|  |  | Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah ### Folio 9a did not the All Merciful [it may be objected] ordain that [a flow of blood in] painful labour immediately before birth1 is regarded as clean?2 — R. Papi replied: Leave alone the question of the twenty-four hours retrospective uncleanness3 which only involves a Rabbinical enactment.4 R. Papa replied: The actual reason5 is that the woman6 feels a heaviness in her head and limbs;7 well then, here also8 she feels a heaviness in her head and in her limbs.9 R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Zera: What is the ruling10 where a woman observed a flow and immediately after her pregnancy was discerned? Is she retrospectively unclean because her pregnancy was not known at the time she observed the flow or is she not retrospectively unclean since she observed it immediately before she became aware of her pregnancy? — The other replied: The sole reason11 is that she12 feels a heaviness in her head and limbs13 but14 at the time she observed the flow she felt no heaviness either in her head or in her limbs.15 A certain old man asked R. Johanan: 'What is the ruling if, when the time of her fixed period had come during the days of her pregnancy and she did not examine herself? I am raising this question on the view of the authority who laid down [that a woman's duty to hold an examination on the arrival of her] fixed periods is an ordinance of the Torah.16 What is the ruling [I ask]? Must she17 examine herself since [the duty of holding an examination on the arrival of] the fixed periods is an ordinance of the Torah16 or is it possible that since18 her menstrual blood is suspended,19 she requires no examination'?20 — The other21 replied, You have learnt it: R. Meir ruled, If a woman was in a hiding-place22 when the time of her fixed period arrived and she did not examine herself she is nevertheless clean because fear suspends the menstrual flow.23 Now the reason is24 that there was fear, but if there had been no fear and the time of her fixed period had arrived and she did not examine herself she would have been deemed unclean. It is thus clear25 [that a woman's duty to examine herself at the time of the arrival of her] fixed periods is an ordinance of the Torah and that, nevertheless, since there was fear, her menstrual blood is deemed to be suspended and she requires no exemption; so also here,26 since her menstrual blood is suspended she requires no examination. 'A NURSING WOMAN'? A WOMAN BEFORE SHE HAS WEANED etc. Our Rabbis taught: A nursing mother whose child died within twenty-four months27 is in exactly the same position as all other women28 and causes retrospective uncleanness for a period of twenty-four hours or from the previous to the last examination. If, therefore,29 she continued to suck it for four or five years it suffices for her to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she has observed the flow; so R. Meir. R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simeon ruled: Only during the twenty-four months30 does it suffice for women to reckon their uncleanness from the time they have observed a flow.31 Therefore,32 even if she suckled it for four or five years she causes uncleanness retrospectively for twenty-four hours or from the previous to the last examination.33 Now if you will carefully consider [the views just expressed] you will find that34 according to the view of R. Meir the menstrual blood is decomposed and turns into milk while according to the view of R. Jose, R. Judah and R. Simeon the woman's limbs35 are disjointed and her natural vigour36 does not return before the lapse of twenty-four months. Why the necessity for the 'therefore'37 of R. Meir?38 — On account of the 'therefore'39 of R. Jose. But why the necessity for the 'therefore' of R. Jose?40 — It might have been assumed that R. Jose maintains that41 there are two [causes];42 hence we were informed43 [that he upholds the one cause only].44 So it was also taught: The menstrual blood45 is decomposed and turns into milk; so R. Meir. R. Jose stated: Her limbs46 are disjointed and her natural strength does not return before twenty-four months.47 R. Elai explained: What is R. Meir's reason?48 That it is written, Who can bring a clean thing49 from out of an unclean?50 Is it not the Only One?51 And the Rabbis?52 — R. Johanan replied: The reference53 is to semen which is unclean, while the man who is created from it is clean; and R. Eleazar replied: The reference53 is to the water of sprinkling54 in the case of which the man who sprinkles it as well as the man upon whom it is sprinkled is clean while he who touches it is unclean. But is the man who sprinkles it clean? Is it not in fact written, And he that sprinkleth the water of sprinkling shall wash his clothes?55 — What is meant by 'He that sprinkleth'? He that touches it. But is it not actually written, 'He that sprinkleth'55 and also 'He that toucheth'?55 Furthermore, is not 'He that sprinkleth' required to wash his clothes55 while 'He that toucheth' is not required to do so?55 — Rather say: What is meant by 'He that sprinkleth'? He that carries.56 Then why was it not written, 'He that carries'? — We were informed57 that uncleanness is not contracted unless one carried the minimum quantity prescribed for sprinkling. This is a satisfactory explanation according to him who holds58 that sprinkling must be performed with a prescribed minimum of the water.59 What, however, can be said according to him who holds that no prescribed minimum is required?58 — Even according to him who holds that no prescribed quantity is required the ruling refers only to the quantity applied to the body of the man but as regards that which is in the vessel a prescribed quantity is required; as we have learnt: What must be the quantity of water59 that it shall suffice for a sprinkling? As much as suffices for both the dipping therein of the tops of the stalks and for the sprinkling.60 It is, in fact, in view of such laws61 that Solomon observed, I said: 'I will get wisdom'; but it was far from me.62 WHO IS REGARDED 'AN OLD WOMAN'? ANY WOMAN OVER WHOM THREE ONAHS HAVE PASSED NEAR THE TIME OF HER OLD AGE. What is to be understood by NEAR THE TIME OF HER OLD AGE? — Rab Judah replied: The age when her women friends speak of her as an old woman; and R. Simeon63 replied: To Part b The woman having had no relief from her pain between the appearance of the flow and birth (cf. prev. n. but one). V. infra 37b. Why then should the woman here be treated as a zabah? With which the first of the apparently contradictory Baraithas deals. And could, therefore, be relaxed even in the case of a pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage. As regards the pentateuchal uncleanness of a zabah, however, a miscarriage of the nature spoken of in the last cited Baraitha cannot be regarded as a proper birth. Why a pregnant woman is to reckon her menstrual uncleanness from the very moment she has observed a discharge and not retrospectively. During her pregnancy. Sc. she is suffering from a malady which causes her menstrual flow to disappear. In the case of a pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage spoken of in the first of the Baraithas under discussion. It is obvious, therefore, that she also suffers from the same malady (cf. prev. n. but one) in consequence of which she is entitled to the same privileges (cf. supra n. 10). In respect of the twenty-four hours retrospective uncleanness. V. p. 55, n. 10. During her pregnancy. V. p. 55, n. 12. In the case about which R. Jeremiah enquired. She cannot, therefore, be regarded as a pregnant woman, and her uncleanness is retrospective. Sc. a traditional halachah handed down from the time of Moses (Rashi), so that since the flow may be expected to make its appearance on the regular day, a woman who did not examine herself at such a period, must be regarded as unclean (v. infra 16a). If she is to be regarded as clean. During pregnancy. And the regular appearance of her menstrual blood need not be expected. I.e., she is deemed to be clean even if she did not examine herself. R. Johanan. In fear of her life. Infra 39a. Why in this particular case the woman is regarded as clean. Since in the absence of fear the woman is deemed to be unclean. The case of the pregnant woman referred to in the old man's enquiry. After birth. This is the normal period a mother is expected to suckle her child. Who are not pregnant or nursing; because the menstrual flow is suspended only on account of its transformation into the mother's milk, but when the child dies and the milk is no longer used the blood changes into its original condition. Since the cleanness of the woman is entirely due to her suckling (cf. prev. n.). Irrespective of whether the child is suckled or not. The suspension of the menstrual blood for twenty-four months being due in their opinion to the physical disturbance caused by the process of childbearing. Since it is the process of bearing and not the suckling of the child (cf. prev. n.) that causes the suspension of the blood and since that suspension does not continue longer than twenty-four months. Cf. Tosef. Nid. II where, however, 'R. Judah' is omitted. Lit., 'as you will find to say'. When she is in childbirth. Manifested by her menstrual flow. 'If, therefore, she continued etc.' supra. Sc. since R. Meir ruled that the death of the child causes its mother to resume the status of an ordinary non-nursing woman it obviously follows that the main cause of her former exemption from retrospective uncleanness was her suckling of the child, what need then was there to specify an inference (cf. prev. n.) which is all too obvious? 'Therefore, even if she suckled etc.', supra. Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut. For the suspension of the menstrual flow. (a) The blood turns into milk and (b) the woman's limbs are disjointed on account of (b) the woman is exempt from retrospective uncleanness during the twenty-four months following her childbearing, irrespective of whether the child is suckled or not, while on account of (a) she should be similarly exempt throughout the time she is suckling the child. By the addition of 'Therefore' (cf. supra n. 14). That 'the woman's limbs are disjointed'. Of a nursing woman. Those of a woman in childbirth. Bek. 6b. For holding that the menstrual blood turns into milk. Milk. Menstrual blood. Job XIV, 4; E. V. 'not one'. Sc. how do they, who differ from R. Meir, in maintaining that the blood does not turn into milk, explain the text cited? In Job XIV, 4 cited. Cf. Num. XIX, 9. Ibid. 21. The water of sprinkling. By the expression, 'He that sprinkleth' instead of 'he that carries'. Cf. Zeb. 80a. The water of sprinkling. Parah XII, 5. Which are apparently paradoxical: The man who sprinkles the water or is sprinkled upon is clean while he who merely touched it is unclean. Eccl. VII, 23. MS.M. adds 'b. Lakish'. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Niddah 9b when people call her mother in her presence1 and she does not blush. R. Zera and R. Samuel b. Isaac differ:2 One says, '[When she is called mother] and3 she does not mind,' and the other says, 'And3 she does not blush' — What is the practical difference between them? — The practical difference between them is the case of one who blushes but does not mind. What is the length of an 'onah? — Resh Lakish citing R. Judah Nesi'ah4 replied: A normal 'onah is thirty days; but Raba, citing R. Hisda, replied: Twenty days. In fact, however, there is no difference of opinion between them. One Master5 reckons both the clean and the unclean days6 while the other Master7 does not reckon the unclean days.8 Our Rabbis taught: If over an old woman have passed three 'onahs9 and then she observed a flow, it suffices for her to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she observed the flow; if another three 'onahs have passed9 and then she observed a flow, it again suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observed it. If, however, another three 'onahs have passed9 and then she observed a flow she is regarded10 as all other women and causes uncleanness retrospectively for twenty-four hours or from the previous examination to the last examination. This11 is the case not only12 where she observed the flow at perfectly regular intervals13 but even where she observed it at successively decreasing intervals or14 increasing intervals.15 [You say,] 'Even16 where she observed it at successively decreasing intervals'. It thus follows17 that there is no need to mention that this law11 applies where she observed the flow at perfectly regular ones. But should not the law be reversed, seeing that where she observes a flow at perfectly regular intervals she thereby establishes for herself a fixed period and it should, therefore, suffice for her to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she observed the flow? And should you reply that this18 represents the view of the Rabbis who differ from R. Dosa in maintaining that even a woman who has a fixed period causes retrospective uncleanness for twenty-four hours,19 [it could be objected:] Should not the order20 have been reversed to read as follows: Not only where she observed the flow at successively decreasing intervals or increasing intervals21 but even where she observed it at perfectly regular ones?22 — Read: Not only where she observed the flow at successively decreasing intervals or increasing intervals21 but even where she observed it at perfectly regular ones.23 And if you prefer I might reply, It is this that was meant: This24 does not apply where a woman observed the flow at perfectly regular intervals but only where she observed it at successively decreasing or increasing ones. Where, however, she observed it at perfectly regular intervals she thereby establishes for herself a fixed period and it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she has observed the flow. And whose view does this represent? That of R. Dosa.19 R. ELIEZER RULED: FOR ANY WOMAN OVER WHOM HAVE PASSED etc. It was taught: R. Eliezer said to the Sages. It once happened to a young woman at Haitalu25 that her menstrual flow was interrupted for three 'onahs, and when the matter was submitted to the Sages they ruled that it sufficed for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observed the flow. They replied: A time of emergency is no proof. What was the emergency? — Some say, It was a time of dearth,26 while others say, The quantity of foodstuffs the woman had prepared27 was rather large and the Rabbis took into consideration the desirability of avoiding the loss of the levitically clean things. Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that Rabbi acted in agreement with the ruling of R. Eliezer, and after he reminded himself observed, 'R. Eliezer deserves to be relied upon in an emergency'. What could be the meaning of 'after he reminded himself'? If it be explained: After he reminded himself that the halachah was not in agreement with R. Eliezer but in agreement with the Rabbis [the difficulty would arise:] How could he act according to the former's ruling even in an emergency? — The fact is that it was not stated whether the law was in agreement with the one Master or with the other Master. Then what is meant by 'after he reminded himself'? — After he reminded himself that it was not an individual that differed from him but that many differed from him, he observed 'R. Eliezer deserves to be relied upon in an emergency'. Our Rabbis taught: If a young girl who had not yet attained the age of menstruation28 observed a discharge, after the first time it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observed it; after the second time also29 it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observed it, but after the third time30 she is in the same position as all other women31 and32 causes uncleanness retrospectively33 for twenty-four hours or from her previous examination to her last examination. If subsequently three 'onahs have passed over her34 and then she again observed a discharge it suffices for her35 to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observed it.36 If another three 'onahs have passed over her34 and then again she observed a discharge it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observed it. But if another three 'onahs have passed over her37 and she again observed a discharge she is in the same position as all other women38 and causes uncleanness retrospectively for twenty-four hours or from her previous examination to her last one.39 When, however, a girl had attained the age of menstruation,40 after the first observation it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observed the discharge, while after the second time she causes uncleanness retrospectively for twenty-four hours or from her previous examination to her last examination.41 If subsequently three 'onahs have passed over her42 and then she again observed a discharge, it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time she observed it.43 The Master said,44 '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'. - To Next Folio - So MS.M. Cur. edd. 'mother, mother'. On what was meant by 'near old age'. Lit., 'all that'. The Prince, Judah II. Resh Lakish. I.e., the interval between one period and another which is thirty days. Raba. Which number ten (seven as menstruant and three as zabah) leaving (thirty minus ten are) twenty clean days (Rashi. Cf., however, Tosaf.). Without her observing any flow during all this time. Lit., 'behold she'; since the appearance of the flow for the third time establishes the fact that her menstrual flow had not yet ceased and that only the length of the intervals between its periodic appearances has changed. That after a third appearance the woman's uncleanness begins twenty-four hours retrospectively. Cf. MS.M and marg. n. Cur. edd. 'and it is not necessary (to state)', the word 'necessary' appearing in parenthesis. I.e., if each interval was, for instance, exactly ninety days. Cur. edd. in parenthesis. 'and even'. Sc. irrespective of whether (a) the first interval extended over ninety-three days, the second over ninety-two and the third only over ninety or (b) the first extended over ninety-one days, the second over ninety-two and the third over ninety-three days. Emphasis on this word. Since the expression 'even' is used (cf. prev. n.). That the woman is unclean retrospectively even when she has a fixed period. Supra 4b. Of the Baraitha under discussion. Is her uncleanness retrospective for twenty-four hours. Where it might have been presumed that she has thereby established for herself a fixed period. Cf. prev. n. but one; the ruling representing the view of the Rabbis (supra 4b). That after a third appearance the woman's uncleanness begins twenty-four hours retrospectively. [Babylonian form for Aitalu, modern Aiterun, N.W. of Kadish. V. S. Klein, Beitrage, p. 47.] When a decision to regard all the foodstuffs the woman had touched during the preceding twenty-four hours as unclean would have involved a serious loss and undue hardship. During the preceding twenty-four hours. Lit., 'whose time to see (the menses) has not arrived'. Since presumptive menstruation like any other condition of presumption cannot be established by one occurrence. Since according to Rabbi (with whose view, as shown infra, this Baraitha agrees) two occurrences suffice to establish a condition of presumption. Who are in a condition of presumptive menstruation. In accordance with Rabbinic law. As a preventive measure enacted in the case of all such women (cf. prev. n. but one). Without her observing any discharge. Since the complete absence of the flow for three 'onahs is regarded as the cessation of the flow. In agreement with R. Eliezer (cf. our Mishnah). Without her observing any discharge. Who are in a condition of presumptive menstruation. Because the appearance of the discharge for the third time proved that her flow had not ceased and that only the intervals between the discharges had been lengthened. This being the case spoken of in our Mishnah: AND OF WHAT DID THEY SPEAK … OF A FIRST OBSERVATION. Cf. our Mishnah: BUT AT A SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATION … HOURS. Without her observing any discharge. In agreement with R. Eliezer (cf. our Mishnah). Supra; in regard to a young girl who had not yet attained the age of menstruation and who observed a discharge at the end of each of three consecutive 'onahs. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |