימא אינה אלא כשופעת

8 if it continued'15 it follows that there is no necessity to state that the law is so19 where there was a break.20

ט תנו רבנן חזקה בנות ישראל עד שלא הגיעו לפרקן הרי הן בחזקת טהרה ואין הנשים בודקות אותן משהגיעו לפרקן הרי הן בחזקת טומאה ונשים בודקות אותן

9 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

י רבי יהודה אומר אין בודקין אותן ביד מפני שמעוותות אותן אלא סכות אותן בשמן מבפנים ומקנחות אותן מבחוץ והן נבדקות מאיליהן

10 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

יא רבי יוסי אומר מעוברת וכו' תני תנא קמיה דר' אלעזר רבי יוסי אומר מעוברת ומניקה שעברו עליה ג' עונות דיה שעתה א"ל פתחת בתרי וסיימת בחדא

11 — Read: It is not like a continuous discharge but like one broken up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">25 Does this26 then imply that the continuous discharge27 was one like28

יב דלמא מעוברת והיא מניקה קאמרת ומילתא אגב אורחיה קמ"ל דימי עיבורה עולין לה לימי מניקותה וימי מניקותה עולין לה לימי עיבורה כדתניא ימי עיבורה עולין לה לימי מניקותה וימי מניקותה עולין לה לימי עיבורה

12 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

יג כיצד הפסיקה שתים בימי עיבורה ואחת בימי מניקותה שתים בימי מניקותה ואחת בימי עיבורה אחת ומחצה בימי עיבורה ואחת ומחצה בימי מניקותה מצטרפות לג' עונות

13 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

יד בשלמא ימי עיבורה עולין לה לימי מניקותה משכחת לה דקמניקה ואזלא ומיעברה אלא ימי מניקותה עולין לה לימי עיבורה היכי משכחת לה

14 in a condition of presumptive uncleanness and [elder] women must examine them. R. Judah ruled: They must not examine them with their fingers32

טו איבעית אימא בלידה יבשתא ואיבעית אימא דם נדה לחוד ודם לידה לחוד ואיבעית אימא תני חדא

15 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

טז במה אמרו דיה שעתה וכו' אמר רב אכולהו

16 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

יז ושמואל אמר ל"ש אלא בתולה וזקנה אבל מעוברת ומניקה דיין כל ימי עיבורן דיין כל ימי מניקותן

17 a nurse,39

יח וכן אמר ר' שמעון בן לקיש אכולהו ורבי יוחנן אמר לא שנו אלא בתולה וזקנה אבל מעוברת ומניקה דיין כל ימי עיבורן דיין כל ימי מניקותן כתנאי מעוברת ומניקה שהיו

18 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: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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'. ');">49 refers to all of them,50 and Samuel stated: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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'. ');">49 was learnt only in respect of a virgin51 and an old woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">52 but for pregnant or nursing women<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">53 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

Previous Chapter Next Chapter