Niddah 37 – Rav Assi Excommunicates Shila bar Avina

Earlier we learned that if a woman bleeds while giving birth, and that happens not in the seven days when she can become a niddah, but during the following eleven days when she can become a zavah, her blood does not make her ritually impure.

However, Rav, Shmuel, and Rav Itzchak disagree on the additional limitations in the case when her labor stopped. According to Rav, she would be forbidden to her husband for that one day only. Shmuel says that she needs to observe another day free of discharge, while Rav Itzchak's opinion is that she is permitted to her husband even the same day.

Shila bar Avina ruled like Rav in an actual case. When Rav was dying, he said to Rav Assi, “Go and supress the ruling of Shila. I changed my mind and agree with Rav Itzchak: she need not wait at all. If Shila does not listen, persuade him by logic (garei). “ However, Rav Assi thought that Rav told him to excommunicate Shila (gadiei) if he does not listen. When Rav passed away, Rav Assi said to Shila, “Retract your opinion, because Rav changed his.” Shila answered, “If Rav really retracted, he would have told me himself.” Rav Assi excommunicated Shila.

Shila said to Rav Assi, “Aren't you afraid of a wrong-doing?” Rav Assi answered, “I am like a copper mortar (assisa) that is not subject to decay. Shila said, “I am analagous to an iron pestle that cracks a copper mortar.”

Rav Assi became sick, going from heat to cold and back, and ultimately passed away. Shila said to his wife, “Prepare burial shrouds for me, as I must leave the world along with Rav Assi, so that he should not go to Rav alone and tell him derogatory things about me,” then he too passed away. At the burial, the biers of the two scholars were side by side, and people saw myrtle branch fly back and forth from one bier to the other, and said, “We see that the Sages made a reconciliation.”

Art: John Ruskin - Study of a Sprig of a Myrtle Tree

Niddah 36 – Not Every Blood Makes Woman a Niddah

Not every blood that a woman sees makes her a niddah. In fact, she can become a niddah only in the first seven days of her cycle. Then she can go into a mikveh and be again permitted to her husband. After that begin the eleven days when blood gives her a different status, “zavah”. These 7 + 11 day cycles are described here for reference. Today the law is more strict, and she waits for seven days after any blood.

However, before the law changed, if a woman was giving birth not in the days when she become a niddah, then her blood does not automatically make her impure. Rather, if we are sure that this blood is due to childbirth, she remains pure. If, however, she sees blood while giving birth, and then the labor stops, this tells us that the blood was not due to imminent childbirth, and she is ritually impure as a zavah.

How long should the interruption in labor be? Rabbi Eliezer says, twenty-four hours; Rabbi Yehoshua says, a complete day, like Shabbat, from evening till next nightfall. Both derive their law from the same phrase in the Torah. We thus see that a woman can have blood during childbirth, and not acquire  any type of ritual impurity. The Sages required her to observe one day of niddah impurity, to prevent possible counting mistakes.

Art: William Redmore Bigg - Birth of the Heir

Niddah 35 – First Discharge

A male's “zivah” discharge is usually a sign of a particular internal ailment, and some say, it is a spiritual disease, just like a “metzora” – leper – was a spiritual ailment. However, occasionally it can be caused by one of the seven conditions: food, drink, carrying a load, jumping, illness, or a sight or thought of a woman.

Rav Huna said that even when it is caused by a stimuli, it has all the laws of a regular zivah, and causes one to be ritually impure, just like semen emission, based on the Torah phrase, “This is the law concerning the zav and one from whom semen was emitted.” Rav Huna's opinion is challenged with four different challenges, but he successfully answers all.

So how is zivah defined? Rav Huna gives the criteria: it is similar in consistency to water of barley dough; it issues from a limp organ, whereas semen issues from an erect one; it is runny and resembles the white of a spoiled egg, whereas semen is viscous and resembles the stark white of an unspoiled egg.

Definition: Niddah and Zavah Cycles

A woman's initial monthly discharge renders her a niddah. Seven days after that she may immerse in a mikveh and be again permitted to her husband.

The next eleven days after that are potential “zivah” days. Any discharge during these days renders her a “zavah.” If the discharge lasted for one or two days, she is called “minor zavah” and needs only to wait for another day free of discharge, and can go to a mikveh. However, three days of discharge render her a “major zavah.” She needs to observe seven clean days, immerse in a mikveh, and in the time of the Temple bring an offering. After that, the new cycle begins, where the next discharge will render her a niddah.

This is the Torah law, but in later generations, due to the difficulty of observing the day counts of niddah and zivah, the custom has become to treat any discharge as requiring seven clean days after it.

Art: Gilbert Gaul - Man Carrying Sticks at Dusk

Niddah 34 – Purity of Idolaters

By Torah law, idolaters do not have the strict ritual impurity of the Jews. However, in order to distance Jewish children from the children of idolaters, the Sages decreed to treat all idolaters and idolatresses as ritually impure because of zivah, as we have seen before. This was not, however, a real impurity, and if holy foods came in contact with such decreed impurity, they could not be burned – since in general it is forbidden to destroy sacrificial foods.

Therefore, the Sages now had to make a clear distinction between the ritual impurity of idolaters, which was only a decree, and that of Jews, which was the Torah law. They did it by declaring only some of the discharges of idolaters impure, but not all of them, so that it would serve as a reminder. Beit Shammai say that the uterine blood of an idolatress is pure, whether moist or dry. However, Beit Hillel gave it the impurity of other secretions, such as saliva and urine, which is impure only when moist but not when dry.

The semen of a Jew is ritually impure, and if it comes out of an idolatress, it makes her impure. The semen of a non-Jew is pure, and if it comes out of a Jewish woman, it does not make her impure. Rav Pappa asked the question about the semen of a Jew inside of an idolatress. But we just answered it!? He meant, after three days. We know that inside a Jewish woman it putrefies in three days and is thus pure, perhaps because she is always worried about mitzvot, which adds internal heat. This is not true about an idolatress. On the other hand, an idolatress eats various crawling creatures, and maybe that too adds heat? The question remained unresolved.

Art: Edward R. King - London Street Children

Niddah 33 – Cutheans' Purity

If a man emits seed, he becomes ritually impure for that day. In the same vein, if a woman had intercourse and later emitted the man's seed – as long as the seed is viable – she too becomes ritually impure for that day. We learn this from the giving of the Torah. Men were required to separate from their wives for three days in advance. Really, one day would be enough, but since seed remains alive in a woman's womb for three days, we learn from the law about a woman who emits man's seed.

Rami bar Chama asked, “What if a woman emits man's seed while she is counting her pure days, does it ruin her count?” Rava commented, “Because of Rami's sharpness, he asked a meaningless question.” However, the Talmud proves that the questions indeed had meaning.

Rav Pappa once came to the city of Tavach. He said, “If there is a smart scholar here, show him to me.” One elderly woman said, “We have a scholar, by the name of Rav Shmuel, and you should be like him.” Rav Pappa concluded, “If people bless me in his name, he must be truly a God-fearing person.”

Rav Shmuel slaughtered an ox for Rav Pappa, and then asked a question about Cutheans's purity that left Rav Pappa perplexed: why are their garments only doubtfully impure, while the garments of an ignoramus are definitely impure? Rav Pappa answered that we are dealing with a Cuthean Sage, but Rav Shmuel pointed out that from the rest of the story it did not look like that.

Art: Domenico Fetti - Portrait Of A Scholar

Niddah 32 – Cutheans

Cutheans were a people brought by the Assyrian emperor Shalmanessar from their native Cutha to Israel to populate the area of Israel left desolate by his exile of the Ten Tribes. Since then lived in Samaria, they are also called Samaritans. While in Israel, they were attacked by mountain lions, and they decided to convert to Judaism. They basically followed the written Torah the way they understood it, and in these areas they were even more meticulous than the Jews. However, they differed in matters of interpretation, which caused them to observe some laws incorrectly. Eventually, it was discovered that they still served idols, and they were declared to be non-Jewish, but prior to that they were a subject of long-standing disagreements.

The Sages gave all of the female Samaritans the status of a niddah , even while they are still very young, and all male the status of ritual impurity of a zav.  They also considered all Cuthean males as though they cohabited with their wives while in the state of niddah. Why is all that?

Since the Cutheans did not accept the interpretation of the Torah by the Jewish Sages, they took no notice of the repetition “Woman... woman.” The Sages understood this to mean that even a young girl may become a niddah. Therefore, if it did happen, Jews would immerse the girl in the mikveh, while the Cutheans would not. The situation with the males was the same.

Furthermore, the Cutheans considered a woman a niddah when she had blood of any color, not just any of the four colors we learned above. They thought this to be an additional stringency. However, that really was a leniency: if their woman saw, for example, yellow color of blood, she would start counting her seven days – which was wrong. If she then saw red blood, it would be included in the seven-day count, which would thus finish earlier than it should. Thus, she would immerse while still a niddah, and the immersion would be infective.

Art: Pierre Auguste Renoir - Girl Gathering Flowers

Definition of the term "Zav"

A man may see a white discharge from his male member, more white than semen, which is called "zivah," or "flow." When he sees it, he has ritual impurity similar to one who had a seminal emission.

If he sees the discharge twice in one day, or on two consecutive days, he is called a "zav." The ritual impurity of a "zav" is stronger than that of the one who had a seminal emission, and in additional he must wait for seven days before becoming pure. A regular mikveh is not enough for him, and he must immerse himself in running spring-water. If he sees three discharges, he observes all of the rules above, and must additionally bring a sacrifice on the eight day.

Niddah 31 – Cleopatra's Experiment

Rabbi Ishmael disagrees with the forty days for forming the fetus rule above and says that the male forms in forty days, but the female forms in eighty days. The Sages argued with him based on Cleopatra's experiment when two of her maidservants were sentenced to death for an offense against the crown. She had them cohabit on the same day, then examined them on the forty-first day: one had a male, another a female, both formed. Rabbi Ishmael answered, “I am bringing a proof from the Torah, and you are responding with a proof from imbeciles!”

What is the Torah's proof? Just as the days of the mother's purity after giving birth to a female are eighty days, so too is the formation of a fetus, while it is forty days for a male. And the Sages? They say, “You cannot compare the formation of a fetus to the laws of ritual purity.” What did Rabbi Ishmael answer to the experiment? He said, “Perhaps the woman with the female was pregnant from before.” The Sages said, “Cleopatra appointed a guardian for her!” Rabbi Ishmael answered, “There is no guardian against promiscuity.”

In a different version of the story, the positions were reversed. Rabbi Ishmael was quoting the experiment, which was reported to have eighty days for a female, and the Sages were arguing against his proof.

A lamp is lit for an unborn child in its mother's womb, and he peers and sees from one end of the world to the other. They teach him the entire Torah, but as soon as the child emerges into the world, an angel comes and strikes him on the upper lip, causing him to forget it all. However, the child cannot be born until he gives an oath. They tell him to promise, “Be a good person, and don't be a bad person. However, even if the whole world tells you that you are righteous, view yourself as having achieved nothing at all.”

Art: Ferdinand Georg Waldmuller - The Young boy with a Lamp

Niddah 30 – A Forgetful Woman

Imagine the following situation. A woman went away pregnant, but returned later without a child, and she does not recall when her pregnancy got terminated. Then she experienced three pure weeks, and afterward – ten alternating weeks, where she saw blood one week, and no blood the next week. She may cohabit with her husband on the thirty-fifth day of her arrival, and she must go to the mikveh ninety-five times in this thirteen week period – these are the words of Beit Shammai. Beit Shammai's rule is that it is a mitzvah to go to a mikveh exactly on the day when it is needed, and because of the interplay of multiple uncertainties, there ninety-five days when it might be needed. Beit Hillel don't agree to this rule, but they still find enough possible uncertainties to require her to go to the mikveh thirty-five times.

If a woman miscarried on a fortieth day after conception (which she knows because it is forty days after she went to the mikveh), she need not be concerned that it was a child, and therefore the laws of ritual impurity of childbirth do not apply to her. If, however, it is the forty-first day, she must observe all the limitations of the birth of a male, and all of the female, and a regular niddah law, as if there was no birth.

Art: Ubaldo Gandolfi - Portrait of a Young Woman Thought to be the Artist's Wife

Niddah 29 – Abortion of Unknown Nature

If a woman aborted, but she does not know whether it was a male or a female child, although she is positive that it was a fetus, and not an empty inflated sack, she has to observe both set of laws, for a male birth and for a female birth. That means that she is ritually impure for two weeks, like for a female child, and not one week, like for a male.

Now this is followed by the period of ritual purity, even if she sees blood. However, the purity for a male child would start after a week and continue for forty days. Since she already observed two weeks, she is left with only twenty six days of purity. Also, we can not give her the eighty days of purity, as she would have for a female child, and this explains why we use forty days in this calculation. Thus, she receives the stringencies of both possibilities.

If it is not even known if it was a child or not, since the discharge was lost before its nature could be determined, she does not receive neither the forty pure days for a male, nor eighty for a female.

Art: Jean Beauduin - A Pensive Moment

Niddah 28 – Corpse That Was Fully Cremated

Earlier we saw the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that an afterbirth containing a dissolved fetus is ritually pure. In explaining it, Resh Lakish said, “It is similar to a corpse whose shape was obliterated, which is pure.” Rabbi Yochanan told him, “You seem to derive your opinion from the rule that a corpse that kept its shape is impure. But perhaps its ashes are even more impure!” Incidentally, how can a corpse keep its shape after cremation? Abaye said, “In a mold of fireproof leather.” Rava said, “In a mold of a marble slab.” Ravina said, “If it was completely charred but not reduced to ashes.”

If a woman aborts either a tumtum (indeterminate gender) or an androgyne, she needs to observe the periods of birth impurity followed by a special period of purity for both a male and a female child. However, if she aborted twins, either a tumtum and a female, or an androgyne and a female, she only observes the purity periods for a female, because these are twice as long and overlap those of a male child.

If the fetus comes out dismembered or in a breach position, it is considered born when the majority of it appears. However, if it comes out in the usual manner, it is not considered born until most of its head comes out of the womb – that is, its forehead.

Art: James Sant - The Twins

Niddah 27 – Afterbirth That Came Later

After Rav's death, his student Rav Yehudah and his other students went to study with Shmuel, and were telling him the statements of Rav. Rav Yehudah said, “For the first three days after the birth of a child, the emergence of an afterbirth is attributed to that child that was born. There is no concern for another child that might have dissolved, and no ritual impurity associated with it – nor any special laws for the woman. After three days, we must be concerned with the possibility that there was another child.

However, as the other students of Rav added, that's only if she first had a miscarriage, and then the afterbirth, and not the other way around. This is also only true when the first child was sufficiently developed that had it been a full-term baby, it could have survived. Since Rav Yehudah did not relate these details accurately, Shmuel looked at him with displeasure. Besides, sometimes even an afterbirth that comes up to twenty three days after a miscarriage may be still attributed to it.

Rabbi Yose ben Shaul asked, “If a woman aborts a fetus in the shape of a raven, and an afterbirth after that, do we attribute the afterbirth to the raven-shaped fetus? Rabbi Yehudah the Prince answered, “No, since ravens don't have afterbirth, we do not attribute it.” Rabbi Yose continued, “But what if the afterbirth is attached to it?” Rabbi Yehudah said, “It is impossible.” However, he was proven wrong by a teaching that considered just such a case.

Art: George Stubbs - The Farmers Wife and the Raven

Niddah 26 – Afterbirth in the House

If there is an afterbirth in the house, the house is ritually impure. That is, if a woman expelled an afterbirth without a sign of a fetus, we must assume that there was a fetus but it died and disintegrated after it emerged, transmitting ritual impurity of a corpse to everything in the house. Rabbi Shimon says, “The child disintegrated before it emerged from the mother. A dead fetus does not contaminate while it is inside the mother, and by the time the afterbirth appeared, the fetus was no more, so everything in the house is pure.”

To be considered afterbirth, it must have the size of no less than a hand-breadth. Incidentally, there are five laws where the measurement is a hand-breadth, and afterbirth is first. Also there is the shofar, which must be no less than a hand-breadth to be visible; a lulav – a palm branch taken on Sukkot, which must extend at least a hand-breadth over the other species; the walls of a sukkah, since we learned that a sukkah needs at least two full walls, and a third one no less than a hand-breadth; and a hyssop, used to purify a spiritual leper or the ritual impurity of a corpse.

Art: Jacobus Vrel - An interior of a house with a seated woman

Niddah 25 – Gravedigger

If a woman aborts an embryo full of water, full of blood, or full of multicolored matter, this is not considered birth, and she does not receive the impurity of childbirth. There is no need to suspect that perhaps there was a more fully developed child, but it got disintegrated. However, if the limbs of the baby began to be developed – but the gender cannot as yet be determined – she must observe the overlapping periods of childbirth impurity, then childbirth purity with the stringency of both a female and a male child.

Abaye said rhetorically, “How much wine does the mother have to drink for the child to dissolve?” He meant that it is impossible, and there was no child. Abba Shaul said, “I was a gravedigger, and I saw that bones of those who drink very strong wine get burned, bones of those to who drink overdiluted wine are dry, and bones of those who drink proper wine are well lubricated.”

He continued with a fantastic story. “I was a gravedigger and once ran after a deer, and entered into a thighbone of a corpse. I pursued the deer for about ten miles, and I never reached the deer nor the end of the thighbone. I retraced my steps, and was later told that this was the thigh bone of Og, the King of Bashan, the last of the race of giants who lived in the Land of Israel in early Biblical times.” Talmud concludes that one should not think that Abba Shaul was a midget, for he was the tallest man of his generation. The Talmud then continues to recount previous generations who were even taller. There is allegorical meaning in all these stories.

Art: Charles Frederick Lowcock - The Grave Digger

Niddah 24 – Child with Wings

If a woman gives birth to a child with a serious defect, and the defect is such that an animal with a similar defect would not be viable, that is, would be a terefah, then this is not considered a viable child, and the woman does not have the birth-impurity. There is, however, a point of view that an animal that is terefah actually can survive. According to this view, the child is viable, and the mother has the impurity of childbirth.

The sons of Rabbi Chiya went to inspect their fields. When they came back, their father asked them if they were presented with any questions. They said, “They asked us about a child with unformed face, and we ruled this a viable child and assigned to his mother birth-impurity.” Rabbi Chiya said, “Go back and retract your ruling. You thought to rule stringently, just in case, but you cannot do this here, because this stringency leads to a leniency in the end, when she is given a long period of purity following childbirth.”

If a woman aborts a child having the semblance of Lilith, the mother of demons, who have a human face and possess wings, then the mother has the impurity of childbirth, because it is a human child, only it has wings.

Art: Charles Sprague Pearce - Women in the Fields

Niddah 23 – Animal

If a woman aborts something resembling a fish, a locust, or a rodent, this is not considered birth, and she is ritually pure, if there was no blood. If she aborts something resembling domesticated animal, wild animal, or fowl, then Rabbi Meir says that she observes the waiting periods as if she gave birth to a human, but the Sages say that only a human-like form considered birth for the purposes of ritual purity.

We can understand the Sages, but how does Rabbi Meir arrive at his point of view, and why does he not include the likeness of a fish? Some say, this is because the term “created” was used in conjunction with human and with animals. But “created” is also used in “And God created large sea creatures!?” – This is a difficulty that the Talmud explains by analyzing the use of the extra word, “created” in different context. Other say, this is because animal eyes resemble those of humans.

Rabbi Yirmiyah asked Rabbi Zeira, “According to Rabbi Meir, who considers the shape of an animal like a human in some way, what if this animal is a female, and its father accepted a marriage proposal money from a man for it – can that man marry her sister?”

Rav Adda bar Ahava asked Abaye, “What if – the other way around – an animal gives birth to someone resembling human, would Rabbi Meir say it is a human?” What difference does it make? – In the case where the mother animal was slaughtered before giving birth, would her ritual slaughter allow to eat this creature, like it does for normal animals?

Art: Clara Peeters - Still Life of Fish and Lemons

Niddah 22 – Hair

If a woman expels objects resembling a rind, a hair, dust, or midges, all of red color, there is not question that these items are not embryos or fetuses. Therefore she is definitely not impure with the impurity of childbirth. However, these items may be coagulated menstrual blood, and then she would be impure with the regular impurity of a niddah.

In that case, she should test them by placing them in water and soaking them there. If they dissolve, this is menstrual blood, and she is impure, but if not, she is pure. In the previous case of a formless mass, the teacher did not prescribe this test, because he is of the opinion that menstrual blood does not coagulate into a large mass, but only into a small object the size of midge or hair.

Art: William-Adolphe Bouguereau - Italian Girl Drawing Water

Niddah 21 – Miscarriage

When a woman gives birth to a child, she becomes ritually impure for seven days if that child was a male, and for fourteen, if it was a female. However, after this begins her period of purity, and even if she sees blood, this blood is pure. This period lasts for thirty-three days for a male child, and sixty-six for a female. This purity is only in regards to her relations with her husband; in order to go to the Temple, she needs to wait out the complete time above, and then bring a childbirth offering.

If she miscarries a formless mass, it is not considered birth at all. Consequently, she is only impure if together with the mass she expelled some blood; otherwise she is pure. Rabbi Yehudah declares her impure even in that case.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehudah? Actually, they argue in a narrow case. If the expelled mass was one of the four colors discussed previously, all agree that she is impure. They only argue about the case where she misplaced the mass before it could be examined. Rabbi Yehudah says that since statistically the miscarriage has one of these colors in the majority of cases, we have to assume that hers was the same way. However, the Sages disagree about this statistics and say that it is not a proven fact.

Art: Theodore Robinson - Mother And Child By The Hearth

Niddah 20 – Shades of Color

If a woman's blood coming from her womb is “red like that of a wound,” it makes her ritually impure. Rav Yehudah explained, “Like the blood of a slaughtered ox.” Ami the Beautiful said, “Like a wound of a little finger that was cut, then healed, and then cut again, and not the little finger of any person, but only a man who has not wed a wife, until the age of twenty.” Rav Nachman said, “Like the blood of bloodletting.”

Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi all went for bloodletting. When they extracted the first tube of blood of Ameimar, he said, “That blood color is just like in the rule (above) about a woman.” On the second tube he mentioned, “The color has changed.” Rav Ashi after this remarked, “I, who cannot tell the difference between the two shades, should never rule on it, even for such an important matter as to permit a woman to her husband.”

Ifra Hurmiz, the mother of the Persian king Shapur, observed the laws of niddah. She once sent her blood to Rava, who said, “It is the blood of desire, and it is not like other bloods, but it is pure.” (Some say, it is impure, and Rava was demonstrating his deep knowledge.) She said to her son, “Look how wise Jews are!” He said, “Maybe he just stumbled upon the answer.” She then sent Rava sixty types of blood, and he identified them all, except for the last one, the blood of a louse. He had help from Above though, since together with his answers he sent her a fancy comb used to kill lice. She exclaimed, “Jews, you dwell in the chambers of the heart!”

Art: Jacob Jordaens - An old man with a raised finger

Niddah 19 – Four Colors

To be considered ritually impure, blood has to come from the womb and be one of the colors below: red, black, red similar to a corner of crocus leaf, red like earth waters, and red similar to diluted wine.

What is red? – Similar to the blood of a wound. What is black? – Similar to black pigment used in creating ink. In truth, black is presumed to have been red initially, and then change colors, so it is not a new color. If we didn't say this, we would five colors, and not four. A “corner of a crocus” means the most brilliant, or the brightest, part of the crocus. “Earth waters” are obtained by taking earth from the valley of Beit Kerem, and floating water upon it. By diluted wine the rule means two times water and one part wine, as was the custom in the early times, when the wine produced was extremely strong.

How do we know that not every color of blood is ritually impure? Because in describing how a rebellious Sage disagrees with the Sanhedrin, the Torah uses the words, “If there be hidden from you a matter of judgment, between blood and blood.” They must have been arguing about the colors of blood from the womb.

How do we know to include exactly four shades of red? Because the Torah said, “her bloods” and then again “her bloods,” the first plural counting as two and the second also as two, to the total of four.

Art: Albert Anker - Still Life: Two Glass of Red Wine, a Bottle of Wine; a Corkscrew and a Plate of Biscuits on a Tray

Niddah 18 – A Metaphor

The Sages composed a metaphor to describe the reproductive organs in the body of a woman. They spoke of the room (the womb), the corridor (the vaginal canal), and the attic (the upper cavity). There are two ways to explain “the upper cavity.” Some say that in ancient times, when there were no drugs or antibiotics, there could often be a “passageway” between the vaginal canal and such body parts as urethra. Others simply take “the upper cavity” to indicate any uncommon source of blood, such as a wound.

Blood that originates in the “room” is ritually impure, and blood that originates in the “attic” is pure. If blood was found in the “corridor,” it could have come either from the room or from the attic. However, since the room discharges blood frequently, and the attic only infrequently, the blood in the corridor is presumed to have come from the room, and is declared as definitely impure.

The practical consequence of this rule is that if the woman touched ritually pure foods, such as the Kohen's portion, or “terumah,” the food is declared definitely impure, and is burned because of that. Should it be only a doubt, the food would not be burned, but would not be eaten either, but the rule resolves this uncertainty.

Rabbi Yochanan said that there are three places in this Tractate where the rule of majority was used to resolve uncertainty, and ours is one of them. The Talmud then investigates what the other ones are, and why yet additional ones were not included.

Art: Peter Vilhelm Ilsted - Woman reading

Niddah 17 – All is Predestined, Except Being a Good Person

Engaging in marital relations while it is light is considered vulgar. There are exceptions to this rule, such when one has no other time or is too tired at night. A scholar may cover his bed with a cloak.

What is the source for general rule? Rabbi Yochanan said, from the book of Job, “Likewise the night that declared: A man has been conceived” – night is given for conception, but not day. But Resh Lakish derives it from Proverbs, “One who degrades his way...” and “way” is an euphemism for marital relations. According to Resh Lakish, “night that declared” means something different: there is an angel called “Night,” or “Laila.” That angel takes the drop from which the child will be conceived, places it before the Holy One Blessed is He, and asks, “Master of the Universe! This drop, what is its destiny? Mighty or weak; intelligent or foolish; wealthy or poor?” However, he does not ask, “Wicked or righteous?” This agrees with the lesson that Rav Chanina derived from the phrase, “And now, Israel, what does God want of you? Only that you remain in awe of God your Lord, so that you will follow all His paths...”

One should not cohabit in the presence of other living beings. Rabbi Yehudah asked, “Even mice?” Shmuel answered him, “Smart one! I only meant a certain family who engage in relations in the presence of their slaves and slave-women.” And what was the family's justification? – Since the Torah said, “Stay here by yourself with the donkey,” some people are likened to  a donkey. Nevertheless, Abaye would chase away the flies, and Rava – the gnats.

Art: Willem Van Aelst - Still Life with Mouse and Candle

Niddah 16 – Multiple Acts

Earlier we said that a woman who was involved with ritually pure foods, in the time of the Temple, had to examine herself before and after intimacy with her husband, to verify that she has not become a niddah.  The next rule discusses how these examinations are performed when she is involved in multiple acts of intimacy in a single night.

Beit Shammai say that she must use two clean examination clothes for each and every act of cohabitation, or she must cohabit by the light of a lamp. That means, she must wipe herself before and after the act, and set the cloth aside for later examination. If she only has one cloth, she must inspect it by lamplight each time. Actually, one should not cohabit by lamplight, but only use it for the inspection. Beit Hillel, on the other hand, say that two examination clothes suffice her through the entire night.

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: “According to your view, it is possible that the blood is covered by later wiping.” Beit Hillel answered, “Even according to you, it might still be diluted with semen and dissipate!” Beit Shammai replied, “One-time dilution is not comparable to two-times dilution.”

Art: Jacob Jordaens - Portrait of a Young Married Couple

Niddah 15 – The Wife is Always Pure

All women are presumed to be pure for their husbands: a wife may cohabit with her husband without performing an examination. The checks that were learned about before were only instituted for women involved in preparation of ritually pure foods, in the time of the Temple and for some time afterward. Furthermore, the husband does not have to ask his wife if she is a niddah. Those man who come home from a journey can also presume that their wives are pure.

What was the need to teach the second part of the ruling, for men who come from a journey? You might have thought that the above ruling only applies when the husband is in town and can return home any time, and that's why we assume that the wife already performed any examination she might need to do, but, however, when he is out of town, she may not be so careful – the teacher had to tell us that the rule applies in both situations.

In explaining this rule, Rav Huna said that it only applies if the time for her fixed period has not arrived – because Rav Huna consider the needs to be more careful on this day as a Torah requriement given at Sinai. However, Rabbah bar bar Chanah said that when the time for her fixed period arrived, she is still permitted to her husband, because he considers this need as only instituted by the Sages, and here it is unknown if the examination was already performed.

Art: Ferdinand Bol - Portrait of a Husband and Wife 1654

Niddah 14 – Lice

The practice of the daughters of Israel involved with ritual food was to cohabit with two clothes prepared for examination, one for him and one for her. The pious ones had a new cloth for every cohabitation, if there were multiple cohabitations.

If blood was found on his cloth, then she indisputably had blood during cohabitation, and each one is now obligated in a sin-offering. Regarding her cloth, there are three time periods. If blood was found on her cloth immediately after cohabitation, both need a sacrifice. If it was found after a time (enough to reach under a pillow and pull out a cloth), both bring an offering of uncertainty. If it was found after that, there is not more consequence than making the foods that she touched ritually impure retroactively.

But why is the above true? Maybe it was the blood of a louse on the cloth? Rabbi Zeira said, “That place is considered inspected with regard to a louse” – meaning, lice never visit the genital area. Others say, “It is too crowded for a louse,” - meaning, lice are usually not found in the genital area, because it is too constricted for them to enter. What is the practical difference between the two explanations? – Where a crushed louse was found on a cloth. According to the first explanation, it must have come from elsewhere, and the blood came from the woman. But according to the second, perhaps the louse was in the genital area, and then the organ crushed it, so the man and the woman are in doubt about their transgression.

Art: Amedeo Modigliani - Dark Young Woman Seated by a Bed

Niddah 13 - Touching

Although a woman may be praiseworthy if she checks herself, a man should not examine himself to see whether he has emitted seed or not - because this checking itself may lead to the waste of semen; if he does, he deserves that his hand is cut off. What is the difference between a woman and a man? A woman does not experience a titillating sensation when she examines herself, but a man does.

Rabbi Eliezer said, "Whoever grasps his organ when he urinates is as if he brings a flood upon the world," - since the generation of the Flood wasted their seed. The Sages said to Rabbi Eliezer, "If he does not hold his organ, droplets may fall on his feet, and he will appear as one who has a cut organ – who is incapable of having children – and thus people may suspect that his children are not his own." Rabbi Eliezer answered them, "Let him stand on a high place and urinate, but if this is not possible, better cast aspersions on his children than be bad in front of God for even a moment."

One who wastes semen is compared to a murderer and to one who worships idols. But where is this prohibition in the Torah? Some say it is implied in "do not commit adultery," and some - in "be fruitful in multiply."

Does the "hand to be cut off" mean the literal law, or just a curse? The Talmud tries to find proof from many laws and stories but then leaves the matter unresolved.

Art: Vecellio Cesare - Portrait of a Large Family

Niddah 12 – Overtures

Shmuel elucidated the previous ruling about checks: it was only taught in regard to ritual purity of sacrificial foods; however, the couple can engage in relations without such checks. Rabbi Zeira inquired, “Can she be more stringent and examine herself anyway?” Ravi Yehudah answered, “No.” Rabbi Zeira asked, “But what would be wrong if she does, out of piety?” Rav Yehudah answered, “No, she should not, because it may put a strain on the relationship.”

Donkey drivers and itinerant workers, as well as those who return from the house of mourning or the house of feasting (a wedding), when they come back after a period of absence, can be with their wives without asking them about their purity status – provided that they left them in the state of purity. Why is that? Couldn't it be otherwise? – Since the husband comes after a period of absence, he will make prolonged overtures to his wive, and this will lead the wife to recall if she is forbidden to have relations with him.

Rav Kahana wanted to know if that was indeed the law. He asked the wives of two Sages, Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, “Do your husbands require you to make an examination, after they come home on Fridays after a week of teaching in the study hall?” and they answered, “No.” Why didn't he ask the husbands themselves? – Because they would tell him the actual law, but not the personal stringency, if they had one, while the wives would not be so careful about keeping the private stringency secret.”

Art: Pieter the Elder Bruegel - Peasant Wedding

Niddah 11 – Checks

Earlier we said that a woman with a fixed period is presumed ritually pure, and the sacrificial foods that she handled prior to seeing discharged blood are not declared impure retroactively. And yet, even such woman, if she handles ritually pure foods, has to examine herself at regularly scheduled times, morning and evening. The exceptions to this rule are a woman who had a discharge (niddah) and is waiting to become pure by going to a mikvah, and the one who is, on the contrary, pure after having given birth.

Similarly, a woman with a fixed period, if she handles ritual foods, needs to examine herself before and after having relations with her husband. An exception to this rule is a virgin who just married and whose blood is considered pure.

A daughter or a wife of a Kohen has an additional stringency, since she eats the priestly portion (terumah), which requires an additional level of purity. Because of this, she needs an examination at the time they wish to eat terumah. Rabbi Yehudah said, “And also after eating it,” to remove the doubt from what is left.

Art: Gabriel Metsu - Woman Eating and Feeding her Cat

Niddah 10 – Laws of a Very Young Girl

The following deals only with the laws of purity in regard to the Temple and foods that need to remain ritually pure. If a young girl whose time to discharge blood has not yet arrived – that is, she has not reached the age – discharged blood, then the first time she has the presumption of ritual purity, and all foods that she handled prior remain pure. After the second time she is still not given retroactive impurity, and only after the third time she has the law of all other women, and the foods that she handled become retroactively impure, back to the time of a previous check, but no more than twenty-four hours back. If she then misses three periods, she has the presumption of purity again. This, however, is only the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who states that three missed periods remove her from retroactive impurity.

It once happened that such a case came to the court of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, and he ruled the foods pure, which agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Afterwards, Rabbi Yehudah recalled that the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer, and it bothered him. However, he then confirmed his ruling, saying that Rabbi Eliezer is great enough to rely on his opinion at the time of pressing need. What was the pressing need? Some say that it was the time of a famine, and the foods that she handled were such that they could not be eaten should they become impure. Others say that she has handled massive amounts of food, and making them impure would result in a large loss.

Art: Peder Vilhelm Ilsted - Girl Reading a Letter in an Interior

Niddah 9 – Definitions of a Virgin, Pregnant, Nursing, and Old Women

One of the four types of women who are not given retroactive impurity, even if they see blood, but are only ritually impure from this moment on, is a virgin. However, this type of virgin is someone who never saw blood in her life, not one who never cohabited with a man. Actually, there are three types of virgins: virgin woman, virgin soil, and virgin sycamore tree – and the precise definitions are important for marriage contracts and contracts of sale, but our virgin is of the fourth type. Since Rabbi Meir said that “Any woman whose bloods are abundant, her children are abundant,” - it is the absence of this type of virginity that is desirable to the prospective husband.

A pregnant woman has this status when her pregnancy is noticeable. A nursing woman is one who nurses, until she weans the child – these are the words of Rabbi Meir, who says that there is a direct connection between nursing and the abeyance of blood – and therefore it may last even for four or five years. However, the Sages say the the abeyance of blood is the result of having given birth, and lasts no longer than two years.

An old woman is one whom they call “Mother so-and-so,” and in today's terminology probably “Granny,” and she is not embarrassed. Others say, until she does not resent it any longer. The difference between these two opinions is the time period when she does not resent it, because it's true, but is still embarrassed. The “old woman” of our ruling is one who is old as above, and then misses her three periods.

Jacobus Frederik Sterre De Jong - A sunlit interior with a mother and a baby

Niddah 8 – The Law Follows Rabbi Eliezer in Four Cases

Earlier we learned a case where Rabbi Eliezer stated his opinion, but Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed with him. In regard to this, Shmuel said, “The law in general follows Rabbi Eliezer in four cases, and the above is one of them.” But in each of these cases, the ruling itself included the words, “And the law is like Rabbi Eliezer.” Why did Shmuel have to teach us the obvious? – That is exactly what Shmuel is telling us: just because the earlier ruling (Mishna) states that the law follows a certain Sage, we cannot say that this is necessarily true, since later rulings (Talmud) may change this, or establish it in only a specific limited situation. Thus, we cannot rely on our partial learning, but must have the totality of all the rules in front of us.

The Talmud then lists the other three cases, dealing with the discharge of a woman, discharge of a man, and the outside surface of a vessel that has become ritually impure through a liquid – that it can make other liquids impure, but not foods. But aren't there more cases!? – True, but Shmuel meant only in the laws of purity. But even there, there are more!? – Shmuel meant only cases where nobody else supports Rabbi Eliezer, and the law follows him based on his authority alone.

Art: Jan van de Venne - A Rabbi Reading

Niddah 7 – Four Women with the Presumption of Purity

According to Rabbi Eliezer, there are types of women who, even if they discover blood, are not given ritual impurity retroactively. They are a virgin who never saw blood, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, and an old woman. The Talmud goes on to define the exact age and time events for them.

Rabbi Yehoshua said, “I heard this law only in regard to a virgin, but not in regard the other three enumerated by Rabbi Eliezer." Rabbi Eliezer answered him, “You did not hear it from your teachers, but I did hear from mine. Do we ask to testify about a new moon the one who did not see it, or the one who saw it?” While Rabbi Eliezer was alive, the law followed Rabbi Yehoshua, but after Rabbi Eliezer's passing, Rabbi Yehoshua returned the law to follow Rabbi Eliezer.

Why did Rabbi Yehoshua do it? He reasoned that if they were to follow Rabbi Eliezer in this law, where his view was indeed the correct one, then people might follow Rabbi Eliezer even in other areas, where he might have been wrong. If that happened, Rabbi Yehoshua would not be able to stop them: Rabbi Eliezer was under a ban and forbidden to defend his view, and Rabbi Yehoshua would not feel right to speak when he was allowed to, while Rabbi Eliezer would be forbidden it, out of respect for Rabbi Eliezer. After Rabbi Eliezer's passing, this was no longer a concern.

Art: A Pieter De Hooch - Woman Nursing an Infant with a Child and a Dog