meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/Mishnah Niddah/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Mishnah Niddah
  משנה נדה
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Mishnah Niddah
  
  
  
  
  
  Shammai says: For all women, their hour [of discovering menstrual blood] suffices [to reckon the period of their impurity from that moment]. Hillel says: [the period of impurity is reckoned retroactively] from [the previous] examination to [the latest] examination, even for many days [i.e. she is assumed to have been impure the entire time]. The Sages say: [the law is] not according to this one nor according to that one, but rather [the period of impurity is reckoned] from that time to that time [on the previous day, i.e. twenty-four hours earlier, when this] lessens [the period] from examination to examination; and [it is reckoned] from [the previous] examination to [the latest] examination [when this] lessens [the period] from that time to that time [on the previous day, twenty-four hours earlier]. For any woman who has a regular cycle, her hour [of discovering menstrual blood] suffices [to reckon the period of her impurity from that moment]. And if a woman uses checking-cloths [literally: witnesses, to clean herself before and after intercourse], this is thereby like an examination, and it lessens [the period of impurity] from [being measured from] that time to that time [i.e. twenty-four hours earlier], or from [the previous] examination to [the latest] examination.
  How is it that her hour [of discovering menstrual blood] suffices [to reckon her impurity from that moment]? If she was sitting on a bed and was occupied with handling pure things [i.e. foods or vessels], and she left and [then] saw [blood], she is impure, and they are all pure [since her impurity is reckoned only from that moment]. Even though they said [regarding a woman who does not have a regular period]: she renders items impure from that time to that time [i.e. from twenty-fours hours earlier, retroactively], she only counts [her days of menstrual impurity] from the hour she saw [blood].
  Rabbi Eliezer says: There are four [types of] women whose hour [of discovering blood] suffices [to reckon their impurity from that moment]: a virgin, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, and an elderly woman. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I only heard [this law] regarding a virgin, but the law is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. 
  Who [is considered] a virgin [such that her hour suffices]? Any who has never seen [menstrual] blood all her days, even if she is married. A pregnant woman? [She is considered to be pregnant] once her fetus becomes known [i.e. at the end of her first trimester]. A nursing woman? [She is considered to be nursing] until she weans her child [i.e. for twenty-four months]. If she gave her child to a nursemaid, or weaned him, or if he died [within twenty-four months], Rabbi Meir says: she is rendered impure [retroactively] from that time to that time [on the previous day, i.e. twenty-four hours earlier]. And the Sages say: her hour [of discovering blood] suffices [to render her impure only from that moment].
  Who is [considered] an elderly woman? Anyone who has gone through three seasons [without menstruating], approaching her old age. Rabbi Eliezer says: any woman [i.e. young or old] who has gone through three seasons [without menstruating], her hour [of discovering blood] suffices [to reckon her impurity from that moment]. Rabbi Yose says: a pregnant or nursing woman who has gone through three seasons [without menstruating], their hour suffices [to render them impure only from the moment of discovering blood]. 
  And concerning what did they say that her hour suffices?  [They said this] regarding the first observation [of blood], but by the second [observation] she is impure [retroactively] from that time to that time [twenty-four hours earlier]. And if she saw her first observation as a result of compulsion [i.e. if it was caused unnaturally, as by an accident], even for the second  observation her hour suffices [to reckon her impurity from that moment]. 
  Even though they said that her hour suffices, she should be examining [herself], except for a <i>niddah</i> [a female who has menstrual discharges which render her impure], or one who is sitting over pure blood [i.e. following a period of impurity after giving birth, there is a period of days during which a woman remains pure even if she sees blood].  And she should have intercourse using checking-cloths [literally: witnesses, before and after intercourse], except for one who is sitting over pure blood, or a virgin whose blood is pure. And she should examine twice [daily], in the morning and at twilight, and when she going to have relations with her husband [literally: her house]. More [restricted] than this are priestly women [for they should examine themselves] at the hour that they eat from <i>terumah</i> [a portion of a crop given to a priest which becomes sanctified upon separation, and can only be consumed by priests or their household, and which should not be rendered impure]. Rabbi Yehuda says: [they should examine themselves] also when they are leaving from having eaten <i>terumah</i>.
  
  
  
  Every hand that examines frequently, regarding women, this is praiseworthy; and regarding men, it should be cut off. Regarding a deaf woman, a <i>shotah</i>, a blind woman, or a woman whose cognition has been impaired, if they have able-minded women [to care for them], they prepare them [i.e. help them check themselves and immerse for purity], and they may then eat <i>terumah</i> [a portion of a crop given to the priests which becomes designated as such upon separation, and can only be consumed by priests or their household, and which one is forbidden to render impure]. It is the way of the daughters of Israel to have intercourse using two checking-cloths [literally: witnesses], one for him, and one for her. The modest ones prepare a third, to prepare herself [literally: the house, before intercourse].  
  If [blood was] found on his [checking-cloth], they [the woman and her husband] are both impure, and are liable to bring a sacrifice. If it is found on hers immediately [after intercourse], they are impure, and are liable to bring a sacrifice. If it is found on hers after some time, they are impure as a matter of uncertainty, and they are exempt from bringing a sacrifice. 
  What is [considered to be] after some time? As long as it takes for her to descend from the bed and rinse her [nether] face. And afterwards [if she found blood], she [retroactively] renders impurity from that time to that time [twenty-four hours earlier], but she does not render impure the man who had intercourse with her. Rabbi Akiva says: she also renders impure the man who had intercourse with her. And the Sages agree with Rabbi Akiva regarding one who sees a [blood] stain, that she renders impure the man who has intercourse with her [after she saw the stain]. 
  All women are presumed to be pure for their husbands [i.e. husbands may presume that their wives are pure]. Those who return from a journey, their wives are presumed to be pure for them. Beit Shammai says: she requires two checking-cloths [literally: witnesses] for each and every time she has intercourse [i.e. so she can check them the next day], or she must have relations by the light of a candle [i.e. she must use a checking-cloth after intercourse and examine it by candlelight then]. Beit Hillel says: two checking-cloths suffice for her for the whole night. 
  The Sages analogized women through a parable: a chamber, a corridor, and an upper chamber. The blood of the chamber is impure. If [blood is] found in the corridor, its uncertainty is impure [i.e. there is an uncertainty regarding its origin, and it is thereby impure], because it is presumed to have come from the source [i.e. from the chamber]. 
  Five kinds [colors] of blood in a woman are impure: the red, and the black, and like the brightness of a crocus, and like earthy waters, and like diluted wine. Beit Shammai say: also like fenugreek water, and like the waters of roasted meat. And Beit Hillel consider these [last two] pure. Regarding that which is yellow [literally: green], Akavia ben Mahalalel considers it impure, and the Sages consider it pure. Rabbi Meir said: even if it does not render impurity as a [blood] stain, it [nonetheless] renders impurity as a liquid.   Rabbi Yose says: neither thus, nor thus.    
  What is [considered] red? Like the blood of a wound. Black? Like ink-sediment; [black which is] deeper than this is impure, paler than this is pure. And [what is considered] like the brightness of a crocus? Like the clearest [shaded petal] in it. And like earthy waters? [Like the reddish earth] from the Bet Kerem valley, with waters floating over it. And [what is considered] like diluted wine? Two parts water, and one [part] wine, from wine of Sharon.
  
  
  
  Regarding a woman who miscarries a piece [of flesh], if there was blood with it, she is impure; it not, she is pure. Rabbi Yehudah says: either way she is impure.
  If she miscarries something like a membrane, like a hair, like dust, like red flies, she should put it in water, [and] if it dissolves she is impure; and if not, she is pure. If she miscarries something like fish, [like] locusts, [like] <i>shekatsim u'remasim</i> [small animals, such as reptiles, insect, or rodents, which move by scurrying, creeping, slithering, etc.], if they had blood with them, she is impure; and if not, she is pure. If she miscarries something like a [domesticated] animal, a beast, or a fowl, whether pure or impure ones [i.e. kosher or not kosher], if it is male, she should sit for [the number of postpartum days of impurity and purity required for one who gives birth to] a male; and if it is female, she should sit for [the number of postpartum days of impurity and purity required for one who gives birth to] a female. And if [its sex is] unknown, she should sit for [the number of days of impurity and purity required for one who gives birth to] a male and for [one who gives birth to] a female [i.e. she should be stringent in both directions, with a longer period of initial impurity, and a shorter period of subsequent purity], according to Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: anything that does not have a human shape is not [considered to be] a fetus [with regard to the purity status of one who gives birth].  
  If she miscarries a sac full of water, full of blood, or full of strands [of flesh], she need not be suspicious that it was a fetus. But if its was assembled [into a human form], she should sit for [the number of postpartum days of impurity and purity required for one who gives birth to] a male and for [one who gives birth to] a female. 
  If she miscarries a sandal [i.e. a piece of flesh without a face, similar in shape to a sandal] or a placenta, she should sit for [the number of days of impurity and purity required for one who gives birth to] a male and for [one who gives birth to] a female. If a placenta is in a house, the house is impure [as from the impruty of a corpse]; not because a placenta is a fetus, but because there can be no placenta without a fetus. Rabbi Shimon says: the fetus [that was in the placenta] dissolved [into the blood and was nullified] before it came out [and therefore the house is not impure].
  If she miscarries a <i>tumtum</i> [person (or animal) with recessed sexual organs whose gender is therefore impossible to determine, presently, by external examination. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male or female] [fetus], or an <i>androginos</i> [person (or animal) with both male and female sexual organs. It is halachically uncertain whether such is male, female or, perhaps, has a uniquely defined halachic gender] [fetus], she should sit for [the number of days of impurity and purity required for one who gives birth to] a male and for [one who gives birth to] a female. If [she miscarries] a <i>tumtum</i> [fetus] and a male [fetus, at once], or an <i>androginos</i>and a male, she should sit for [the required number of days for one who gives birth to] a male and for [one who gives birth to] a female. If [she miscarries] a <i>tumtum</i> [fetus] and a female [fetus, at once], or an <i>androginos</i>and a female, she should sit only for [the required number of days for one who gives birth to] a female. If it emerged in pieces or backwards, once the majority of it has emerged it is regarded as having been born. If it came out normally, [it is not considered born] until the majority of its head has emerged. And what is [considered to be] the majority of its head? Once its forehead emerges. 
  If she miscarries, and it is unknown what it is, she should sit for [the number of days of impurity and purity required for one who gives birth to] a male and for [one who gives birth to] a female. If it is unknown whether it was a fetus or not, she should sit for [the required number of days for one who gives birth to] a male and for [one who gives birth to] a female, and for [being] a <i>niddah</i> [a female who has menstrual discharges which render her impure; i.e. she should be stringent in all directions].   
  If she miscarries on the fortieth day [since her prior immersion], she need not be concerned that it was a fetus. If [she miscarries] on the forty-first day, she should sit [for the required number of days] for a male and for a female, and for [being] a <i>niddah</i>. Rabbi Yishmael says: on the forty-first day she should sit for [the required number of days for one who gives birth to] a male and for [being] a <i>niddah</i>. On the eighty-first day she should sit for a male and for a female and for [being] a <i>niddah</i>, because [the formation of] a male is completed in forty-one [days], and a female in eighty-one. And the Sages say: this and that [are both completed] in forty-one.
  
  
  
  The daughters of Samaritans are [considered to be] <i>niddot</i> [females who have menstrual discharges which render them impure] from their cradle. And Samaritans render impure that which they lie upon, [rendering] the bottom one [impure, even without touching it,] just as the top one, since they have intercourse with <i>niddot</i>, and they [their wives] sit [counting seven days of impurity] on account of any [kind of] blood [even blood which does render them impure, which thereby throws off their count]. But one is not liable for entering the Temple [while impure] on account of [having been rendered impure or carrying something which has been rendered impure by] them, nor is <i>terumah</i>  [a portion of a crop given to the priests which can only be consumed by priests or their household, and which one is forbidden to render impure or consume while impure] burned on their account [if rendered impure by them], because their impurity is uncertain.
  The daughters of Sadducees, so long as they are accustomed to walking in the paths of their fathers, are thereby [regarded] as Samaritan women. If they left [those paths] to walk in the paths of Israel, they are thereby as Israelites. Rabbi Yose says: they are always like Israelites, until they leave [that path] to walk in the paths of their fathers.
  Regarding the blood of a gentile woman, and the pure blood of a leprous woman [i.e. during her postpartum days of purity], Beit Shammai consider it pure; and Beit Hillel say: it is like her spit or her urine [i.e. it renders impurity only while damp]. Regarding the blood of a woman who gave birth and did not immerse, Beit Shammai say: it is like her spit or her urine. And Beit Hillel say: it renders impurity when damp or dry. And they are in agreement that if she gave birth while while she was a <i>zavah</i> [a female who has certain types of atypical genital discharges, distinct from her menses, which render her impure], that she [i.e. her blood] renders impurity when damp or dry. 
  A woman having difficult labor is [considered to be] a <i>niddah</i> [if she saw blood during her days of <i>niddah</i>]. If she had difficult labor [and saw blood] for three days within the eleven days [of <i>zivah</i>, between <i>niddah</i> periods], and she ceased [having pains] from that time to that time [twenty-four hours later], and she gave birth, she has thereby given birth while she was a <i>zavah</i>, according to Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: [she must have ceased having pains for] a night and a day, like the night of Shabbat its day [i.e. for a full night and subsequent day, and not for any twenty-four hour period]. This applies to one who ceased [for that time] from her pain, but not [necessarily] from bleeding.
  How far [from birth] must her difficulty be [for her pains to be considered a difficult labor]? Rabbi Meir says: even forty or fifty days [before the birth]. Rabbi Yehuda says: [being in] the [ninth] month is sufficient for her [to consider her pains to be caused by difficult labor]. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: difficult labor is not for more than two weeks [before birth].  
  A woman who was in difficult labor during the eighty days of [purity following the fourteen days of impurity after giving birth to] a female, all blood that she sees is pure, until the fetus emerges. And Rabbi Eliezer considers them impure. They said to Rabbi Eliezer, "Just as in a case where one is stringent regarding blood when pain has ceased [i.e. that such blood renders the woman who gives birth impure] there is a leniency regarding blood during difficult labor [i.e. which does not render her impure], in a case where one is lenient regarding blood when pain has ceased [i.e. during the days of postpartum purity, which does not render her impure], does it not follow logically that we should be lenient regarding blood during difficult labor [that it, too, should not render her impure]?!" He said to them, "It is sufficient for the case inferred to be treated in the same manner as the one from which it is inferred! Regarding what were they lenient with her? Regarding the impurity of <i>zivah</i>. But she [who was in difficult labor during her postpartum days of purity, if she saw blood during her days of <i>niddah</i>, and not her days of <i>zivah</i>, she] is impure with the impurity of a <i>niddah</i>.  
  Throughout all the eleven days [between each period of <i>niddah</i>] she is presumed to be pure. If [during her days of <i>niddah</i>] she sat and did not examine herself, [whether] unintentionally, under duress, or if she intentionally did not examine herself, she is pure. If the time of her regular period arrived and she did not examine herself, she is thereby impure.   Rabbi Meir says: if she was in a hiding place when the time of her regular period arrived and she did not examine herself, she is thereby pure, because fear banishes blood. But [a woman] during the days of <i>zivah</i> [i.e. the period of eleven days between <i>niddah</i> periods], or a <i>zavah</i> [who is supposed to be counting seven days of purity], or one who should be waiting a day [of purity] opposite each day [of impurity], they are thereby presumed to be impure [if they did not examine themselves].   
  
  
  
  For a Caesarean section, one does not sit for the days of impurity or the days of purity, and one is not liable to bring a sacrifice on its account. Rabbi Shimon says: it is like one who was birthed [regularly]. All women render impurity [from when the blood is] in the outer chamber, as the verse says (Leviticus 15), "Blood will be her flow within her flesh." But a <i>zav</i> [a male who has certain types of atypical genital discharges, which render him impure] and a <i>ba'al keri</i> [a male who has had a seminal emission but has yet to purify himself by immersion in a <i>mikveh</i>] do not render impurity until their impurity emerges to the outside.
  If a man was eating <i>terumah</i> [a portion of a crop given to the priests which can only be consumed by priests or their household] and he felt his limbs tremble violently [i.e. he had a seminal emission], he should hold his member [to prevent the discharge] and swallow the <i>terumah</i> [already in his mouth, since one is forbidden to consume <i>terumah</i> while impure]. And they [the discharges of a <i>zav</i> or a <i>ba'al keri</i>] render impurity in any amount, even the size of a mustard seed, or smaller than that. 
  A baby girl one day old can become impure as a <i>niddah</i>. At ten days old she can become impure as a <i>zavah</i> [a female who has certain types of atypical genital discharges, distinct from her menses, which render her impure]. A baby boy one day old can become impure as a <i>zav</i>, or impure by having <i>nega'im</i> [diseased patches on skin, clothes, or houses that create impurity], or impure through [contact with] the impurity of a corpse; and he creates a bond for <i>yibum</i> [the obligation to perform Levirate marriage]; and he can exempt one from requiring <i>yibum</i> [i.e. if his father dies, he counts as a son to except any of his uncles from having to do <i>yibum</i>]; and he can feed <i>terumah</i> [i.e. his existence can render <i>terumah</i> permissible to one for whom it was formerly forbidden]; and he can render <i>terumah</i> to be forbidden [to one who was formerly permitted to eat it]; and he can inherit or cause others to inherit [portions of an estate]; and one who kills him is liable [for  murder]; and he is thereby fully like a son-in-law to his father and to his mother and for all his relatives. 
  A girl three years and one day old can become sanctified [for marriage, i.e. engaged] through intercourse; and if she had relations with a <i>yavam</i> [one obligated to perform leverite marriage], he has acquired her [as his wife]; and one is liable for [having relations with] a married woman on her account [if she is married]; and she renders one who sleeps with her impure [if she is a <i>niddah</i>] such that he renders impure that which he sits upon, the lower [layer of bedding, even if he does not touch it directly], just like the upper [layer of bedding]. If she marries a priest, she can eat <i>terumah</i>. If someone invalid [for the priesthood] had relations with her, she becomes invalid for the priesthood. If any one of the illicit relatives stated in the Torah had relations with her, they are put to death on her account, but she is exempt. If she is younger than that, it is like putting a finger in an eye.
  If a boy of nine years and one day has relations with his <i>yevamah</i> [a widow of his childless brother], he acquires her [as his wife]. And he does not [need to] give her a bill of divorce until he grows up. And he can be rendered impure by a <i>niddah</i>, such that he renders impure that which hes sits upon, the lower [layer, even if he does not touch it directly], just as the upper [layer]; and he can render one [with whom he had relations] invalid [from being able eat <i>terumah</i>]; and he cannot feed one <i>terumah</i> [i.e. cause someone to be permitted to eat it on his account]; and he can render an animal invalid from [being able to be sacrificed] upon the alter [i.e. if he had relations with it, that is sufficient to render it invalid as a sacrifice], and it is stoned on his account. And if he had relations with any of the illicit relatives stated in the Torah, they are killed on his account, and he is exempt.
  Regarding a girl of eleven years and one day, her vows are examined [i.e she is questioned in order to determine if her vows are valid]. At twelve years and one day, her vows stand. And we examine [her vows] for the entire twelfth [year]. Regarding a boy of twelve years and one day, his vows are examined [to determine if they are valid]. At thirteen years and one day, his vows stand. And we examine [his vows] for the entire thirteenth [year]. Prior to this time [i.e. 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 sanctified," their vows are not vows and their sanctifications are not sanctified property. After this time, even if they say, "We do not know in whose name we vowed, and in whose name we sanctified," their vows are vows and their sanctifications are santified property.
  The Sages analogized women through a parable: an unripe fig, a fig in its early ripening stage, and a fully ripe fig. An unripe fig [refers to] while she is still a child. A fig in its early ripening stage [refers to] while she is in her adolescence. During this and that [stage], her father is entitled to that which she finds, and to her handiwork, and [the right] to the annulment of her vows. A fully ripe fig [refers to] once she matures, her father has no longer any right over her.
  What are her signs [which indicate that she has matured]? Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: once the fold appears beneath the breast. Rabbi Akiva says: once the breasts drop. Ben Azzai says: once the areola darkens. Rabbi Yose says: [when the breasts develop] such that if one puts one's hand on the nipple it sinks and gradually returns.  
  A woman of twenty years who did not produce two [pubic] hairs, should bring evidence that she is twenty years old, and she is an <i>aiylonit</i> [a woman with arrested sexual development who cannot bear children]: she does not take part in <i>chalitzah</i> [the ceremony performed as an alternative way to release the widow of childless man from the obligation to wait for Levirate marriage], nor <i>yibum</i>. A man of twenty years who did not produce two [pubic] hairs, should bring evidence that he is twenty years old, and he is a eunuch: he does not take part in <i>chalitzah</i>, nor <i>yibum</i>, according to Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: this and that one both [are considered to be infertile if they have not produced hairs] at the age of eighteen. Rabbi Eliezer says: regarding the male it is in accordance with Beit Hillel, and regarding the female it is in accordance with Beit Shammai, since a woman arrives [at maturity] earlier than a man.
  
  
  
  If the lower sign [of two hairs] appears before the upper sign [of the breasts] does, she can participate in <i>chalitzah</i> [the ceremony performed to release a widow of a childless man from the obligation of levirate marriage] or <i>yibum</i> [levirate marriage]. If the upper sign appears before the lower sign does, even though this is impossible, Rabbi Meir says: she does not participate in <i>chalitzah</i> or <i>yibum</i>. And the Sages say: she must participate in either <i>chalitzah</i> or <i>yibum</i>. For they have said: it is possible for the lower sign to appear before the upper sign has, but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign has.  
  Similarly, any earthenware vessel [with a hole] that lets [liquids] in will also let [liquids] out, but there is [such a vessel] that let [liquids] out but does not let [liquids] in. Any limb that has a nail also contains a bone [and is therefore considered a limb such that it renders the impurity of a corpse, even if it has less than the required measure of dead flesh to be able to render impurity], but there may be [a limb] that contains a bone but does not have a nail [and which would not be considered a limb for the purpose of rendering the impurity of a corpse, unless it contains the required measure of flesh to be able to render impurity].    
  Anything that can be rendered impure with <i>midras</i> impurity [a type of impurity due to being sat on by certain types of impure individuals, rendering something an Origin of impurity] can be rendered impure with the impurity of a corpse. But there may be something that can be rendered impure with the impurity of a corpse but cannot be rendered impure with <i>midras</i> impurity.    
  Anyone who is fit to [be a judge who may] try capital cases is also fit to try monetary cases. But there may be one who is fit to try monetary cases but is unfit to try capital cases. Anyone who is valid to serve as a judge is valid to testify. But there may be one who is valid to testify and is not valid to serve as a judge. 
  Any [food] that requires tithing can be rendered impure with the impurity of foods. But there may be [food] that can be rendered impure with the impurity of foods but which does not require tithing.
  Any [crop] that requires <i>pe'ah</i> [the requirement to leave, when harvesting, a corner of the field for the poor] requires tithing. But there  may be [a crop] that require tithing but which does not require <i>pe'ah</i>. 
  Any [livestock] that has the requirement of the first shearing [i.e. the obligation, when one shears one's sheep, to give a portion of the fleece to a priest] also has the requirement of the [priestly] gifts [i.e. when one slaughters an animal, the requirement to give certain portions of it to a priest]. But there may be [livestock] that has the requirement of the [priestly] gifts but does not have the requirement of the first shearing.
  Any [produce] which is subject to [the obligation of] removal [i.e. the requirement to remove all of it from one's home during the sabbatical year once it is no longer available in the fields] is also subject to [the requirements of] the sabbatical year [i.e. one must give up ownership of its growing crop, and one cannot sell it for profit]. But there may be [produce] that is subject to [the requirements of] the sabbatical year but is not subject to [the obligation of] removal.    
  Any [fish] that has scales has fins. But there may be one which has fins but does not have scales. Any [animal] that has horns has [split] hooves. But there maybe be one which has [split] hooves but does not have horns.  
  Any [action] that requires a blessing after it requires a blessing before it. But there may be one that requires a blessing before it but does not require a blessing after it. 
  A female child who produced two [pubic] hairs may participate in either in <i>chalitzah</i> or <i>yibum</i>, and she is obligated in all of the commandments stated in the Torah. And similarly, a male child who produced two [pubic] hairs is obligated in all of the commandments stated in the Torah. And he is fit to become a wayward and rebellious son from the time he produces two hairs until his beard encircles; [this refers to] the lower [beard] and not the upper one, but the Sages spoke in a euphemism. A female child who has produced two hairs cannot do <i>mi'un</i> [the refusal of a marriage by a fatherless child married off by her mother or brother, retroactively annulling the marriage]. Rabbi Yehuda says: [she may still do <i>mi'un</i>] until the black [i.e. the hair] increases.    
  The two hairs spoken of regarding a red heifer [i.e. that two white or black hairs invalidate it, see, Parah 2:5], and [those spoken of] regarding <i>nega'im</i> [diseased patches on skin, clothes, or houses that create impurity; i.e. that two hairs on a blemish are a sign of impurity, see Nega'im 4:4], and regarding those spoken of anywhere, [the hairs must be long] enough to bent their tips to [touch] their roots, according to Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Eliezer says: [long] enough to be pinched by a finger-nail. Rabbi Akiva says: [long] enough to be removed with scissors.  
  Regarding a woman who saw a [blood] stain [on her clothing], she [with regarding to her counting of her days of impurity] is spoiled [i.e. she can no longer rely on her count], and she must take into consideration the possibility that there was a discharge [that day and the previous two days, rendering her a <i>zavah</i> and thereby impure for another seven days at least], according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: [blood] stains do not contain discharge [and thus she need not suspect that she may be a <i>zavah</i> and therefore impure]. 
  Regarding a woman who saw [a discharge of blood] on the eleventh day [i.e. her last day of counting, after which she should be pure] at twilight, or at the beginning of her being a <i>niddah</i> [a woman who has menstrual discharges which render her impure] and at the end of her being a <i>niddah</i> or at the beginning of the [subsequent] period of [potential] genital discharge and the end of that period of discharge [i.e. at twilight on what is either the first day of her being a <i>niddah</i> or the last day of the subsequent period of discharge during which she counts seven clean days, or at twilight on what is either the last day of her being a <i>niddah</i> or the first day of the subsequent period of potential discharge], or [if she saw blood] at the end of the fortieth day [after the birth] of a male, or at the end of the eightieth day [after the birth] of a female, at twilight in all these cases, they are thereby [assumed to be] mistaken [in their counting, and must therefore treat each case stringently]. Rabbi Yehoshua said: now that you have remedied [the situation for] the foolish women [who have mistaken their count], remedy [the situation for] the intelligent ones [who know how to count, as well, since they too may err in their counting]. 
  
  
  
  The blood of a <i>niddah</i> [a female who has menstrual discharges which render her impure] and the flesh of a corpse render impurity when damp, and render impurity when dry. But the discharge [of a <i>zav</i>, a male who has certain types of atypical genital discharges which render him impure], and the phlegm [of a <i>zav</i>], and the spit [of a <i>zav</i>], and a [dead] vermin, and carrion, and semen render impurity when damp but do not render impurity when dry. If they can be steeped [in water] and thereby revert to their original condition, they render impurity when wet and render impurity when dry. And how long must they be steeped? In lukewarm water, from a time to that time [twenty four hours later]. Rabbi Yose says: the dry flesh of a corpse, if it cannot be steeped and thereby reverted to its original condition, is pure. 
  A [dead] vermin found in an alleyway retroactively renders impure [anything that was in the alleyway, until the time it was found and] since such a time regarding which one says, "I examined this alleyway and there was no vermin in it," or since the hour at which it was [last] cleaned.  Similarly regarding a [blood] stain found on a [woman's] robe, it retroactively renders impure [any pure items which the woman handled, until the time the stain was found and] since such a time regarding which one says, "I examined this robe and there was no stain on it," or since the hour it was [last] washed. And it [i.e. the vermin or the stain, retroactively] renders impurity, whether it is damp or dry. Rabbi Shimon says: if it is dry it renders impurity retroactively, but if it is wet it renders impurity only since the hour at which one could go back and it would be damp [i.e. regarding the vermin, the hour at which, if it had fallen then or later, it could still be damp currently]. 
  All [blood] stains that come from Rekem [an area on the Eastern border of Israel] are pure [i.e. since the Jews there are assumed to be careful to hide their <i>niddah</i> stains, such stains are assumed to be from gentiles and therefore pure]. Rabbi Yehuda regards them as impure, because they [the inhabitants] are converts who are in error [i.e. and thus their blood is impure since they are Jews, and since they suspected of not being careful to hide their blood, their stains are impure for they may be from a <i>niddah</i>]. Those [bloodstains] that come from among the gentiles are pure. [Those that come] from among Israelites or from among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir regards them as impure, and the Sages regard them as pure, for they are not suspected with regard to [failing to hide their] their stains [i.e. therefore any stains found can be assumed not to have come from a <i>niddah</i>].
  All [blood] stains found anywhere are pure, except those found in rooms or in the area around a house of impurities [i.e. a house used by impure women]. A Samaritan house of impurities renders impurity by overshadowing because they bury the stillborn there. Rabbi Yehudah says: they would not bury them, but rather they would toss them out, and animals would drag them [away]. 
  They [the Sameritans] are trusted when they say, "we buried the stillborn there," or "we did not bury [them there]." They are trusted when they say, regarding an animal, whether it has given birth to its firstborn or has not yet given birth. They are trusted regarding the marking of graves. But they are not trusted regarding [the locations of graves under] overhanging branches or protrusions [of wood or stone in a fence, when there is an uncertainty as to the location of a grave in their proximity], nor regarding a <i>beit hapras</i> [a field in which a grave has been plowed over, which may or may not contain a corpse]. This is the general rule: regarding a matter about which they are suspected [of not keeping], they are not trusted about it.
  
  
  
  Regarding a woman who saw a [blood] stain on her body, if it was opposite her genital area she is impure; and if it was not opposite her genital area she is pure. If it was on her heel or on the tip of her big toe, she is impure.   Regarding if it was on her thigh or on her feet, if on the inner side she is impure; and if on the outer side she is pure; and if on the sides, this side or that [i.e. the front or he back], she is pure. If she saw [a bloodstain] on her robe, if it was from the belt or below she is impure; from the belt or above, she is pure. If she saw it on the sleeve of the robe, if it reaches to opposite her genital area she is impure; and if it does not she is pure. If she would take it off and cover herself with it at night, if she finds a stain anywhere she is impure, because it rotates. And similarly regarding headscarves [which she covers her hair with at night, she is impure if she finds a stain anywhere on them, since they move around at night]. 
  A woman [who found a stain] may attribute it to any cause to which she is able to attribute it: [for instance] if she had slaughtered a beast, or a wild animal or a fowl, or if she was handling [blood] stains, or if she sat beside those who were handling them. If she killed a louse she may attribute [the bloodstain] to it. Up to how large a stain may be attributed [to a louse]? Rabbi Chanina ben Antignos says: up to the size of a split bean, and even if she did not kill it. And she may attribute it to her son or to her husband [i.e. if one of them has a wound]. If she has a wound that could open and produce blood she may attribute [the bloodstain] to it. 
  It happened that a woman came before Rabbi Akiva. She said to him, "I saw a [blood] stain. He said to her, "Perhaps you had a wound?" She said to him, "Yes, but it has healed." He said to her, "Perhaps it [was a wound that] could open up and produce blood." She said to him, "Yes." And Rabbi Akiva declared her pure. He saw his students looking at one other [in astonishment]. He said to them, "Why is this matter difficult in your eyes? For the Sages did not state this matter to be stringent, but rather to be lenient, for it is said, 'And if a woman has a flow, blood will be her flow within her flesh,' (Leviticus 15:19); blood [renders a woman impure, according to the Torah], but not a [blood] stain."
  If a checking-cloth [literally: witness] was placed under a pillow [after a woman used it to examine herself] and blood was found on it, if it is round it is pure [for it is assumed to be the blood of a louse which was killed under the pillow]. If it is elongated, it is impure, according to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok. 
  
  
  
  Regarding a woman who was attending to her needs [i.e. urinating] and she saw blood, Rabbi Meir says: if she was standing she is impure, but if she was sitting she is pure. Rabbi Yose says: in either case she is pure.
  Regarding a man and a woman who attended to their needs into a bowl, if blood was found on the water, Rabbi Yose considers it pure, and Rabbi Shimon considers it impure, since it is not usual for a man to discharge blood; rather the presumption regarding blood is that it came from the woman.  
  If a woman lent her robe to a gentile woman or to a <i>niddah</i> [a female who has menstrual discharges which render her impure], she may attribute [any bloodstain] to her. If three women wore the same robe or sat on the same bench, and blood was then found on it, they are all impure. If they sat on a stone bench or on [a ledge in] the colonnade of a bath house, Rabbi Nechemia considers them pure, for Rabbi Nechemia would say: Anything that cannot be rendered impure cannot retain a stain.
  If three women were sleeping in one bed and blood was found under one of them, they are all impure.  If one of them examined [herself] and was found  to be impure, she is impure and the other two are pure; and [even if none of them examined] they may attribute to one another [if there is any reason to assume one of them is more or less fit to see blood]. And if none of them are fit to see [blood, i.e. if they were virgins or pregnant, etc.], we view all of them as though they are fit [to see blood].
  If three women were sleeping in one bed and blood was found under the middle one, they are all impure. If [it was found] under the one on the inside [i.e. if the bed was beside a wall], the two inner ones are impure and the one on the outside is pure. If [it was found] under the outside one, the two outside ones are impure and the one on the inside is pure. Rabbi Yehuda said: when is this the case? When they passed by way of the foot of the bed; but if the three of them passed by way of climbing on [from the side], they are all impure. If one of them examined [herself] and was found to be pure, she is pure and the other two are impure. If two of them examined and found [themselves] to be pure, they are pure and the third one is impure. If the three of them [examined] and found themselves to be pure, they are all impure. To what is this comparable? To an impure mound [of stones containing a corpse] which became mixed among two pure mounds. If one of them was examined and found to be pure, it is pure and the other two are impure. If two of them were [examined and] found to be pure, they are pure and the third is impure. If the three of them were [examined and] found to be pure, they are all impure, according Rabbi Meir, for Rabbi Meir would say: Anything which is presumed to be impure remains in its impurity until the location of the impurity becomes known in certainty. And the Sages say: one should examine [the mounds to search for the corpse] until one reaches a rock or virgin soil [underneath them, indicating the absence of impurity].
  Seven compounds remove a [blood] stain [and can thereby be used to test whether a stain is blood]: bland saliva, bean water, urine, lye, soap, cimolite [a type of clay used for cleaning], and potash [a potassium compound used for soap]. If one immersed it [a stained item] and prepared pure items upon it, and passed these seven compounds over it and the stain did not pass, it is thereby dye, the pure items remain pure, and one does not need to immerse it. If it did pass, or if it faded, it is thereby a [blood] stain, and the pure items are impure, and one must immerse it. 
  What is bland saliva? That which [is from someone who] has not tasted anything [that day]. Bean water? Ground up grits of beans that had split apart [in water]. Urine? That which has soured. And one must scrub it three times for each and every one. If one passed these [compounds over the stain] out of order [i.e. not in the order in which they appear in the Mishna], or if one passed all seven of them over it at once, [it is as though] he has done nothing. 
  Any woman who has regular [indicative symptoms around her] cycles, her hour [of discovering menstrual blood] is sufficient for her [to reckon her period of impurity from that moment]. The following are considered regular [indicative symptoms around her] cycles: if she yawns [around the time that she menstruates], or if she sneezes, or if she has a [painful] feeling in her stomach or in her lower abdomen, or if she has a discharge, or if she is seized by a kind of chill [i.e. shivers or goosebumps], or other similar symptoms. Any woman who has established three occurrences [of any one these symptoms], this is thereby a regular [indicative symptom for her] cycle. 
  If she is accustomed to regularly seeing [blood] at the beginning of her regular [experiencing of indicative symptoms of her] cycle, all pure items which she handled during her regular [indicative symptoms of her] cycle are impure. If [she is accustomed to regularly seeing blood] at the end of her regular [experiencing of indicative symptoms of her] cycle, all pure items which she handled during her regular [indicative symptoms of her] cycle are pure. Rabbi Yose says: even days and hours can be [indications of] regular cycles [i.e. if she regularly sees blood on certain days or hours, she can establish a regular cycle based on that].  If [for instance] she is accustomed to regularly seeing [blood] at sunrise, she is not forbidden [to her husband as a <i>niddah</i> on the day of her regular cycle] until sunrise.  Rabbi Yehuda says: the entire day is hers [i.e. if she did not see blood after sunrise, she is permitted to her husband for the entire day, but not the night before]. 
  If she is accustomed to regularly seeing [blood] on the fifteenth day [of the month], and she changed to seeing on the twentieth day, this [day] and that are forbidden [for her to have relations with her husband]. If she changed to [seeing on] the twentieth day twice, this [day] and that are forbidden. If she changed to [seeing on] the twentieth day three times, the fifteenth becomes permitted, and she has established the twentieth for herself [as the time of her regular cycle], for a woman can only establish a regular cycle for herself if she establishes it three times. And she can only be purified from [becoming impure on] her regular cycle once she is uprooted from it [i.e. it does not occur as expected] three times. 
  Women, with regard to their virginal blood, are like grapevines. There are vines whose wine is red, and there are vines whose wine is black, and there are vines whose wine is abundant, and there are vines whose wine is meager. Rabbi Yehuda says: every vine has wine in it; and that which does not have wine in it is dried up [i.e. infertile].
  
  
  
  Regarding a female child whose time to see [her signs of maturity] has not yet come, if she was married, Beit Shammai say: we give her four nights [during which we assume her blood is virginal blood and not menstrual blood]. Beit Hillel say: until the wound is healed. If her time to see [her signs of maturity] has come and she is then married, Beit Shammai say: we give her the first night [during which her blood is still assumed to be virginal blood]. And Beit Hillel say: we give her four nights, until the end of Shabbat [i.e. since virgins are supposed to be wed on Wednesday]. If she sees [blood] while she is still in her father's house [i.e. before she is married], Beit Shammai say: we grant her the intercourse that is a mitzvah [i.e. the first time with her husband]; and Beit Hillel say: the entire night is hers. 
  If a <i>niddah</i> [a woman who has menstrual discharges which render her impure] examined herself on the seventh day [of her being a <i>niddah</i>] in the morning and found she was pure, and at twilight she did not [examine herself again before immersing in order to] separate [from her period of being a <i>niddah</i> in certain purity], and after some days she examined herself and found she was impure, she is thereby presumed to have been pure [from the night she immersed until the moment she found she was impure]. If she examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found she was impure, and at twilight she did not [examine herself again before immersing in order to] separate [in certain purity], and after some time she examined herself and found she was pure, she is thereby assumed to have been impure [the entire time, and any pure items she handled in the interim are thereby impure]. And [in any case, when she finds herself to be impure] she renders impurity [retroactively] from that time to that time [on the previous day, i.e. twenty-four hours earlier], and from [the previous] examination to [the latest] examination. And if she has a regular cycle [when she finds she is impure], her hour suffices [to reckon the period of her impurity from that moment]. Rabbi Yehuda says: anyone who did not separate [from her period of being a <i>niddah</i>] in purity, from midday [on the seventh day] or later [i.e. she did not examine herself during that time to verify her purity], is thereby presumed to be impure. And the Sages say: even if she examined herself and found she was pure on the second day of her being a <i>niddah</i>, and at twilight she did not [examine herself again in order to] separate [from her period of being a <i>niddah</i> in certain purity], and after some time she examined herself and found she was impure, she is thereby presumed to have been pure [from her prior examination until the moment she found she was impure]. 
  If a <i>zav</i> or a <i>zavah</i> [individuals who have certain types of atypical genital discharges which render them impure, and who must count seven clean days before they can be purified] examined themselves on the first day and found they were pure, and on the seventh day and found they were pure, but they did not examine on the rest of the days in the interim, Rabbi Eliezer says: they are thereby presumed to be pure. Rabbi Yehoshua says: they only have the first day and the seventh day alone [in their counting; i.e. they must still count another five clean days]. Rabbi Akiva says: they only have the seventh day alone [i.e. they must count another six clean days].
  If a <i>zav</i> or a <i>zavah</i> or a <i>niddah</i> or a woman who recently gave birth or a leper died, they render impurity through carrying until the flesh decays. A gentile who died is pure with regard to rendering impurity through carrying. Beit Shammai say: All women who die are [treated as though they were] <i>niddot</i>. And Beit Hillel say: she [i.e. a dead woman] is only [treated as] a <i>niddah</i> if she died while she was a <i>niddah</i>. 
  If a woman died and a <i>revi'it</i> [a specific unit of volume, a quarter of a <i>log</i>] of blood emerged from her, it renders impurity as a [blood] stain and it renders impurity by overshadowing. Rabbi Yehuda says: it does not render impurity as a stain because it was uprooted [from its source] after she died. But Rabbi Yehuda is in agreement regarding one who died while sitting on a birthing stool and a <i>revi'it</i> of blood emerged from her, that it renders impurity as a [blood] stain. Rabbi Yose says: therefore it does not render impurity by overshadowing [since that is the law regarding blood that emerges from a corpse, but not from a living person]. 
  Initially they would say: One sitting in pure blood [during the days of purity after the postpartum days of impurity] may pour out water for [rinsing] the Pesach offering [since she does not touch it, nor does she render impure the vessel from which she pours]. They then retracted, saying: with regard to sanctified things she thereby is like one who touched something rendered impure by a corpse, in accordance with Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: even [she herself is] like one who was rendered impure by a corpse.
  And they are in agreement that she may eat from tithes [i.e. from <i>ma'aser sheini</i>, the second tithe of produce, which must be consumed in Jerusalem], and she can cut off [a piece of dough to be] <i>challah</i> [a portion of a batch of bread dough which must be separated out and given to a priest, which can only be consumed by priests or their household], and she can bring it [i.e. the piece of dough] around [to be close to the rest of the dough], and designate it [to be the <i>challah</i> for all of that dough]. And if any of her saliva or her blood of purity [i.e. from her postpartum days of purity] fell on a loaf of <i>terumah</i> [a portion of a crop given to a priest, which can only be consumed by priests or their household], it is pure. Beit Shammai say: She requires immersion at the end [of her postpartum days of purity, and not only at the beginning of those days, before she can eat <i>terumah</i>]. And Beit Hillel say: she does not require immersion at the end [of her days of purity]. 
  If a woman sees [blood] on the eleventh day [after being a <i>niddah</i>], and she immerses that evening and has relations, Beit Shammai say: they [i.e. both she and her husband] render impurity through lying or sitting upon things, and they are liable to bring a sacrifice [because she did not keep a full day in purity after seeing blood, and is therefore a <i>zavah</i>]. Beit Hillel say: they are exempt from bringing a sacrifice. If she immerses on the following day [without waiting until the evening] and has relations with her husband [literally: her house], and then sees [blood], Beit Shammai say: they render impurity through lying or sitting upon things, and they are exempt from bringing a sacrifice. Beit Hillel say: such a person is thereby a glutton. And they are in agreement regarding one who sees [blood] during the eleven days [following her period of being a <i>niddah</i>], who immersed in the evening and had relations, that they both render impurity through lying or sitting upon things, and they are liable to bring a sacrifice. If she immersed on the following day and had relations, this is thereby improper conduct [because she did not keep a full day in purity after seeing blood, and is therefore a <i>zavah</i>], and all [pure items] that they touch, and all relations they have [with regard to their liability to bring a sacrifice] are held in suspension [i.e. to see whether she does or does not see blood later on the day she immerses, which thereby determines, respectively, whether or not the pure items are impure, and whether or not she and her husband are liable to bring a sacrifice for having relations with a <i>zavah</i>].  