meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/Mishnah Niddah/English/merged.txt"}
text: Mishnah Niddah
  משנה נדה
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -William Davidson Edition - English
  -www.korenpub.com
  
  Mishnah Niddah
  
  
  
  
  
  Shammai says: For all women who do not have a fixed menstrual cycle, their time is sufficient. Women who discern that menstrual blood emerged do not need to be concerned that perhaps the flow of blood began before they noticed it. Rather, they assume their ritual impurity status begins at that moment, in terms of rendering impure <i>teruma</i> and ritually pure items with which they come in contact. Hillel says: From examination [<i>mipekida</i>] to examination, i.e., she assumes ritual impurity status retroactive to the last time she examined herself and determined that she was ritually pure, and this is the <i>halakha</i> even if her examination took place several days earlier. Any ritually pure item with which she came in contact in the interim becomes ritually impure. And the Rabbis say: The <i>halakha</i> is neither in accordance with the statement of this <i>tanna</i> nor in accordance with the statement of that <i>tanna</i>; rather, the principle is: A twenty-four-hour period reduces the time from examination to examination. In other words, if her final self-examination took place more than twenty-four hours earlier, she need only concern herself with ritual impurity for the twenty-four-hour period prior to discerning the blood. And from examination to examination reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period. In other words, if she examined herself in the course of the previous day and discovered no blood, she was certainly ritually pure prior to the examination. For any woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle [<i>veset</i>], and she examined herself at that time and discovered blood, her time is sufficient, and it is only from that time that she transmits ritual impurity. And with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths [<i>be’edim</i>] before and after intercourse, with which she ascertains whether her menstrual flow began, the halakhic status of such an action is like that of an examination, and therefore it reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period, and reduces the time from examination to examination.
  Her time is sufficient, how so? If the woman was sitting in the bed and engaged in handling ritually pure items, and she left the bed and saw blood, she is ritually impure and those items are ritually pure. Although the Rabbis said that a woman without a fixed menstrual cycle transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, a woman with a fixed cycle counts her menstrual days only from the moment that she saw blood.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: Unlike the women with regard to whom it was taught that they transmit impurity retroactively, there are four women who discern menstrual blood and their time is sufficient, i.e., they transmit impurity only from the moment that they saw the blood: A virgin, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, and an elderly woman. Rabbi Yehoshua says: I heard this <i>halakha</i> from my teachers only with regard to a virgin, but the <i>halakha</i> is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
  Who is the woman characterized as a virgin in this context? It is any woman who has not seen the flow of menstrual blood in all her days, even if she was married and has experienced bleeding as a result of intercourse consummating her marriage. The time of a pregnant woman is from the point in her pregnancy when the existence of her fetus is known to all who see her. The time of a nursing woman is until she weans her child from nursing. If she stopped nursing, e.g., she gave her child to a wet nurse, weaned him from nursing, or her child died, and she saw menstrual blood, Rabbi Meir says: She transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from her most recent examination. And the Rabbis say: Even in those cases, her time is sufficient.
  Who is the woman characterized as an elderly woman in this context? It is any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed during which she saw no menstrual blood, at a stage of her life close to her old age. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles passed during which she saw no menstrual blood, if she then experiences bleeding, her time is sufficient. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if they then saw blood, their time is sufficient.
  And in the above cases, with regard to what did the <i>tanna</i> say her time is sufficient? It is with regard to the first sighting of blood, but with regard to the second sighting, her status is like that of any other woman, and she transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from her most recent examination. And if she saw the first sighting as a result of unnatural circumstances, even with regard to the second sighting, the <i>halakha</i> is that her time is sufficient.
  Although the Rabbis said that for a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle her time is sufficient and she does not transmit impurity retroactively, she is required to examine herself each day to ensure that she is ritually pure and will not impurify pure items that she is handling. All women must examine themselves each day except for a menstruating woman, whose impure status is known, and a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, whose ritually pure status is known even if she experiences bleeding. And even a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle engages in intercourse while using examination cloths to ascertain whether her menstrual flow began, except for a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, and a virgin whose blood is ritually pure for four days after engaging in intercourse for the first time. And she is required to examine herself twice each day: In the morning, to ascertain if she menstruated during the night, and at twilight, to ascertain if she menstruated during the day. And she is also required to examine herself at a time that she is about to engage in intercourse with her husband. The obligation of women of priestly families is greater than that of other women, as they are also required to examine themselves when they seek to partake of <i>teruma</i>. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when they conclude partaking of <i>teruma</i> they are required to examine themselves, in order to ascertain whether they experienced bleeding while partaking of <i>teruma</i>.
  
  
  
  With regard to any hand that is diligent to examine bodily emissions to ascertain ritual impurity, among women such a hand is praiseworthy. But among men such a hand should be severed, as this action is apt to lead to a seminal emission for naught. In the case of a woman who is deaf [<i>haḥereshet</i>], or an imbecile, or blind, or who went insane, and is therefore unable to examine herself reliably, if such women have competent friends, those friends prepare them by examining them and immersing them in a ritual bath. And on that basis the incompetent women may partake of <i>teruma</i> after the sun sets. It is the custom of Jewish women that they engage in intercourse with their husbands while using two examination cloths, one for the husband, to see if there is any of the wife’s blood on him after intercourse, and one for her, to ascertain after intercourse whether her menstrual flow has begun. And the modest women prepare a third examination cloth, to examine themselves and prepare the pubic area for intercourse.
  If blood was found on his cloth, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure for seven days, in accordance with the <i>halakha</i> of a menstruating woman and of one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman, and are each liable to bring a sin offering for unwittingly performing an action punishable with excision from the World-to-Come [<i>karet</i>]. If blood was found on her cloth immediately [<i>otyom</i>] after intercourse, the woman and her husband are likewise ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering.
  What is considered as being: After time passed? It is a period of time equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face, a euphemism for her pubic area. And afterward, she retroactively transmits impurity to all ritually pure items with which she came into contact for the preceding twenty-four-hour period, by rabbinic law, but she does not transmit seven-day impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse. He is impure with this impurity by rabbinic law only until the evening, like one who came in contact with a menstruating woman. Rabbi Akiva says: In the case where blood was found on her cloth after time passed, she even transmits seven-day impurity by rabbinic law to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse. The mishna concludes: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva in the case of a woman who sees a blood stain and then engages in intercourse, that she transmits seven-day impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse, although this impurity also applies by rabbinic law.
  All women have the presumptive status of purity for their husbands, and therefore one is not required to ascertain whether his wife is ritually pure before engaging in intercourse with her. Even with regard to husbands returning from a journey, if their wives were ritually pure when they left, their wives have the presumptive status of purity for them. Beit Shammai say: A woman is required to examine herself with two cloths, once before and once after each and every act of intercourse in which she engages throughout the night, and she must inspect them for blood the following morning, or she must engage in intercourse by the light of a lamp and inspect the cloths before and after each act of intercourse. Beit Hillel say: She is not required to examine herself between each act of intercourse. Rather, it is sufficient for her to examine herself with two cloths throughout the night, once before the first act of intercourse and once after the final act of intercourse.
  A woman’s reproductive organs are composed of different parts, and the halakhic status of blood that emerges from one part differs from the halakhic status of blood that emerges from another part. The Sages stated a parable with regard to the structure of the sexual organs of a woman, based on the structure of a house: The inner room represents the uterus, and the corridor [<i>perozdor</i>] leading to the inner room represents the vaginal canal, and the upper story represents the bladder. Blood from the inner room is ritually impure. Blood from the upper story is ritually pure. If blood was found in the corridor, there is uncertainty whether it came from the uterus and is impure, or from the bladder and is pure. Despite its state of uncertainty, it is deemed definitely impure, due to the fact that its presumptive status is of blood that came from the source, i.e., the uterus, and not from the bladder.
  There are five distinct colors of ritually impure blood in a woman: Red, and black, and like the bright color of the crocus [<i>karkom</i>] flower, and like water that inundates red earth, and like diluted wine. Beit Shammai say: Even blood like the water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked, and like the liquid that drips from roast meat, are ritually impure, and Beit Hillel deem blood of those colors ritually pure. With regard to blood that is green, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems it impure and the Rabbis deem it pure. Rabbi Meir said: Even if the green blood does not transmit impurity due to the <i>halakhot</i> of a blood stain or the blood of a menstruating woman, it is blood in that it renders food susceptible to ritual impurity due to its status as one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yosei says: Neither in this sense, as the blood of a menstruating woman according to Akavya ben Mahalalel, nor in that sense, as a liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity according to Rabbi Meir, is green blood considered blood.
  The mishna asks: What is the red color that is impure? It is as red as the blood that flows from a wound. What is the black color that is impure? It is blood as black as <i>ḥeret</i>. If the black is deeper than that, the blood is ritually impure; if the black is lighter than that, the blood is ritually pure. And what is the color that is like the bright color of the crocus flower that is impure? It is like the brightest part in the flower, which is harvested to produce the orange-colored spice saffron. And what is the color that is like water that inundates red earth that is impure? It is specifically earth from the Beit Kerem Valley and specifically when one inundates the earth with enough water until it pools on the surface. And what is the color that is like diluted wine that is impure? It is specifically when the dilution consists of two parts water and one part wine, and specifically when it is from the wine of the Sharon region in Eretz Yisrael.
  
  
  
  In the case of a woman who discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, if there is blood that emerges with it, the woman is ritually impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. And if not, she is pure, as she is neither a menstruating woman nor a woman after childbirth. Rabbi Yehuda says: In both this case, where blood emerged, and that case, where no blood emerged, the woman is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman, as there was certainly undetected blood that emerged with the flesh.
  In the case of a woman who discharges an item similar to a shell, or similar to a hair, or similar to soil, or similar to mosquitoes, if such items are red, she should cast them into water to ascertain their nature: If they dissolved, it is blood, and the woman is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman; and if not, she is pure. In the case of a woman who discharges an item similar to fish or to grasshoppers, repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, if there is blood that emerges with them, the woman is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. And if not, she is pure. With regard to a woman who discharges tissue in the form of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, whether it had the form of a non-kosher species or a kosher species, if it was a male fetus, then she observes the periods of impurity, seven days, and purity, thirty-three days, established in the Torah (see Leviticus 12:2–5) for a woman who gives birth to a male. And if the fetus was a female, the woman observes the periods of impurity, fourteen days, and purity, sixty-six days, established in the Torah for a woman who gives birth to a female. And if the sex of the fetus is unknown, she observes the strictures that apply to a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female. Accordingly, she is prohibited from engaging in intercourse for fourteen days, but after that, she will be permitted to engage in intercourse despite a discharge of uterine blood until thirty-three days pass after the seven days she would have been prohibited if the fetus were male. The prohibition to enter the Temple will continue until eighty days have passed from the discharge of the fetus. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Any fetus that is not of human form is not regarded as an offspring with regard to observance of these periods, and she is permitted to engage in intercourse provided that she does not experience a discharge of uterine blood.
  A woman who discharges a gestational sac full of fluid, full of blood, or full of different colors need not be concerned that it was an offspring. But if the sac was one in which tissue developed, her halakhic status is that of a woman after childbirth. Since the sex of the embryo is unknown, the woman observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female; she is impure for fourteen days like a woman who gave birth to a female, but blood that she sees thereafter is pure only until forty days after birth, like a woman who gave birth to a male. A woman who discharges a sandal fetus, i.e., one that has the form of a sandal fish, and one who discharges an afterbirth observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female.
  If there is an afterbirth in the house, the house is ritually impure, in the sense that everything under the roof contracts impurity imparted by a corpse. The reason is not that the status of an afterbirth is that of an offspring; rather, it is that there is no afterbirth without an offspring. It is clear that the afterbirth contained an offspring that disintegrated after the miscarriage. That offspring rendered the contents of the house impure. Rabbi Shimon says: The house does not become a tent over a corpse, as although there had been an offspring in the afterbirth, the offspring disintegrated, turning to blood, before it emerged from the womb, and it was negated by the majority of blood that accompanied the miscarriage. A woman who discharges or gives birth to a <i>tumtum</i>, whose sexual organs are obscured, or to a hermaphrodite [<i>ve’androginos</i>], who has both male and female sexual organs, shall observe the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female. She is impure for fourteen days like a woman who gave birth to a female, but blood that she sees thereafter is pure only until forty days after birth, like for a woman who gave birth to a male.
  In a case where she gave birth to twins, if they are a <i>tumtum</i> and a male, or a hermaphrodite and a male, she observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female. But if the twins are a <i>tumtum</i> and a female, or a hermaphrodite and a female, she shall observe the periods of purity and impurity established by the Torah for a woman who gives birth to a female alone. Regardless of the status of the <i>tumtum</i> and the hermaphrodite, the woman’s seven days of impurity and her succeeding thirty-three days of purity are subsumed in the fourteen days of impurity and sixty-six days of purity for a female. If the fetus emerged in pieces, or if it emerged reversed, i.e., feetfirst rather than headfirst, when most of its limbs emerge, its status is like that of a child born, with regard to the impurity of a woman after childbirth. If the fetus emerged in the usual manner, headfirst, it is not considered born until most of its head emerges. And what is considered most of its head? It is from when its forehead emerges.
  In the case of a woman who discharges and it is not known what is the fetus’s sex, she shall observe the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female. She is impure for fourteen days, like a woman who gave birth to a female, and any blood the woman sees only until forty days after birth, not eighty days thereafter, is pure, like a woman who gave birth to a male. If it is unknown whether it was a male or female offspring or whether it was not an offspring at all, she shall observe the period of impurity for a woman who gave birth to a male and for a woman who gave birth to a female; and for any blood that she sees, she observes the <i>halakhot</i> of a menstruating woman. Since it is possible that what she discharged was not an offspring at all, any blood she sees might be due to menstruation, not childbirth.
  A woman who discharges on the fortieth day since she immersed herself and engaged in intercourse with her husband need not be concerned that it might have been an offspring and she became impure with its miscarriage, as the formation of the offspring in the womb occurs only forty days after conception. But in the case of a woman who discharges on the forty-first day after immersion, there is concern that perhaps it was an offspring. Since its sex is unknown, she shall observe the period of impurity for a woman who gave birth to a male and for a woman who gave birth to a female; and for any blood that she sees, she observes the <i>halakhot</i> of a menstruating woman. Rabbi Yishmael says: A woman who discharges on the forty-first day after immersion observes the seven days of impurity for a woman who gave birth to a male; and for any blood that she sees after seven days, she observes the <i>halakhot</i> of a menstruating woman. But a woman who discharges on the eighty-first day after immersion observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female, and also the strictures of a menstruating woman, as the formation of the male offspring concludes on the forty-first day and the formation of the female offspring concludes on the eighty-first day. And the Rabbis say: With regard to both the formation of the male and the formation of the female, this and that conclude on the forty-first day.
  
  
  
  Samaritan girls are considered menstruating women from the time they lie in their cradle. And the Samaritan men impart ritual impurity to the lower bedding like the upper bedding, i.e., all layers of bedding beneath them are impure, and their status is like the bedding above a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [<i>zav</i>]: The status of both levels of bedding is that of first-degree ritual impurity, which can impart impurity to food and drink. This is due to the fact that Samaritan men are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women. And they are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women because Samaritan women observe the seven-day menstrual period of ritual impurity for each and every emission of blood, even for blood that does not render them impure. Accordingly, if a Samaritan woman has an emission of impure blood during the seven-day period, she will nevertheless continue counting seven days from the first emission. It is therefore possible that the Samaritan men will engage in intercourse with their wives while they are still halakhically considered menstruating women, as the seven-day period of impurity should have been counted from the emission of the impure blood. But one who enters the Temple while wearing those garments upon which a Samaritan had lain is not liable to bring an offering for entering the Temple in a status of impurity, nor does one burn <i>teruma</i> that came into contact with those garments, because their impurity is uncertain.
  With regard to Sadducee girls, when they were accustomed to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors their status is like that of Samaritan women, whose <i>halakha</i> was discussed in the previous mishna. If the Sadducee women abandoned the customs of their ancestors in order to follow in the ways of the Jewish people their status is like that of a Jewish woman. Rabbi Yosei says: Their status is always like that of a Jewish woman, until they will abandon the ways of the Jewish people in order to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors.
  With regard to the blood of a menstruating gentile woman or a gentile <i>zava</i>, and the blood discharged by a female Jewish leper during the days of purity of a woman who gives birth, Beit Shammai deem them ritually pure, and Beit Hillel say: The halakhic status of the blood of the gentile woman is like that of her saliva and her urine, which impart impurity only while moist. Likewise, the blood discharged by a Jewish leper during the days of purity imparts impurity only when moist. With regard to the blood of a woman who gave birth and reached the conclusion of her days of impurity, i.e., seven days after giving birth to a male or fourteen days after giving birth to a female, but who did not yet immerse in a ritual bath, Beit Shammai say: Although she has yet to immerse in a ritual bath, the blood does not retain the halakhic status of menstrual blood. Rather, the status of the blood is like that of her saliva and her urine, and it imparts impurity only while moist. And Beit Hillel say: Since she did not immerse in a ritual bath, her blood is considered like that of a menstruating woman, and it imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry. And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel in the case of a woman who gives birth as a <i>zava</i>, where the woman must count seven clean days from the conclusion of her days of impurity, that any blood she sees during those seven days imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.
  With regard to a pregnant woman who experiences labor pains, and they are accompanied by an emission of blood, her status is that of a menstruating woman. If she experienced these pains accompanied by emissions of blood for three consecutive days within the eleven days between periods of menstruation, during which time emissions of blood render a woman a <i>zava</i>, and she rested from labor for a twenty-four-hour period, i.e., the pangs subsided, and she then gave birth, it indicates that the emissions were not due to her imminent labor, and this woman is considered one who gives birth as a <i>zava</i>. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is considered a <i>zava</i> only if the pangs subsided for a twenty-four-hour period of a night and the following day, like Shabbat evening and its accompanying day. Additionally, she is considered a <i>zava</i> in a case where she rested from the pain of labor but not necessarily from the flow of blood. In other words, the presence of labor pangs determines whether this blood is due to labor or the impure blood of <i>ziva</i>. Accordingly, if the pangs cease for twenty-four hours, she is considered a <i>zava</i> even if blood was discharging continuously from when she experienced her labor pains.
  How long before birth is pain attributable to her labor pains, which means that the blood is not considered blood of <i>ziva</i>? Rabbi Meir says: Even forty or fifty days before the birth, any blood she sees during the eleven days of <i>ziva</i> is not considered blood of <i>ziva</i>. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is sufficient that this <i>halakha</i> applies only from within one month of her due date. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: Labor pains do not occur more than two weeks before birth. Accordingly, if she experiences bleeding for three consecutive days during eleven days of <i>ziva</i> that occur before this time, she is a <i>zava</i>.
  A woman who experiences labor pains within eighty days of giving birth to a female, e.g., she conceived during the sixty-six days of purity, or she initially conceived twins and she gave birth to a female and the birth of the second fetus was delayed, all blood that she sees is ritually pure, as she is currently within her days of purity. And this remains the <i>halakha</i> until the child emerges from the womb, at which point she is rendered impure as a woman who gives birth. And Rabbi Eliezer deems ritually impure the blood that occurs due to these labor pains. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: And what, if in an instance where the verse was stringent with regard to blood emitted while resting, namely if a pregnant woman emits blood after her days of purity without any labor pains she is rendered impure, the verse was lenient with regard to blood that accompanies the labor pains; then in an instance where the verse was lenient with regard to blood emitted while resting, i.e., during a woman’s days of purity, is it not right that we will be lenient with regard to blood that accompanies the labor pains? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: When deriving a <i>halakha</i> by means of an <i>a fortiori</i> inference, there is a principle that it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an <i>a fortiori</i> inference to be like its source. In other words, the status of blood emitted due to labor pains during her days of purity should not be more lenient than that of blood emitted due to labor pains after her days of purity. Rabbi Eliezer elaborates: Concerning what type of impurity was the verse lenient with regard to a woman who experiences an emission of blood due to labor pains? Concerning the impurity of <i>ziva</i>. But she may still be rendered ritually impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. So too, if a woman experiences emissions of blood due to labor pains during her days of purity, she is rendered a menstruating woman.
  For all the eleven days of <i>ziva</i> that follow the seven days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity, as it is unusual for her to experience bleeding on these days. If a woman sat and did not examine herself every morning and evening to determine whether she emitted blood and is impure, it makes no difference whether she failed to examine herself unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself; she remains ritually pure. She is rendered impure only if she examined herself and was found to have emitted blood. By contrast, if the time of her menstrual cycle arrived, when she is required to examine herself, and she did not examine herself, that woman is ritually impure, as it is typical for a woman to discharge blood at that time. Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding from danger, and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself on that day, that woman is pure, because fear drives away blood. There is therefore no concern that she might have emitted blood. But with regard to the seven clean days of the <i>zav</i> and the <i>zava</i>, and with regard to a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge during her days of <i>ziva</i>, if she fails to examine herself on those days, these women have a presumptive status of ritual impurity, as they already experienced a discharge.
  
  
  
  After the birth of an offspring by caesarean section, the mother does not observe seven or fourteen days of impurity and thirty-three or sixty-six days of purity for male and female offspring, respectively, and she is not obligated to bring for it the offering brought by a woman after childbirth. Rabbi Shimon says: The halakhic status of that offspring is like that of an offspring born in a standard birth. All women become ritually impure with the flow of blood from the uterus into the outer chamber, i.e., the vagina, although it did not leave the woman’s body, as it is stated: “And her issue in her flesh shall be blood, she shall be in her menstruation seven days” (Leviticus 15:19), indicating that even if her menstrual blood remains in her flesh, she becomes impure. But one who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [<i>zav</i>] and one who experiences a seminal emission do not become ritually impure until their emission of impurity emerges outside the body.
  If a priest was partaking of <i>teruma</i>, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, and sensed a quaking of his limbs indicating that a seminal emission was imminent, he should firmly hold his penis to prevent the emission from leaving his body, and swallow the <i>teruma</i> while ritually pure. And the emission of a <i>zav</i> and a seminal emission impart impurity in any amount, even like the size of a mustard seed or even smaller than that.
  A baby girl, even one who is one day old, who experiences an emission of blood, becomes impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. A baby girl who is ten days old who experiences an emission of blood for three consecutive days after the conclusion of the seven days fit for menstruation becomes impure with the impurity of <i>ziva</i>, and is therefore obligated to observe seven clean days before immersion. A baby boy, even one who is one day old, becomes impure with the impurity of <i>ziva</i>; and becomes impure with the impurity of leprous marks; and becomes impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; and he creates a levirate bond requiring the widow of his childless brother to enter into levirate marriage with him; and he exempts his widowed mother from the obligation of levirate marriage, freeing her to marry anyone she chooses; and he enables his mother, an Israelite woman who is no longer married to his father, a priest, to continue to partake of <i>teruma</i>; and he disqualifies his mother, the daughter of a priest who is no longer married to his father, an Israelite man, from continuing to partake of <i>teruma</i>, because the child is unfit to partake of <i>teruma</i>; and he inherits the estate of his mother if she died on the day of his birth; and if he dies, he bequeaths that inheritance to his paternal brothers; and one who kills him is liable for his murder, as it is written: “And he that smites any man mortally shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:17), i.e., any man, including a child who is one day old; and if he dies, his status in relation to his father and to his mother and to all his relatives, in terms of the <i>halakhot</i> of mourning, is like that of a full-fledged groom [<i>keḥatan shalem</i>], whose death is deeply mourned.
  A girl who is three years and one day old, whose father arranged her betrothal, is betrothed through intercourse, as the halakhic status of intercourse with her is that of intercourse in all halakhic senses. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl three years and one day old dies, if his brother the <i>yavam</i> engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife; and if she is married, a man other than her husband is liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to violation of the prohibition against intercourse with a married woman. And if she is impure due to menstruation, she imparts impurity to one who engages in intercourse with her who then renders impure all the layers of bedding beneath him, rendering them impure like the upper bedding covering a <i>zav</i>, in the sense that it assumes first-degree ritual impurity and does not become a primary source of ritual impurity, and it renders impure food and drink, but it does not render impure people and vessels. If she marries a priest, she may partake of <i>teruma</i>, like any other wife of a priest; if she is unmarried and one of the men who are unfit for the priesthood, e.g., a <i>mamzer</i> or <i>ḥalal</i>, engaged in intercourse with her, he disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood, and if she is the daughter of a priest, she is disqualified from partaking of <i>teruma</i>. Finally, if one of all those with whom relations are forbidden, as stated in the Torah, e.g., her father or her husband’s father, engaged in intercourse with her, they are executed by the court for engaging in intercourse with her, and she is exempt, because she is a minor. If the girl is less than that age, younger than three years and one day, the status of intercourse with her is not that of intercourse in all halakhic senses; rather, it is like placing a finger into the eye. Just as in that case, the eye constricts, sheds tears, and then returns to its original state, so too, in a girl younger than three years and one day old, the hymen returns to its original state.
  In the case of a boy, nine years and one day old, whose brother had died childless, who engaged in intercourse with his <i>yevama</i>, his brother’s widow, the status of the intercourse is that of halakhic intercourse and he acquires her as his wife; but he cannot give her a bill of divorce, if he chooses to end the marriage, until he reaches majority. And he becomes ritually impure after engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman to the degree that he renders impure all the layers of bedding beneath him, such that they become impure like the upper bedding covering a <i>zav</i>. Accordingly, the bedding assumes first-degree ritual impurity status and does not become a primary source of ritual impurity, and it renders impure food and drink and does not render impure people and vessels. And if he is disqualified from the priesthood and the woman with whom he engages in intercourse is the daughter of a priest, he disqualifies her from partaking of <i>teruma</i>; but if he is a priest who marries an Israelite woman, he does not enable her to partake of <i>teruma</i>. And if he engages in bestiality, he disqualifies the animal from being sacrificed upon the altar, and the animal is stoned due to his act. And if he engaged in intercourse with one of all those with whom relations are forbidden, as stated in the Torah, e.g., his aunt or his mother, they are executed by the court due to having engaged in intercourse with him, because they are adults; but he is exempt, as he is a minor.
  With regard to a girl who is eleven years and one day old, her vows are examined to ascertain whether she is aware of the meaning of her vow and in Whose name she vowed. Once she is twelve years and one day old and has grown two pubic hairs, which is a sign of adulthood, even without examination her vows are in effect. And one examines her vows throughout the entire twelfth year until her twelfth birthday. With regard to a boy who is twelve years and one day old, his vows are examined to ascertain whether he is aware of the meaning of his vow and in Whose name he vowed. Once he is thirteen years and one day old and has grown two pubic hairs, even without examination his vows are in effect. And one examines his vows throughout the entire thirteenth year until his thirteenth birthday. Prior to that time, eleven years and one day for a girl and twelve years and one day for a boy, even if they said: We know in Whose name we vowed and in Whose name we consecrated, their vow is not a valid vow and their consecration is not a valid consecration. After that time, twelve years and one day for a girl and thirteen years and one day for a boy, even if they said: We do not know in Whose name we vowed and in Whose name we consecrated, their vow is a valid vow and their consecration is a valid consecration.
  The Sages stated a parable based on the development of the fruit of a fig tree with regard to the three stages of development in a woman: Minority, young womanhood, and grown womanhood. An unripe fig, a ripening fig, and a ripe fig. An unripe fig represents the stage when she is still a child and has not yet developed the signs of puberty; a ripening fig represents the days of her young womanhood, when she reaches twelve years and one day and has developed two pubic hairs. With regard to the periods both during this stage, minority, and during that stage, young womanhood, the Sages said that her father is entitled to any lost object that she finds that cannot be returned to its owner, and to her earnings, and to nullification of her vows. A ripe fig represents the stage of grown womanhood: Once she has reached her majority, her father no longer has authority over her. He can no longer nullify her vows, and he does not have a claim to lost objects found by her and her earnings belong to her.
  What are the signs that indicate grown womanhood? Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Grown womanhood begins from when her breast grows sufficiently so that a fold appears below the breast. Rabbi Akiva says: It begins from when the breasts sag onto the chest. Ben Azzai says: It begins from when the areola at the tip of the breast darkens. Rabbi Yosei says: It begins when the breasts have developed to a size where a person places his hand on the nipple and it depresses and slows to return.
  A girl twelve years and one day old who grew two pubic hairs is classified as a young woman. Six months later, she becomes a grown woman. But a woman who is twenty years old who did not grow two pubic hairs and was never classified as a young woman shall bring proof that she is twenty years old, and from that point forward she assumes the status of a sexually underdeveloped woman [<i>ailonit</i>], who is incapable of bearing children. If she married and her husband died childless, she neither performs <i>ḥalitza</i> nor does she enter into levirate marriage, as the mitzva of levirate marriage applies only to a woman capable of conceiving a child. An <i>ailonit</i> is excluded from that mitzva. In the case of a man who is twenty years old who did not grow two pubic hairs, they shall bring proof that he is twenty years old and he assumes the status of a sexually underdeveloped man [<i>saris</i>], who is excluded from the mitzva of levirate marriage. Therefore, if his married brother dies childless, he neither performs <i>ḥalitza</i> nor enters into levirate marriage with his <i>yevama</i>. This is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: For both this case of a woman and that case of a man, they shall bring proof that they are eighteen years old, and they assume the status of a sexually underdeveloped woman and man respectively. Rabbi Eliezer says: The status of the male is determined in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, i.e., he assumes the status of a sexually underdeveloped man at the age of twenty; and the status of the female is determined in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, i.e., she assumes the status of a sexually underdeveloped woman at the age of eighteen. The reason is that the woman is quick to reach physical maturity, and reaches that stage before the man reaches physical maturity.
  
  
  
  If the lower sign of puberty, two pubic hairs, appeared in a young woman before the upper sign, development of the breasts, appeared, then she is an adult, as the pubic hairs are an unequivocal sign. Therefore, if her childless husband died and she came before her husband’s brother [<i>yavam</i>] for levirate marriage, she either performs the ritual through which a <i>yavam</i> frees a <i>yevama</i> of her levirate bonds [<i>ḥalitza</i>] or enters into levirate marriage with her husband’s brother. If the upper sign indicating puberty appeared before the lower sign appeared, i.e., the two pubic hairs are not visible, although that order of development is apparently impossible, Rabbi Meir says: In fact, it is possible for the breasts to develop before the growth of two pubic hairs, and the concern is that the two hairs did not grow and fall out but rather they never grew in the first place, which would mean that she remains a minor. Therefore, if her childless husband dies, she neither performs <i>ḥalitza</i> nor does she enter into levirate marriage with her husband’s brother. And the Rabbis say: She has reached majority, and therefore if her childless husband dies she either performs <i>ḥalitza</i> or enters into levirate marriage with her husband’s brother. That is due to the fact that the Sages said: It is possible for the lower sign of puberty to appear before the upper sign appears; but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign appears.
  Similar to the order of the appearance of the signs of puberty in a girl, where it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign, there is an analogous principle with regard to the mutual dependency of two items: Any earthenware vessel with a hole that enables entry of liquid into the vessel certainly enables exit of liquid through that hole, and it thereby ceases to be a vessel fit for sanctification of the waters mixed with the ashes of the red heifer. And there are holes that enable exit of liquids from the earthenware vessels but do not enable entry of liquids from outside the vessel, and therefore it remains a vessel. Likewise, in any limb of the body where there is a nail, there is certainly a bone in it as well. If it is the limb of a corpse, it transmits ritual impurity through contact, movement, and in a tent, even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk. And there are limbs in which there is a bone but yet there is not a nail in it. That limb does not transmit impurity in a tent if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk.
  Similarly, any item that becomes ritually impure with impurity of a <i>zav</i> imparted by treading, e.g., a vessel designated for sitting, becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. And there are vessels that become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse but do not become ritually impure with impurity of a <i>zav</i> imparted by treading.
  Any person who is fit to adjudicate cases of capital law is fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law, and there are those who are fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law but are unfit to adjudicate cases of capital law. Any person who is fit to adjudicate a case and serve as a judge is fit to testify as a witness, and there are those who are fit to testify but are not fit to adjudicate.
  Any food from which one is obligated to separate tithes becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food; and there is food that becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food but from which one is not obligated to separate tithes.
  With regard to any produce from which one is obligated to designate produce in the corner of the field given to the poor [<i>pe’a</i>], as commanded in the Torah (see Leviticus 19:9, 23:22), one is obligated to separate tithes from it; and there is produce from which one is obligated to separate tithes but from which one is not obligated to designate <i>pe’a</i>.
  With regard to any animal, i.e., sheep and rams, from which one is obligated by Torah law (see Deuteronomy 18:4) to give the first shearing of its wool to a priest, he is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, which must be removed from slaughtered animals, taken from it (see Deuteronomy 18:3). And there are animals from which one is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from them, e.g., cattle and goats, but from which he is not obligated to give the first shearing.
  The mishna teaches a similar principle: For all Sabbatical-Year produce to which there applies the obligation of eradication from the house when it ceases to be available to the animals in the field, there is the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce upon it, i.e., it may not be used for commerce and is ownerless while it is attached to the ground. And there is produce for which there is the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce, but for which there is no obligation of eradication from the house, e.g., produce that is preserved in the ground and does not cease to be available in the field.
  It is written: “Whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, you may eat them” (Leviticus 11:9). There is a principle with regard to the signs indicating that fish are kosher: Any fish that has scales has fins; and there are fish that have fins but do not have scales. Similarly, with regard to kosher animals it is written: “Whatever parts the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that you may eat” (Leviticus 11:3). Any animal that has horns has hooves; and there are animals that have hooves but do not have horns.
  This mishna teaches a generalization that is similar to the previous ones: Anything that requires a blessing after one partakes of it requires a blessing beforehand. And there exist items that require a blessing before but do not require a blessing thereafter.
  A young girl who reached the age of puberty and grew two pubic hairs is an adult. If her childless husband dies, she either performs <i>ḥalitza</i> and is thereby permitted to marry anyone, or enters into levirate marriage with her husband’s brother. And furthermore, such a girl is obligated to fulfill all the mitzvot stated in the Torah in which women are obligated. And likewise, a young boy who reached the age of puberty and grew two pubic hairs is an adult and is obligated to fulfill all the mitzvot stated in the Torah. And he is fit to be declared a stubborn and rebellious son if he performs the actions that warrant that designation, from when he grows two pubic hairs until his beard will form a circle. During that period, although he is an adult and punishable for his actions, he is incapable of fathering a child. Consequently, as he is a son and not a father, he can be designated a stubborn and rebellious son. The mishna explains that the reference is to the lower, pubic, hair, and not to the upper, facial, hair. But the term beard is used, despite its being subject to misinterpretation, due to the fact that the Sages spoke euphemistically. A young girl who reached the age of puberty and grew two pubic hairs can no longer perform refusal to end a marriage with a husband to whom she was married as a minor by her mother and brothers after her father’s death. Rabbi Yehuda says: She retains the right to perform refusal until the pubic hair will grow to the extent that the black hair will be preponderant in the pubic area.
  The two white or black hairs that are mentioned with regard to disqualification of a red heifer; and the two white hairs mentioned with regard to leprous marks, i.e., that if they grow within a white leprous mark, it is impure; and the two hairs that are mentioned in every place, i.e., with regard to a young boy and girl, are significant only if they are long enough to bend the top of the hairs to reach their roots. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Eliezer says: They must be long enough to grasp them and cut them with a fingernail. Rabbi Akiva says: They must be long enough to be cut with a pair [<i>bezug</i>] of scissors.
  With regard to a woman who sees a red stain on her garment, that woman’s reckoning is distorted. Since she does not know when the blood that caused the stain appeared, she does not know when the seven days of menstrual flow end and when the eleven days of the flow of the <i>zava</i> begin. And therefore she must be concerned due to the possibility that it might have been caused by the flow of a <i>zava</i>. If she wore the same garment for three days on which she can assume the status of a <i>zava</i>, and subsequently discovered a stain with an area that is the size of at least three split beans, the concern is that on each of those three days a stain with the area of at least one split bean, the minimum area that transmits impurity, was formed. The result is that she is a greater <i>zava</i> and is required to count seven clean days before immersion. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: No configuration of stains leads to concern due to the flow of a <i>zava</i>.
  In the case of a woman who sees an emission of blood during twilight on the eleventh day of the days in which she can assume the status of a <i>zava</i>, as there is uncertainty whether the emission was during the day and it is the flow of a <i>zava</i> or whether it was at night and it is menstrual flow, she observes seven days of impurity like the beginning of the seven days of menstruation and the end of menstruation. If she experienced an emission on the two previous days as well, she observes seven clean days before immersion like the beginning of the flow of <i>ziva</i> and the end of the flow of <i>ziva</i>. Similarly, in the case of a woman who experiences an emission of blood during twilight on the fortieth day after the birth of a male or the eightieth day after the birth of a female, there is uncertainty whether it is considered daytime and therefore part of the final day of the blood of purity, or night that is part of the following day when the blood is impure. With regard to experiencing bleeding during twilight in all those cases, these women are mistaken in their calculation of the days of menstrual flow and the flow of a <i>zava</i>. Consequently, if they experience bleeding for three consecutive days at the beginning or at the end of the eleven days of <i>ziva</i>, they bring the offering of a <i>zava</i> but it is not eaten, as it was brought based on uncertainty. Rabbi Yehoshua said: Instead of making provisions to remedy the uncertainties of the misguided, come and remedy the uncertainties of the competent women who know what day they saw the blood but require guidance, due to the multitude of emissions that they experienced.
  
  
  
  The blood of a menstruating woman and the flesh of a corpse transmit impurity by contact and by carrying when they are moist, and likewise transmit impurity when they are dry. But with regard to the gonorrhea-like discharge of a <i>zav</i> [<i>ziva</i>], and the mucus and the saliva of a <i>zav</i>, and the carcass of a creeping animal, and an animal carcass, and semen, all transmit impurity when they are moist but do not transmit impurity when they are dry. And if one could soak those dry substances in water and thereby restore them to their previous state, they transmit impurity when moist and transmit impurity when dry. The mishna asks: And how long is the process of soaking these substances that determines whether they can be restored to their previous state? This is referring to soaking them in lukewarm water for a twenty-four-hour period. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to the flesh of a corpse that is dry and cannot be soaked to restore it to its previous state, it is ritually pure, in the sense that an olive-bulk of the flesh does not transmit impurity imparted by a corpse. But a ladleful of the flesh transmits the impurity of the decayed flesh of a corpse.
  The carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway renders pure items impure retroactively. All items that passed through that alleyway from the time about which one may state: I examined this alleyway and there was no carcass of a creeping animal in it, or from the time of the sweeping of the alleyway, are impure. And likewise, a blood stain that was discovered on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively. Any pure items that she handled from the time about which one may state: I examined this robe and there was no blood stain on it, or from the time of the laundering of the robe, are impure. And the carcass of a creeping animal or a blood stain renders items impure retroactively whether they are still moist or are already dried out. Rabbi Shimon says: The dry one renders items impure retroactively, but the moist one does not render items impure from the aforementioned times, but only from such a time that it could still be moist from then up to the moment it was discovered.
  Any blood stains on garments that come from the town of Rekem are ritually pure, as most of the residents there are gentiles, and the blood stains of gentile women are not ritually impure. Rabbi Yehuda deems those stains impure because in his opinion the residents of Rekem are not gentiles; rather, they are converts whose halakhic status is that of Jews, but they are misguided and do not put away their bloodstained garments. The blood stains on garments that come from among the gentiles are ritually pure. With regard to blood stains on garments that come from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems them impure, as they may have come from the Jews. And the Rabbis deem them ritually pure due to the fact that Jews are not suspected of failing to put away their garments on which there are blood stains.
  All blood stains on garments that are found anywhere where Jews and gentiles reside are ritually pure, since they must not belong to Jews, who put away their stained garments. This is the <i>halakha</i> except for the stained garments that are found in the inner rooms of the house, as these might be garments that the Jews put away there; and except for the stained garments found in proximity to the house of impurity, i.e., the room that women used when they were impure due to menstruation. The house of impurity of Samaritans imparts the impurity that is imparted by a corpse by means of a tent, due to the fact that they bury the stillborn children there. Rabbi Yehuda says: The house of impurity of Samaritans does not impart that impurity, as they would not bury a stillborn child there. Rather, they would cast it outside and an animal would drag it away.
  Samaritans are deemed credible to state: We buried the stillborn children there, in a certain place, and it transmits ritual impurity; or to state: We did not bury the stillborn children there, and it does not transmit ritual impurity. They are likewise deemed credible to state about an animal whether it previously gave birth or whether it did not previously give birth; and their testimony is accepted with regard to determining whether the animal’s offspring has the status of a firstborn animal, which is sacred. They are also deemed credible to testify about the marking of graves, i.e., that where they marked is deemed a grave and where they did not mark is deemed a place where there is no grave. But with regard to the following cases, in which the exact location of a grave is unknown, the Samaritans are not deemed credible to testify: They are not deemed credible to testify about the overhanging boughs, nor about the protrusions that jut out of stone fences and cover the ground. If it is unknown which bough or protrusion hangs over a grave, forming a tent that transmits the impurity of a corpse, and if a Samaritan testifies that the grave is not beneath a particular bough or protrusion his testimony is not accepted. And likewise they are not deemed credible to testify about a <i>beit haperas</i>. The Sages issued a decree that in such a case, the area that was plowed is impure as far as one hundred cubits from the original grave, due to the concern that the bones were dispersed by the plow.
  
  
  
  A woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh adjacent to her vagina [<i>beit haturpa</i>], i.e., a place where blood that originated in her vagina could be found, becomes ritually impure, as there is a concern that it originated in the uterus and is menstrual blood. And if it was discovered on her flesh in an area not adjacent to her vagina she remains ritually pure, as it certainly did not originate in the uterus. If the stain was discovered on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, although it is not adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. In a case where the stain was discovered on her leg or on her feet, if it was on the inner side she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there. If it was on the outer side she is ritually pure, and if it was on the sides, either from here, i.e., on the front of her leg or foot, or from there, i.e., on the back of her leg or foot, she is also ritually pure, as blood from the uterus could not have reached there. In a case where the woman saw a blood stain on her robe, if it was from the belt and below she is ritually impure, as blood from the uterus could have reached there; if it was from the belt and above she is ritually pure. In a case where she saw the stain on the end of the sleeve of the robe, if the sleeve can reach adjacent to her vagina she is ritually impure; and if not, i.e., if the stain is in a place on the sleeve that does not reach adjacent to the vagina, she is ritually pure. If it was a robe which she would remove and with which she would cover herself at night, wherever on the robe that the stain is found, the stain renders her ritually impure, due to the fact that the robe moves while the woman is asleep and therefore the blood could have originated in the uterus. And likewise with regard to a kerchief [<i>bapoleyos</i>], no matter where the blood is found on the kerchief, the woman is impure.
  And a woman who discovers a blood stain on her body or her garment may attribute its existence to any matter to which she can attribute it: If she slaughtered a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird; or if she was occupied with the removal of blood stains from the garments of other women or from her own garment, from any source, such as blood that originated from a wound elsewhere on her body or even her own menstrual blood from a prior menstrual cycle; or if she sat alongside others who were occupied with removing blood stains; or if she killed a louse; in all of these cases, that woman may attribute the blood stain to it. How large a stain may a woman attribute to a louse? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: It can be up to the area of a split bean. And she may attribute the stain to a louse even if she does not remember that she killed it. And she may attribute the blood stain to her son or to her husband in a case where one of them is near her and has a wound. Furthermore, if the woman herself has a wound, even if the wound scabbed over and is no longer bleeding, but it can reopen and bleed, that woman may attribute the blood stain to that wound.
  There was an incident involving one woman who came before Rabbi Akiva. She said to him: I saw a blood stain. Rabbi Akiva said to her: Perhaps there was a wound on your body? She said to him: Yes, there was a wound and it healed. He said to her: Was it perhaps a wound that could reopen and bleed? She said to him: Yes it was. And Rabbi Akiva deemed her ritually pure. Rabbi Akiva saw his students looking at each other, wondering why he ruled leniently in this case. Rabbi Akiva said to them: What in this matter is difficult in your eyes? The reason I ruled this way is that the Sages did not state the matter of the impurity of blood stains in order to be stringent; rather, they instituted this impurity in order to be lenient, as it is stated: “And if a woman has if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh shall be blood” (Leviticus 15:19), from which it is derived that by Torah law, “blood” deems her impure, but not a stain. Impurity from a blood stain was instituted by the Sages, and they rule leniently in any case where the stain can be attributed to another source.
  With regard to an examination cloth that was placed beneath the pillow and blood was found on the cloth, and it is unclear whether it is the blood of an examination or the blood of a louse that was crushed beneath it, if the stain is round the woman is ritually pure, as an examination to determine whether a woman is menstruating would not leave a round stain. If the stain is elongated the woman is ritually impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok.
  
  
  
  In the case of a woman who is urinating and saw blood intermingled with the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinated while standing she is ritually impure, as the blood could have originated in the uterus. And if she is sitting, she is ritually pure, as it is clear that the blood is from a wound. Rabbi Yosei says: Whether she urinates in this manner, i.e., standing, or whether she urinates in that manner, i.e., sitting, she is ritually pure.
  In the case of a man and a woman who urinated into a basin [<i>hasefel</i>], and blood is found on the water in the basin, Rabbi Yosei deems her ritually pure. Even when it is clear that it is the blood of a woman who urinated, and there is only one uncertainty, Rabbi Yosei deems her ritually pure. In this case, there is a compound uncertainty: Did the blood originate with the man or with the woman, and did the blood come from the uterus or from a wound? And Rabbi Shimon deems her ritually impure, because there is only one uncertainty, as it is not the typical manner of the man to discharge blood with his urine; rather, the presumptive status of the blood is that it was discharged from the woman.
  In a case where a woman lent her garment to a gentile woman or to a menstruating Jewish woman, and after the borrower returned the garment the owner wore it and then discovered a blood stain, she attributes the blood stain to the gentile or the menstruating woman. In a case of three women who wore one garment or who sat on one bench [<i>safsal</i>], one after the other, and the garment, or bench, was examined before the first of them donned it, or sat on it, and it was clean, and after the third one removed the garment, or stood up, a blood stain was discovered on the garment or on the bench, all the women are ritually impure. If they sat on a stone bench or on the bench [<i>ha’itzteva</i>] of a bathhouse, neither of which can become ritually impure, the first because it is stone and the second because it is attached to the floor of the bathhouse, and a blood stain was found on one of those benches, Rabbi Neḥemya deems all three women ritually pure, as Rabbi Neḥemya would say: Any item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity is not susceptible to ritual impurity due to blood stains. The decree of impurity due to blood stains was limited to items susceptible to ritual impurity.
  In a case of three women who were sleeping in one bed and blood was discovered beneath one of them, all of them are ritually impure. If when the blood was discovered one of them examined herself and discovered that she was impure due to menstruation, she is impure and the other two are pure. And if none of them examined themselves, or if all of them examined themselves and were pure, they attribute the blood to each other, i.e., if one of them is unfit to menstruate, e.g., she is pregnant, she may attribute the blood to the other women who are fit to menstruate. And if all three women were not fit to see the flow of blood, e.g., they each belonged to one of the categories listed in the mishna on 7a, one considers them as though they were fit, and all three are impure, because the blood must have originated from one of them.
  In a case of three women who were sleeping in one bed that was located adjacent to a wall, and blood was discovered beneath the middle woman, all of them are ritually impure. If the blood was discovered beneath the woman on the inside, closest to the wall, the two innermost women are ritually impure and the woman on the outside is ritually pure. If the blood was discovered beneath the woman on the outside, farthest from the wall, the two outermost women are ritually impure and the woman on the inside is ritually pure. When is that the ruling? It is when they passed into their positions on the bed via the foot of the bed; but if they passed into their positions on the bed via the side of the bed, over the place where the blood was discovered, all of them are ritually impure. If immediately after the blood was discovered, one of them examined herself and she was found to be ritually pure, she is pure and the other two are impure. If two of them examined themselves and found that they were ritually pure, they are pure and the third is impure. If all three of them examined themselves and found that they were ritually pure, all of them are ritually impure, as the blood must have originated from one of them. To what case is this matter comparable? It is similar to the case of a ritually impure pile of stones with an olive-bulk of a corpse beneath it, where this pile was intermingled with two ritually pure piles, and they examined one of them and found it pure. That pile is pure and the other two are impure. If they examined two of them and found them ritually pure, they are ritually pure and the third is impure. If they examined all three of them and found them ritually pure, all of them are impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir would say: With regard to any item that has the presumptive status of ritual impurity, it forever remains in its state of ritual impurity, even if one examined the relevant area or item and the source of impurity was not found, until it becomes known to you where the ritual impurity is. The assumption is that the impurity was not found because the examination was not conducted properly. And the Rabbis say: One continues searching the relevant area until he reaches bedrock or virgin soil, beneath which there is certainly no ritual impurity. If no ritual impurity is found at that stage, presumably an animal dragged the olive-bulk of the corpse from beneath the pile, and the pile of rocks is pure.
  There are seven substances that one applies to the stain on a garment to ascertain whether it is a blood stain or a dye, as these seven substances remove the blood. They are: Tasteless saliva, and liquid from split beans, and urine, and natron, and <i>borit</i>, Cimolian earth [<i>kamonya</i>], and potash [<i>eshlag</i>]. If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is presumably from a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. If the stain disappeared or if it faded, that is a blood stain, and the ritually pure items that he handled are impure, and he must immerse the garment again.
  What is tasteless saliva? It is saliva that emerges from the mouth of any person who tasted nothing all night, when he first awakens in the morning. Liquid from split beans is created through the chewing of split beans that divided naturally, not by human hand, which is then applied to the stain. The urine that is an effective detergent is specifically urine that fermented for three days. And one must rub each and every one of the substances three times over the stain, and one must apply them separately, and one must apply them in the order they are listed in the mishna. If one applied them in a manner that is not in their prescribed order, or if one applied all seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing. One cannot determine by means of that examination whether it is blood or a dye.
  For any woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle that is not time dependent, but is dependent on a physical sensation, her time is sufficient, i.e., she does not transmit ritual impurity retroactively, for twenty-four hours or until the last time she examined herself (see 2a). And these are the fixed menstrual cycles based on sensation: When a woman menstruates after she yawns [<i>mefaheket</i>], or after she sneezes, or after she senses pain near her stomach or in her lower abdomen, or after she secretes a discharge, or after a type of feverish shuddering [<i>tzemarmorot</i>] overtakes her. And likewise the same applies with regard to any sensation of the like. And in the case of any woman who establishes a pattern for herself by experiencing such a sensation three times before the onset of menstruation, that is a fixed menstrual cycle.
  If a woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood at the beginning of the sensation that accompanies her fixed cycle, even if on one occasion she happened to experience bleeding only at the end of the sensation, all the ritually pure items that she handled within the duration of that sensation that accompanies her fixed cycle are ritually impure. If the woman was accustomed to experience bleeding at the end of the sensation that accompanies her fixed cycle, all the ritually pure items that she handled within the duration of that sensation that accompanies her fixed cycle are pure. Rabbi Yosei says: Even specific days and specific hours determine a fixed menstrual cycle: If a woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood on a certain day of the month at sunrise, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse with her husband only at sunrise; but during the night before and the following day, it is permitted for her to engage in intercourse. Rabbi Yehuda says: Once sunrise passed and she did not menstruate, the entire day is hers and she may engage in intercourse, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; but contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, intercourse the night before is prohibited.
  If the woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood on the fifteenth day and she deviated from the norm to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day, then on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. If she deviated from the norm twice, then on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is likewise prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. If she deviated from the norm to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day three times, it becomes permitted for her to engage in intercourse on the fifteenth, and she has established the twentieth day for herself as the day of her fixed menstrual cycle, as a woman establishes a fixed menstrual cycle only after she establishes it three times. And a woman is purified from the existing fixed menstrual cycle, in the sense that intercourse is permitted on that day, only when she has been displaced from that day three times.
  Women, with regard to the blood that flows when their hymens are ruptured, are like grapevines: There is a vine that produces wine that is red, and there is a vine that produces wine that is black; and there is a vine that produces wine in abundance, and there is a vine that produces only a meager amount of wine. Rabbi Yehuda says: In every vine, there are grapes fit to produce wine, but any vine in which there are no grapes fit to produce wine, this is a dry vine [<i>durkati</i>]. Likewise, any woman who experiences bleeding is capable of giving birth, whereas one who does not experience bleeding is like a dry vine, unable to give birth.
  
  
  
  In the case of a young girl whose time to see a menstrual flow, i.e., the age of puberty, has not yet arrived, and she married and engaged in intercourse and her hymen was torn, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her four nights after intercourse during which the blood is attributed to the torn hymen and she remains ritually pure. Thereafter, any blood is assumed to be menstrual blood and renders her impure. And Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals. In the case of a young woman whose time to see a menstrual flow has arrived but she has not yet begun to menstruate, and she married and engaged in intercourse and her hymen was torn, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her the first night during which the blood is attributed to the torn hymen. Thereafter, any blood is assumed to be menstrual blood. And Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the conclusion of Shabbat, and she may engage in intercourse with her husband for four nights, as it was customary for a virgin to marry on Wednesday. In the case of a young woman who saw menstrual blood before marriage while she was still in her father’s house, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her permission to engage only in relations that consummate a marriage, which are a mitzva, after which she is ritually impure due to the blood. And Beit Hillel say: The husband and wife may engage even in several acts of intercourse, as any blood seen throughout the entire night is attributed to the torn hymen.
  In the case of a menstruating woman who examined herself on the seventh day of menstruation in the morning and found that she is ritually pure and eligible to immerse in a ritual bath that evening, but during twilight of the seventh day she did not perform an examination that marks the transition between the days when she has a flow of blood and the days when she no longer has a flow of blood but immersed despite not having performed the examination, and after several days she examined herself and found that she is ritually impure, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual purity from the time of her immersion until her examination, and all ritually pure items that she handled in the interim remain pure. If she examined herself on the seventh day of menstruation in the morning and found that she is ritually impure, i.e., her menstrual flow continued, and during twilight of the seventh day she did not perform an examination to confirm the transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity but immersed nonetheless, and after several days she examined herself and found that she is ritually pure, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual impurity from the time of her immersion until her examination, and all ritually pure items that she handled in the interim are impure. Since she found blood during her last examination in her days of menstruation, the concern is that the flow of blood continued during the days that followed, and therefore her immersion on the eve of the eighth day was ineffective. In a case where there was no blood found during the examination on the seventh morning and she did not examine herself during twilight, and several days later she discovered blood, where the mishna says that a woman’s presumptive status is one of ritual purity, that is the <i>halakha</i> only for the days following immersion. But she transmits ritual impurity to the ritually pure items that she handled before the examination in which she found blood for a twenty-four-hour period and from examination to examination, in accordance with the <i>halakha</i> of a woman who experiences bleeding (see 2a). And if she has a fixed menstrual cycle, on the day that she examined herself and found blood, her time is sufficient, i.e., it is assumed that the bleeding began then, and she does not transmit impurity retroactively. And Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to any woman who did not perform the examination marking her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day from <i>minḥa</i> time onward, even if she performed an examination and found no blood that morning, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual impurity. And the Rabbis say: Even if on the second day of her menstruation she performed the examination and found that she is ritually pure, and she did not perform the examination marking her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day during twilight, and after several days she examined herself and found that she is ritually impure, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual purity from the time of her immersion until her examination.
  With regard to a <i>zav</i> and a <i>zava</i>, who are required to count and examine themselves on each of seven clean days before purification in a ritual bath, who examined themselves on the first day and found themselves ritually pure, i.e., with no blood, and they examined themselves on the seventh day and found themselves ritually pure, and on the rest of the intervening days they did not examine themselves, Rabbi Eliezer says: The presumptive status of the <i>zav</i> and the <i>zava</i> is one of ritual purity. Rabbi Yehoshua says: In that case, the <i>zav</i> and the <i>zava</i> have counted only the first day and the seventh day, two of the seven clean days, and they must count another five days to complete the tally. Rabbi Akiva says: The <i>zav</i> and the <i>zava</i> have counted only the seventh day, and they must count another six days to complete the tally.
  The corpses of a <i>zav</i>, and a <i>zava</i>, and a menstruating woman, and a woman after childbirth, and a leper, who died, transmit ritual impurity by carrying their corpses, until the flesh decays. With regard to the corpse of a gentile who died, although when alive he transmits impurity like a <i>zav</i>, once he dies he is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity. Beit Shammai say: The status of all women when they die is as though they were menstruating women at the time of death. Therefore, the garments that they were wearing before they died are impure and require immersion. And Beit Hillel say: Only a woman who died with the impurity of a menstruating woman has the status of a menstruating woman after death.
  With regard to a woman who died, and after her death a quarter-<i>log</i> of blood emerged from her body, although the blood emerged after death, it transmits ritual impurity by touching and carrying, due to the impurity of the spot of blood of a menstruating woman. This impurity as blood of menstruation applies to any amount of blood she emits, despite the <i>halakha</i> that generally, the blood of a corpse transmits impurity only if it is at least a quarter-<i>log</i> in volume. And as it is a quarter-<i>log</i> of blood, it transmits impurity in a tent, as it is the blood of a corpse. Rabbi Yehuda says: That quarter-<i>log</i> of blood does not transmit impurity due to the impurity of the spot of blood of a menstruating woman, because that blood was displaced after she died. And Rabbi Yehuda concedes in the case of a woman who is sitting in childbirth on the travailing chair [<i>mashber</i>] and she died, and a quarter<i>-log</i> of blood emerged from her body, that this blood transmits ritual impurity due to the impurity of the spot of blood of a menstruating woman. In that case, the blood was displaced while she was still alive. Rabbi Yosei said: For that reason, that quarter-<i>log</i> of blood does not transmit impurity in a tent, as it did not come from a corpse.
  Initially the Sages would say, with regard to a woman who gave birth and observed the seven or fourteen days of impurity for a male or female child, respectively, and then immersed in a ritual bath and who is observing the period of the blood of purity, that she would pour water from a vessel in her hands to rinse the Paschal offering. Although it is permitted for such a woman to engage in intercourse with her husband, her halakhic status is like that of one who immersed that day and the sun has not yet set. She therefore assumes second-degree ritual impurity and confers third-degree ritual impurity upon <i>teruma</i> with which she comes into contact. Consequently, she may touch the vessel, as second-degree ritual impurity does not render a vessel impure. She may not touch the water, as it is designated for rinsing the Paschal offering and therefore it is treated with the sanctity of sacrificial food, which is rendered impure by second-degree ritual impurity. The Sages then said: Her status is like that of one who came into contact with one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, i.e., one with first-degree ritual impurity, who renders consecrated items impure. But with regard to all non-sacred items, even non-sacred items treated with the sanctity of sacrificial food, such as the water used to rinse the Paschal offering, she has second-degree ritual impurity. Consequently, it is permitted for her to touch not only the vessel, but the water inside it as well, in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: The status of the woman is even like that of one who is impure due to contact with a corpse, who is a primary source of ritual impurity and renders even a non-sacred vessel impure.
  And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that a woman observing the days of purity partakes of second-tithe produce, as it is permitted for one who immersed that day to eat second-tithe produce. And she separates part of her dough as <i>ḥalla</i>, and she draws the vessel with the part of the dough that she separated near the rest of the dough, and she designates it with the name of <i>ḥalla</i>. And Beit Shammai further concede to Beit Hillel that if a drop from her saliva or from the blood of purity fell onto a loaf of <i>teruma</i>, the loaf is ritually pure, as any liquid discharged from the body of one who immersed that day is ritually pure. There is another dispute between the <i>tanna’im</i> with regard to a woman who completed her days of purity. Beit Shammai say: Her immersion at the end of the days of impurity does not render it permitted for her to enter the Temple or to partake of <i>teruma</i>; rather, she requires immersion even at the conclusion of the days of purity. And Beit Hillel say: She does not require immersion at the conclusion of the days of purity to render it permitted for her to partake of <i>teruma</i>, as the immersion at the end of the days of impurity is sufficient.
  There is a dispute with regard to a woman who sees blood on the eleventh day, which is the final day of the period fit for the flow of a <i>zava</i>. It is permitted for her to engage in intercourse with her husband after observing one clean day corresponding to the one day that she saw blood, but in this case, she failed to observe one clean day. Rather, she immersed in a ritual bath that evening, the eve of the twelfth day, and then engaged in intercourse with her husband. Beit Shammai say: Since she did not observe that corresponding clean day, she retains the status of a <i>zava</i>. Therefore both she, the <i>zava</i>, and her husband, who engaged in intercourse with a <i>zava</i>, transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting, to the extent that these transmit impurity to food and drink that came in contact with them, and in her case, to people as well. And each of them is liable to bring a sin offering for participating in intercourse involving a <i>zava</i>. And Beit Hillel say: Although they transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting, they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. Since the twelfth day is unfit for the flow of a <i>zava</i>, and even if she were to experience bleeding on the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth days she would not become a greater <i>zava</i>, one who experiences bleeding on the eleventh does not need to observe a corresponding clean day. If the woman immersed on the day following the eleventh day and she engaged in intercourse with the man of her house, i.e., her husband, on that twelfth day and then saw blood, Beit Shammai say: They transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting by rabbinic law, as the Sages issued a decree of impurity in the case when the second day is the twelfth day, due to a case when the second day is within the eleven days fit for the flow of a <i>zava</i>. And they are exempt from bringing the sin offering, as she observed part of the twelfth day, and the bleeding she experienced after engaging in intercourse, which occurred during her period of menstruation, is not fit to be appended to the discharge of the <i>zava</i> on the eleventh day. And Beit Hillel say: That husband is a glutton, as he could not wait for the conclusion of the twelfth day before engaging in intercourse. Nevertheless, the Sages did not issue a decree of impurity. And Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai in a case where the woman sees blood in the midst of the eleven-day period, and she immersed in the evening and engaged in intercourse with her husband without observing a corresponding clean day, that they transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting. And each of them is liable to bring a sin offering for participating in intercourse involving a <i>zava</i>. If she saw blood in the midst of the eleven days and observed part of a corresponding clean day and immersed on the day following the day that she saw blood and engaged in intercourse with her husband, that is wayward conduct, as the possibility exists that she will experience bleeding after intercourse that will be appended to the bleeding of the previous day, rendering her a <i>zava</i> and disqualifying the immersion. And the status of ritually impure items with which they came into contact and the status of their intercourse is contingent upon whether she experiences bleeding on the day of her immersion, in which case the ritually pure items become impure and they are liable to bring a sin offering, or whether she does not experience bleeding that day, in which case the ritually pure items remain pure and the woman and man are exempt from bringing a sin offering.