Niddah 21

Chapter 21

א שופעות דם ובאות דיין כל ימי עיבורן ודיין כל ימי מניקותן דברי ר"מ רבי יוסי ור' יהודה ורבי שמעון אומרים לא אמרו דיין שעתן אלא בראייה ראשונה אבל בשניה מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה
1 bleeding profusely 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 their flow; so R. Meir. R. Jose and R. Judah and R. Simeon, however, ruled: Only after a first observation did [the Sages] rule that it suffices for them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pregnant and nursing women. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> to reckon their uncleanness from the time of their observing the flow but after a second observation they cause uncleanness retrospectively for twenty-four hours or from their previous examination to their last examination. IF, HOWEVER, SHE SUFFERED THE FIRST FLOW etc. R. Huna ruled: If on three occasions she jumped and suffered a flow she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though a flow resulting from a jump is obviously an accident. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב ואם ראתה ראשונה וכו' א"ר הונא קפצה וראתה קפצה וראתה קפצה וראתה קבעה לה וסת למאי אילימא לימים הא כל יומא דלא קפיץ לא חזאי
2 has thereby established for herself a fixed period.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> In what respect?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the period fixed. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> If it be suggested, In respect of certain days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the jump and resulting flow took place, for instance, on three Sundays, every subsequent Sunday is regarded as the fixed day so that even in the absence of a jump, if on examination she discovered a flow, her uncleanness is not retrospective, while if she failed to examine herself she is deemed to be unclean on the presumption that the flow had appeared at the fixed time. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> could it not be objected that on any day on which she did not jump she observed no flow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that the day itself is not the fixed period. How then could a Sunday on which she does not jump (cf. prev. n.) be regarded as the fixed period? ');"><sup>6</sup></span> — Rather, [the fixation meant is in respect] of jumps.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. on any day she jumped she is presumed to be unclean unless on examination she found herself to be clean. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ג אלא לקפיצות והתניא כל שתקבענה מחמת אונס אפילו כמה פעמים לא קבעה וסת מאי לאו לא קבעה וסת כלל
3 But surely it was taught: 'Any regular discharge established as a result of an accident, even though it had been repeated many times, does not establish a fixed period'. Does not this mean that no fixed period whatsoever<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in respect of jumps. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> is established? — No, it means that no fixed period is established in respect of days alone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sundays, for instance, (cf. supra, p. 69, n. 7) on which she did not jump. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> or jumps alone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On any day other than a Sunday. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ד לא לא קבעה וסת לימים לחודייהו ולקפיצות לחודייהו אבל קבעה לה וסת לימים ולקפיצות לימים לחודייהו פשיטא אמר רב אשי כגון דקפיץ בחד בשבת וחזאי וקפיץ בחד בשבת וחזאי [ובשבת קפצה ולא חזאי] ולחד בשבת חזאי בלא קפיצה
4 but as regards days and jumps jointly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a Sunday on which she jumped. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> a fixed period is well established.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she jumped on any Sunday that day is deemed to be her fixed period. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> But 'is it not obvious<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since each discharge was preceded by a jump. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> [that no fixed period can be established] in respect of days alone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer being in the affirmative the difficulty arises: What need was there to teach the obvious? ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ה מהו דתימא איגלאי מילתא למפרע דיומא הוא דקגרים ולא קפיצה קמ"ל דקפיצה נמי דאתמול גרמא והאי דלא חזאי משום דאכתי לא מטא זמן קפיצה
5 — R. Ashi replied: [This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that no fixed period is established in respect of days alone. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> was necessary in a case] for instance, where the woman jumped on two Sundays and suffered a flow while on a Sabbath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Saturday. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ו לישנא אחרינא א"ר הונא קפצה וראתה קפצה וראתה קפצה וראתה קבעה לה וסת לימים ולא לקפיצות היכי דמי א"ר אשי דקפיץ בחד בשבת וחזאי וקפיץ בחד בשבת וחזאי (ובשבת קפצה ולא חזאי) ולחד בשבת (אחרינא) חזאי בלא קפיצה דהתם איגלאי מילתא דיומא הוא דקא גרים
6 she jumped and suffered no flow but on the Sunday following she observed one without jumping. As it might have been presumed that it had now become known retrospectively that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As on the Saturday on which she jumped she suffered no flow while on the Sunday following on which she did not jump she observed one. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> it was the day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sunday, since it was the third on which she observed a flow. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> and not the jumping<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> that had caused the flow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And Sunday might consequently be regarded as her fixed period irrespective of whether she jumped on it or not. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> we were informed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the ruling under discussion (cf. supra n. 10). ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אע"פ שאמרו דיה שעתה צריכה להיות בודקת חוץ מן הנדה והיושבת על דם טוהר
7 that it was the jump of the previous day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Saturday. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ח ומשמשת בעדים חוץ מיושבת על דם טוהר ובתולה שדמיה טהורים
8 'that was the cause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the discharge on the Sunday. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
ט ופעמים צריכה להיות בודקת שחרית ובין השמשות ובשעה שהיא עוברת לשמש את ביתה יתירות עליהן כהנות בשעה שהן אוכלות בתרומה רבי יהודה אומר אף בשעת עברתן מלאכול בתרומה
9 and that the reason why the woman did not observe it was because the jump was premature.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the time of jumping had not yet arrived'. Her fixed period, therefore, is only a Sunday (not any other day of the week) on which she jumped (and no Sunday on which she did not jump). ');"><sup>23</sup></span> Another reading:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. nn. on first reading supra, mut. mut. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> R. Huna' ruled: If on three occasions she jumped and suffered a flow she has thereby established for herself a fixed period in respect of days but not in respect of jumps. In what circumstances?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'how is this to be imagined?' ');"><sup>25</sup></span> — R. Ashi replied: If a woman jumped on two Sundays and on each occasion suffered a flow while<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'and on the Sabbath (Saturday) she jumped and did not observe (a flow)'. Cf. Elijah Wilna's glosses. ');"><sup>26</sup></span>
י <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> חוץ מן הנדה דבתוך ימי נדתה לא בעי בדיקה
10 on one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. insert 'another' in parenthesis. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> Sunday she suffered one without jumping where it is obvious that it is the day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case the Sunday. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
יא הניחא לרבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמר אשה קובעת לה וסת בתוך ימי זיבתה ואין אשה קובעת לה וסת בתוך ימי נדתה שפיר אלא לרבי יוחנן דאמר אשה קובעת לה וסת בתוך ימי נדתה תבדוק דילמא קבעה לה וסת
11 that is the cause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the discharge. Hence the ruling that a fixed period has been established 'in respect of days'. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ALTHOUGH [THE SAGES] HAVE LAID DOWN THAT [FOR A WOMAN WHO HAS A SETTLED PERIOD] IT SUFFICES TO RECKON HER PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM THE TIME SHE OBSERVED THE FLOW, SHE MUST NEVERTHELESS EXAMINE HERSELF [REGULARLY],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Morning and evening; in order to make sure that there was no discharge whatsoever. ');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יב אמר לך רבי יוחנן כי אמינא אנא היכא דחזיתיה ממעין סתום אבל חזיתיה ממעין פתוח לא אמרי
12 EXCEPT WHERE SHE IS A MENSTRUANT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, having suffered a flow, is unclean for seven days irrespective of whether she had a flow or not on any of the last six days. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> OR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After a childbirth. ');"><sup>32</sup></span>
יג והיושבת על דם טוהר קס"ד מבקשת לישב על דם טוהר
13 IS CONTINUING IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XII, 4. The examination would be purposeless since even the appearance of blood would not affect her cleanness. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' WHO HAS A FIXED PERIOD. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> MUST ALSO USE TESTING-RAGS WHEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before or after. ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
יד הניחא לרב דאמר מעין אחד הוא התורה טמאתו והתורה טהרתו שפיר
14 SHE HAS MARITAL INTERCOURSE EXCEPT WHEN SHE CONTINUES IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XII, 4. The examination would be purposeless since even the appearance of blood would not affect her cleanness. ');"><sup>33</sup></span>
טו אלא ללוי דאמר שני מעינות הם תבדוק דילמא אכתי לא פסק ההוא מעין טמא אמר לך לוי הא מני
15 OR WHEN SHE IS A VIRGIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Newly married ');"><sup>36</sup></span> WHOSE BLOOD IS CLEAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the first four nights (cf. supra n. 9). ');"><sup>37</sup></span> AND TWICE [DAILY] MUST SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' WHO HAS A FIXED PERIOD. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> EXAMINE HERSELF: IN THE MORNING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make sure that the objects she handled during the previous night are clean. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> AND AT THE [EVENING] TWILIGHT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> AND ALSO WHEN SHE IS ABOUT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'passes'. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> TO PERFORM HER MARITAL DUTY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to serve her house'. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> PRIESTLY WOMEN ARE SUBJECT TO AN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION [IN HAVING TO MAKE EXAMINATION] WHEN THEY ARE ABOUT TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. R. JUDAH RULED: [THESE MUST EXAMINE THEMSELVES] ALSO AFTER THEY HAVE CONCLUDED A MEAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at the time of their passing away from eating'. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> OF <i>TERUMAH</i>. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. EXCEPT WHEN SHE IS A MENSTRUANT, because during the days of her menstruation she needs no examination.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. relevant n. on our Mishnah. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no examination is necessary. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> is quite satisfactory according to R. Simeon b. Lakish who ruled, 'A woman may establish for herself a settled period during the days of her <i>zibah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., during the eleven days between the periods of menstruation. If, for instance, she suffered a menstrual flow on the first day of two consecutive months and also on the fifteenth day (which is one of the eleven days of zibah) of the same months, while on the first of the third month she had no menstrual flow and on the fifteenth of that month she again observed a flow she (on account of the three observations on the fifteenth) establishes for herself a settled period on the fifteenth of the subsequent months though the first two observations had taken place during the eleven days of zibah. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> but not during the days of her menstruation',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, for instance, she suffered a flow on the first and on the fifth day of one month and again on the fifth of the two subsequent months no settled period is thereby established for the fifth of the month, because during menstruation, a woman normally bleeds and a recurrent discharge proves no settled habit. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> [since the discarding of an examination would be] well justified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'beautiful', 'right'. Such an examination could serve no useful purpose whatsoever. It cannot serve the purpose of ascertaining whether she is clean (since she is in any case unclean even in the absence of a discharge) and it cannot serve the purpose of enabling her to establish a settled period (since no settled period can be established during the seven days of menstruation). ');"><sup>47</sup></span> According to R. Johanan, however, who ruled, 'A woman may establish for herself a settled period during the days of her menstruation', why should she not examine herself seeing that it is possible that she had established for herself a settled period?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> — R. Johanan can answer you: I only spoke of a case where the woman observed the flow issuing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On each of the three occasions. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> from a previously closed source,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, e.g., the flow made its first appearance (cf. infra 39b) on the first day of three consecutive months as well on the twenty-fifth of the second month. In this case the first day of each subsequent month is regarded as the settled period, because the first two of the three discharges originated from a closed source (there having been no flow before) while the last (though it appeared after the menstruation had begun on the twenty-fifth of the previous months) is also regarded as originating from a closed source since the discharge on the twenty-fifth which originated from a closed source is deemed to be the commencement of the flow on the first of the following month that followed it. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> but I did not speak of one where she observed it issuing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even on one of the three occasions. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> from an already open source.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case spoken of in our Mishnah where even the first observation would be made during menstruation where the source is already open. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> OR IS CONTINUING IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION. It was assumed that the reference is to one who is only desirous of continuing in the blood of purification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But had not yet commenced then, i.e., a woman after childbirth who concluded the seven unclean days for a male or the fourteen unclean days for a female (cf. Lev. XII, 1-5). ');"><sup>53</sup></span> Now this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that no examination is necessary on the seventh or fourteenth day (cf. prev. n.). ');"><sup>54</sup></span> is quite satisfactory according to Rab who holds that 'it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood discharged within forty or eighty days respectively after childbirth (cf. Lev. XII, 1-5). ');"><sup>55</sup></span> all emanates from the same source which the Torah declared to be unclean [during a certain period]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra, n. 3. ');"><sup>56</sup></span> and clean [during another period]'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thirty-three days after the seven for a male and the sixty-six days after the fourteen for a female (cf. Lev. XII, 4f). ');"><sup>57</sup></span> [since the discarding of an examination would be] well justified;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'beautiful', 'right'. Such an examination would be purposeless since after the seventh and the fourteenth day respectively the woman would in any case be clean irrespective of whether there was any discharge or not. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> but according to Levi who holds that 'it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood discharged within forty or eighty days respectively after childbirth (cf. Lev. XII, 1-5). ');"><sup>55</sup></span> emanates from two different sources'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The unclean source being open during the first seven and fourteen days respectively and after the forty and eighty days respectively when the clean one is closed, while the latter is open during the thirty-three and sixty-six days respectively when the former is closed. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> why should she not examine herself, seeing that it is possible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there was a continuous issue from the unclean period into the clean one (cf. infra 35b). ');"><sup>60</sup></span> that the unclean source had not yet ceased to flow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless there was an examination and it had been ascertained that there was a definite break in the flow at the end of the seven and the fourteen days respectively the woman might still be unclean even though the unclean period prescribed had passed. Why then should no examination be necessary? ');"><sup>61</sup></span> — Levi can answer you: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that the menstruant needs no examination. ');"><sup>62</sup></span> is in agreement with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whose'. ');"><sup>63</sup></span>