meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה נדה
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Niddah
  
  Introduction
  
  Leviticus 15 (text is found below) distinguishes between a woman who discharges blood during her menstrual period (vs. 19-24) and a woman who discharges blood not during her menstrual period (vs. 25-30). There are rules (these will get a bit more complicated) that distinguish between the two. Here they are briefly: When a woman first establishes her menstrual cycle, the blood is considered to be menstrual blood. She is now impure for seven days, no matter how many days she menstruates. As long as she stops bleeding by the seventh day she goes to the mikveh at the end of the seventh day and she is pure (actual practice differs, as we shall discuss later).  After seven days she now enters what are called "the days of zivah" meaning non-menstrual blood. If she bleeds on one of these days, she at first will observe one day of purity for every day of blood. So if she bleeds on the eighth day, she will go to the mikveh on the ninth day and observe purity for that day and then if she sees no more blood, she will be pure in the evening. The same is true if she sees blood on the ninth day as well. She will go to the mikveh on the tenth day and is pure at night. However, if she sees blood for three days in a row then she will need to go through "seven clean days" where she does not discharge blood. After seven clean days she goes to the mikveh and then brings a sacrifice and she is pure.  According to rabbinic calculation there are eleven days of "zivah" between a woman's menstrual period and her next period. During these eleven days, if she discharges blood it is considered "zivah" (non-menstrual blood) and she observes one day of purity for each day or seven days if she bleeds three straight days. After these eleven days are completed, she begins a seven day period during which any blood is considered menstrual blood. This pattern will then repeat itself. The above rules are according to the Torah's rules. Late in the tannaitic period some Jews began to act more stringently and treat all blood as if it was zivah. Functionally what this means is that a woman will always observe seven clean days after the end of her menstrual period. So, according to Torah law if a woman has menstrual blood for five days she would be clean after the seventh day. But according to post-talmudic practice, she will need to wait seven more days and will be clean only on the 12th day.  Tractate Niddah will also deal with the blood discharged by a woman after childbirth.  An important issue to remember while learning this tractate is that the practical significance of the laws of niddah was much broader than it is today. The mishnah portrays a world in which people observe the full array of purity laws. A woman who was unclean due to menstruation would defile terumah and hallah and other holy foods. Today, we think of these laws as limited to the permissibility of sexual relations between a man and a woman. While this was certainly an issue in mishnaic times as well, it is important to remember that it wasn't the only issue.   Finally, a note on my treatment of this material. A woman's menstruation can be a sensitive and personal issue. I will try to keep a "clinical" tone throughout my commentary, avoiding both apologetics and criticism. I believe that it is important for people to understand the technicalities of this system, before they attempt to delve into any greater socio-religious meaning. I also think that the rabbinic discussion of the material is in itself clinical, or perhaps mathematical. The rabbis are intensely interested in the intricacies of halakhah and spend little time discussing how such issues would affect a woman's life. This is simply the nature of the discussion.  Below are most of the verses relevant to the subject of menstrual and non-menstrual blood. We will make frequent reference to them throughout the commentary. 
  Leviticus Chapter 12 1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Speak to the Israelite people thus: When a woman at childbirth bears a male, she shall be unclean seven days; she shall be unclean as at the time of her menstrual infirmity. — 3 On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. — 4 She shall remain in a state of blood purification for thirty-three days: she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until her period of purification is completed. 5 If she bears a female, she shall be unclean two weeks as during her menstruation, and she shall remain in a state of blood purification for sixty-six days.
  Leviticus Chapter 15 6 On the completion of her period of purification, for either son or daughter, she shall bring to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer it before the Lord and make expiation on her behalf; she shall then be clean from her flow of blood. Such are the rituals concerning her who bears a child, male or female. 8 If, however, her means do not suffice for a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. The priest shall make expiation on her behalf, and she shall be clean. 19 When a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood from her body, she shall remain in her impurity seven days; whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. 20 Anything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; and anything that she sits on shall be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bedding shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; 22 and anyone who touches any object on which she has sat shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 23 Be it the bedding or be it the object on which she has sat, on touching it he shall be unclean until evening. 24 And if a man lies with her, her impurity is communicated to him; he shall be unclean seven days, and any bedding on which he lies shall become unclean. 25 When a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or when she has a discharge beyond her period of impurity, she shall be unclean, as though at the time of her impurity, as long as her discharge lasts. 26 Any bedding on which she lies while her discharge lasts shall be for her like bedding during her impurity; and any object on which she sits shall become unclean, as it does during her impurity: 27 whoever touches them shall be unclean; he shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening. 28 When she becomes clean of her discharge, she shall count off seven days, and after that she shall be clean. 29 On the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, and bring them to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest shall offer the one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering; and the priest shall make expiation on her behalf, for her unclean discharge, before the Lord.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a woman who discovers that she has had her menstrual period but is not sure when it began. The question is at what point does she have to assume that she was already impure such that the things that she touched must be considered impure?
  Shammai says: for all women it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from their time [of discovering the flow]. Hillel ruled: [their period of uncleanness is to be reckoned retroactively] from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, even if this was many days. The sages say: [the law is] not like the words of these or the words of those, but [the women are deemed to have been unclean] during [the preceding] twenty-four hours  when this  lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, and during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this  lessens the period of twenty-four hours.  There are three different opinions as to how far back a woman (who does not have a regular menstrual cycle) must assume she was impure after she has discovered her period. Shammai is most lenient. She is considered impure only from the moment in which she discovers that she has had her period. If, for instance, she discovered her period in the afternoon, the pure things that she touched in the morning remain pure. Hillel rules most strictly. She is reckoned impure from the last time that she checked herself, even if it has been many days. Hillel is concerned that immediately after her last clean check (when she didn't find that she was bleeding) she began to bleed and just didn't notice it. Therefore, anything she has touched since the last clean check must be considered defiled. The sages' opinion falls somewhere in between the two. There are two time periods that play into account twenty-four hours and the last clean examination. A woman cannot be retroactively considered unclean for more than 24 hours. She also is clean from the last time she had a clean examination. She is therefore considered unclean from whatever is the lesser of the two. If she examined herself in the morning and found herself clean and then discovered her period in the evening, anything she touched after the clean examination is unclean. But if she examined herself on Sunday morning and then found herself unclean on Monday evening, only the things that she touched over the last 24 hours are considered impure.
  For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow.  All of the above refers only to a woman who has not established a regular menstrual cycle. If she has a regular cycle, she defiles things only from the time in which she discovered that she was menstruating.
  And if a woman uses rags when she has marital intercourse, this is like an examination which lessens either the period of the [past] twenty-four hours or the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination.  A woman who cleans herself with rags after sexual intercourse is considered to have examined herself. If she doesn't find blood on the rags, and then sees blood later, she defiles only the things that she has touched since she cleaned herself with these rags. In other words, although the purpose of these rags is not for self-examination, since blood would be noticed, it counts as an examination.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  How [does the rule that] it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow work?  This refers to a woman that has a regular menstrual cycle. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, she is considered to be impure only from the moment in which she observes a blood flow. She doesn’t retroactively defile anything.
  If she was sitting on a bed and was occupied with ritually clean objects and then she leaves [the bed] and then sees [blood flow] she is unclean but the objects are clean.  Although in this case it is exceedingly likely that the blood flow started while she was still in bed, since she has a regular cycle, only the things that she touched after she discovered the blood flow are impure. The bed and any other pure things she touched earlier remain pure. This seems to be a case in which the rabbis rule created an intentional leniency, one that might even be seen as ignoring what likely happened.
  Even though they have said that she conveys uncleanness for a period of twenty-four hours [retroactively]   she counts [the seven days of her menstruation]   only from the time she observed the flow.  This section addresses a woman who does not have a regular menstrual cycle and therefore retroactively defiles anything she touched in the 24 hour period before she discovered that she was bleeding. Nevertheless, when it comes to counting the days of her menstruation during which she is impure, she does not count from the earlier time period. She counts from when she noticed that she was bleeding. This is because the 24 hour period is a stringency she may have been bleeding as early at that period therefore anything she touched must be considered impure. But since she only knows that she began menstruating at a later time, she counts her days only from then.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Rabbi Eliezer says: there are four types of women for whom it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from] the time [of their discovering the flow]. A virgin, A pregnant woman, A nursing woman; And an old woman.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, there are four types of women who, since it is not common for them to menstruate, need not be concerned lest their menstrual flow started earlier than they discovered it. They defile only the things they touch after they discovered that they were bleeding. The following mishnayot will elaborate more on each of these women.
  Rabbi Joshua says: I have only heard [the ruling applied to] a virgin, but the halakhah is in agreement with Rabbi Eliezer.  Rabbi Joshua initially seems to adopt a traditional approach here. He restricts the halakhah to the tradition that he received this law applies only to a virgin. We should note that it is usually Rabbi Eliezer who acts as a traditionalist. However, if the last sentence of the mishnah is also the words of Rabbi Joshua, then he too admits that even though he only heard a limited ruling, the halakhah is in accord with the expanded version put forth by Rabbi Eliezer. We might surmise that if the original tradition referred only to a virgin (as R. Joshua claims), the expanded version (which includes all four categories) reasoned that if it is sufficient to reckon the uncleanness of a virgin from the time of discovery because she does not regularly menstruate, the same would be true of other women who don't regularly menstruate. And if you are surprised that a "virgin" doesn't regularly menstruate, the rabbinic definition will be in tomorrow's mishnah. Stay tuned.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Who is regarded as "virgin"? Any woman who has never yet observed a blood flow, even if she is married.  A virgin, at least in this mishnah, is a woman who has not yet begun menstruating. It does not refer to a woman who has never had sexual intercourse. According to this definition of a "virgin" which probably should be translated as "young girl", even a married woman could be a virgin.
  "A woman in pregnancy"? One whose fetus is notice.  A woman is considered "pregnant" only when the fetus begins to be noticed.
  "A nursing woman"? Until she has weaned her child.  The standard period for nursing is 24 months. A woman is considered to be nursing only during this period. Even if she continues to actually nurse after 24 months, she is no longer in this category.
  If she gave her child to a nursing woman, if she weaned him, or if he died: Rabbi Meir says: she conveys uncleanness retroactively for twenty-four hours; But the sages say: it suffices for her [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observation of the flow].  The mishnah now deals with the opposite case where for various reasons the woman is no longer nursing her son. According to Rabbi Meir, since she is no longer nursing, she is no longer in the category of a woman who does not need to be retroactively concerned that she defiled things. When she discovers that she is bleeding, everything that touched in the previous 24 hours is impure. The sages disagree and consider this woman to still be in the category of a nursing woman. It seems that they think that she probably won't resume menstruating for this period.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah defines whom is considered an old woman, that need not be concerned that she retroactively defiled things.
  The mishnah uses the world "onah" (in plural "onot"). An "onah" is the period in which she is supposed to have been menstruating. Generally, an "onah" is 30 days, although obviously this may vary from woman to woman.
  Who is regarded as "an old woman"? Any woman over whom three "onot" have passed near the time of her old age.  A woman who has missed her period three times in a row, roughly 90 days, and is close to old age (so this is not because she is pregnant or sick or some other reason) is now considered "an old woman." Obviously, this makes sense in this context. A woman who has stopped menstruating due to menopause is old for the issue discussed in this mishnah what type of woman does not regularly menstruate.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: for any woman over whom have passed three onot it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observing a flow].  Rabbi Eliezer says that any woman who has missed three periods for any reason, even if she is not old, needs only reckon her period of impurity from the time she sees blood.
  Rabbi Yose says: for a woman in pregnancy and a nursing woman over whom three onot have passed  it suffices [to reckon their period of uncleanness from] the time of their [observation of the flow].  According to mishnah four, as soon as a woman's pregnancy is noticeable, or as soon as she begins to nurse her child, she would only count her period of impurity from the time blood flows. According to Rabbi Yose, she must first go through three periods without menstruating.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah offers a qualification to the rule that the women mentioned in mishnayot 3-5 defile only the things that they touched after they noticed that they had their period.
  And of what did they speak  when they said  that "it suffices [for them to reckon] their period of uncleanness from the time [of their discovering of the flow]"? [This refers to] the first observation,  but after a second observation she defiles retroactively for a period of twenty-four hours.  The first time one of these women (virgin, nursing woman, pregnant woman or old woman) sees a blood flow, she doesn't retroactively defile anything. But the second time she does, she reverts to the law found in mishnah one of this chapter. Everything she has touched during the previous twenty four hours, or since the last time she examined herself, is considered defiled.
  If she saw the first flow on account of an accident even it suffices for her even a subsequent observation [to reckon her uncleanness from] the time of her [observing of the flow].  However, if her blood began to flow through some sort of unusual accident (Albeck mentions jumping or out of fright), then the second time she sees blood flow (assumedly not due to an accident) she doesn't retroactively defile things. In other words, since the first occurrence was "accidental" the second blood flow is treated as if it was the first.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah teaches that although women who have regular menstrual cycle do not retroactively defile things (see mishnah one), they should examine themselves at certain prescribed time regularly to make sure that they has not begun to menstruate.
  Although though they said [that for a woman who has a regular period] it suffices to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she observes a flow, she should nevertheless examine herself [regularly],  except for a menstruant or one who is sitting over pure blood.  Even a woman who has a regular menstrual cycle should still examine herself regularly to make sure she has not begun to menstruate. I should note here that most women might find this strange don't women know when they are menstruating, even without checking? Truthfully, I think this is a legitimate complaint against the rabbis, but if I were to offer a defense I might say two things. First of all, the rabbis were men who obviously knew nothing about what it might feel like to be menstruating. Second, women had frequent contact with the food and the instruments whose purity should be preserved. Therefore, a woman who was impure and didn't know that she was could defile a lot of terumah or vessels used with terumah. To avoid this serious problem, the rabbis mandated that all women examine themselves regularly. There are two types of women who don't need to examine themselves regularly. The first is obviously a woman who is already menstruating. The second is a woman who has recently given birth. Leviticus 12:4-5 prescribes 33 days following a seven day period of impurity for a boy or 66 days following a 14 day impurity period for a girl in which a woman's blood flow is pure. Since any such blood is considered pure, there would be no practical reason for her to examine herself.
  She should also use testing-rags when she has marital intercourse except when she is sitting over pure blood or when she is a virgin whose blood is clean.  Generally, a woman should examine herself using examination rags both before and after sexual intercourse. Before intercourse she should examine herself because it is prohibited to have intercourse when she is menstruating. Afterwards she should examine herself to make sure that she has not defiled her husband. Obviously, a "virgin" referred to in this mishnah is not a woman who has never had sex. Rather, it is a woman who has not yet begun to menstruate, as we learned in mishnah four. A woman who is married before she begins to menstruate need not check herself.
  And twice [daily] she should examine herself: in the morning  and at the [evening] twilight, and also when she is about to have sexual relations.  This section refers to a woman who must examine herself because she doesn't have a regular period (or for some other reason). Without an examination, , she will defile everything which she had contact with during the previous twenty-four hours. Such a woman should examine herself in the morning to make sure that any pure things that she worked with at night were not defiled. She should also examine herself in the evening to make sure that the stuff that she worked with during the day was not defiled.
  Priestly women are subject to an additional restriction [for they should examine themselves] when they are going to eat terumah. Rabbi Judah said: [these must examine themselves] also after they have concluded eating terumah.  Priestly women (either daughters of priests or wives of priests) who are regularly occupying themselves with terumah should examine themselves even more regularly. According to the first opinion, they should examine themselves before they eat terumah so that they do not defile the terumah that they are about to eat. Rabbi Judah says that they should examine themselves after eating as well. If she is found to be pure, then even the leftover crumbs are pure. In contrast, had she not checked herself afterward and then later that day (or night) found that she had begun to menstruate, the leftover terumah that she had touched would have to be considered impure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a woman examining oneself to see if she had begun to menstruate.
  Every hand that makes frequent examination: In the case of women is praiseworthy, But in the case of men it ought to be cut off.  The rabbis consider it praiseworthy for a woman to frequently examine herself to see if she has begun to menstruate. Such frequent examinations would ensure that she didn't defile vessels and food and it would make sure that she didn't have intercourse while menstruating. However, the rabbis took quite a strict stance against male masturbation. "Spilling the seed" was a grave sin according to rabbinic halakhah. The rabbis feared that a man who frequently checked to see if he had ejaculated would cause himself (either intentionally or unintentionally) to ejaculate. Therefore, men should not frequently examine themselves.
  In the case of a deaf, an person not of sound senses, a blind or an insane woman, if other women of sound senses are available they attend to her, and they may eat terumah.  The categories of women listed in this mishnah are not considered to have "da'at" which I usually translate as awareness. Here it seems to mean that they are not able to be responsible for themselves to determine when they are menstruating. If they have other women attending to them, they may eat terumah, which may only be done by a pure person.
  It is the custom of the daughters of Israel to have intercourse using two testing-rags, one for the man and the other for herself. Virtuous women prepare also a third rag to prepare the "house" [before intercourse].  According to the mishnah, Jewish women have the custom of checking themselves by using two testing rags one to test herself and the other to give to her husband to see if blood was found on him. This blood would be a sign that she is menstruating. "Virtuous" (alt. "modest") women examine themselves not only after intercourse but before as well to make sure that she is pure. The mishnah refers to a woman's vagina as "the house." This same phrase is used in Mikvaot 8:4. I'm guessing that nicknames for a person's genitals is a cultural universal.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with what happens if blood is found on one of the testing-rags after a couple have intercourse.
  If [blood] is found on his rag they are both unclean and they are liable to bring a sacrifice.  If any blood is found on the rag which the man uses to check himself then we can be sure that it came from the woman. They are both unclean for seven days as is the rule for a menstruant and the man who has relations with her (see Leviticus 15:24). In addition, they must both bring a sin-offering, which is the rule for any unintentional transgression which when done intentionally carries with it the penalty of "karet."
  If any blood is found on her rag immediately after their intercourse, they are both unclean and must bring a sacrifice. If [blood] is found on her rag after a time, they are unclean due to doubt but they are exempt from a sacrifice.  If blood is found on her rag and it is found immediately after intercourse, then we can be assured that it is menstrual blood that was there during intercourse. Both are impure and liable for a sacrifice. However, if it is found later on, since she didn't clean herself immediately, then we can't be sure that it was there during intercourse. Perhaps she only began to bleed later. In such a case the man is "doubtfully" impure, which means that if he touched terumah it can't be eaten but it also is not burned because we are not sure he is impure. She is impure in any case. They are exempt from bringing a sin-offering because sin-offerings are not brought unless one is certain of a transgression, and it is not certain that she was menstruating when they had intercourse.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah is related to yesterday's mishnah where we learned that if the woman sees blood some time after having had intercourse she only defiles her husband from "doubt." The mishnah explains how long is considered "after time."
  What is meant by "after a time"? As long as it takes to get down from the bed and wash her "face."  "After a time" is considered to be as long as it would take the woman to get down from the bed and wash her "face." The word "face" here is another euphemism for the woman's vagina.
  [If blood was found some time] after she causes uncleanness retrospectively for a period of twenty-four hours but she does not cause the man who had intercourse with her to be unclean. Rabbi Akiva says: she also causes the man who had intercourse with her to be unclean.  If she finds blood after this time, then she is still impure in the usual way. Everything she has touched in the last 24 hour period (or less if she examined herself during this period) is impure. However, she does not cause her husband to be defiled. In other words there are three time periods. If she finds blood immediately, he is certainly impure. If she finds it "after a time" meaning during the time period in which she could get off the bed and clean herself, he is doubtfully impure. If she finds it later, he is not impure. Rabbi Akiva says that he is impure. Evidently, Rabbi Akiva does not believe that there is much doubt here that she was already menstruating when they had intercourse.
  And the sages agree with Rabbi Akiva that one who saw a bloodstain defiles the man who had intercourse with her.  The sages agree with Rabbi Akiva in a case where she finds a bloodstain on her clothing or on the sheet. This bloodstain is a more certain sign that she was menstruating when they had intercourse. Therefore the rabbis rule stringently.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  All women are in the presumption of being pure for their husband.  What this means is that men do not need to ask their wives before they have intercourse if they are menstruating. Men can assume that their wives are ritually pure and that if they were menstruating, they would let them know.
  For those who return from a journey, their wives are in the presumption of being pure.  One might have thought that when a man is away from the house, his wife might not be careful about her own ritual purity. After all, she is not supposed to be having sex while he is away, so why should she care about being ritually pure? The mishnah teaches that even so, when he returns home, he can assume that his wife is pure, for if she was not, she would tell him.
  Bet Shammai says: a woman needs two testing-rags for every time she has intercourse, or she must have relations in the light of a lamp. Bet Hillel says: two testing-rags suffice her for the whole night.  If a woman has sexual relations with her husband multiple times during the night, the mishnah says that she needs two testing-rags for each time, one for her and one for him. In the morning, when it is light outside, she can look at them to see if any rag has blood on it. Alternatively, she should check the rags by light after each intercourse to make sure there is no blood on it from the previous time before she uses it to check on herself again. There are two explanations for Bet Hillel's position. Either they can simply use two testing rags one time at the end of the night, after the last time they have intercourse. Alternatively, this might mean that they can simply use the same rags to check themselves repeatedly throughout the night.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah distinguishes between pure and impure blood that flow from various sources in a woman's body.
  The sages spoke of a woman through a metaphor: A chamber, a vestibule and an upper chamber. The blood of the chamber is unclean, If blood is found in the vestibule,  and there arises a doubt about its character,  it is deemed unclean, because it is presumed to have come from the source.  Building upon their analogy of a woman as a "house" (see mishnah one) the rabbis use a "house" metaphor to describe a woman's anatomy. There are many disagreements as to what parts of the anatomy these actually refer to. I will use Maimonides interpretation.
  There are three parts to a house and to the woman's anatomy. The "chamber" is equivalent to her uterus. The "vestibule" is the vagina. And the upper chamber is the cavity that contains the ovaries and fallopian tubes.
  Blood that comes from the chamber is unclean. This is the source of menstrual blood. The implication in this mishnah is that if the blood comes from the upper chamber, it is clean. I am not entirely sure how it could be determined if the blood came from the upper chamber.
  If blood is found on the vagina, and it is unclear whether it came from the uterus or not, the blood must be treated as unclean because it must be presumed to come from the "source" which is another word for the uterus. The practical implication of this is that if the woman touches terumah, the terumah is unclean and may not be eaten, but it is not burned. Only certainly impure terumah is burned.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  The rabbis distinguished pure blood (blood that is not considered to have come from the uterus) from impure blood (uterine blood) by virtue of its color. In our mishnah the rabbis list which colors are pure and which are not.
  Five kinds of blood in a woman are unclean: red, black, like bright crocus, like earthy water, or like diluted wine.  All of these shades are considered to be menstrual blood and are impure. Tomorrow's mishnah will further describe these shades and what real world things actually look like them.
  Bet Shammai says: also like fenugreek water or the juice of roasted meat. But Bet Hillel declares these clean.  Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagree as to whether blood the color or fenugreek water or the juice of roasted meat is impure. This is likely a very weak red color.
  One that is yellow: Akavia ben Mahalalel declares unclean And the sages declare clean.  We should note that the word that I have translated here as yellow is actually green. The truth is that in the ancient world the two colors were often identified as one. Indeed the words for yellow and green don't even appear that often in the Mishnah (mostly in Tractate Negaim). Since blood is usually red, it is likely that the word "green" here means a pale color, such as that of an etrog. In any case, the status of this blood is also disputed.
  Rabbi Meir said: even if it does not convey uncleanness as a bloodstain it conveys uncleanness as a liquid. Rabbi Yose says: it does neither the one nor the other.  Referring to this yellow blood, Rabbi Meir says that while he agrees with Rabbi Akiva that this blood does not count as a menstrual stain, the blood is still impure because it is a liquid that comes from a menstruant. As we will learn in 4:3, urine and spit that come from a menstruant (and some other categories of impure people) are impure. Rabbi Yose disagrees with Rabbi Meir and says that according to those sages who say that such blood is not menstrual blood, it is also not impure due to liquid impurity. Only spit and urine are impure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah explains the colors found in section one of yesterday's mishnah.
  What is considered red? Like the red of a wound.  Red is simply like the color of blood that flows from a wound.
  Black: Like ink-sediment. Darker than this is impure. Lighter than this is pure.  Black refers to the black ink used to dye shoes. If it is darker than this black, it is impure. But if it is a lighter shade of black, it is pure.
  Like bright crocus: like the clearest shade in it.  The color of the blood that matches the crocus flower must be like the brightest shade of the crocus.
  Like earthy water: from the Bet Kerem valley, when water floats over it.  To determine the color of the earthy water, one should bring earth from the Bet Kerem valley, which Albeck says is in the north. Then water should be floated above this earth. The color of the water is the color of the red described in the mishnah.
  Like diluted wine: two parts water, one part wine, from wine of the Sharon.  As we have learned on many occasions, in the Greco-Roman world, wine was drunk diluted with water. Typically, this consisted of two parts water, one part wine. Thus, this is the color of the diluted wine used as a reference point in the previous mishnah. The wine should be the wine from the Sharon, which is also in the northern part of Israel.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter three deals with a woman who had a miscarriage. There are two issues here: 1) Is she impure due to having given birth? This is a subject we covered a long time ago in Bekhorot chapter 8 and Keritot chapter 1. 2) Is she impure due to menstrual blood?
  A woman who aborted a shapeless object: If there was blood with it, she is unclean, If not, she is clean.  A shapeless object does not count as a miscarried birth. Therefore, she is impure only if blood accompanies the miscarriage. Such blood counts as menstrual blood.
  Rabbi Judah says: in either case she is unclean.  Rabbi Judah agrees that the shapeless object does not count as a miscarriage. However, he considers the object to be congealed blood. Therefore, even if there is not any other blood, she is impure as a menstruant.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If a woman miscarried an object that was like a rind, like a hair, like earth, like red flies, let her put it in water: If it dissolves she is unclean, But if it does not she is clean.  None of these objects count as a miscarried birth, therefore she is not impure as if she had given birth. The only issue is whether or not it is considered to be blood. The test is to put that which she miscarried in water and see if it dissolves. If it does, then it counts as blood and she must consider herself to be impure.
  If she miscarried an object in the shape of fishes, locusts, or any forbidden things or creeping things: If there was blood with them she is unclean, If not, she is clean.  These shapes also don't count as births (see Bekhorot 8:1, Keritot 1:5). Therefore, the only question is again whether she is a menstruant. If there is blood, then she is. If not, she is clean.
  If she miscarried an object in the shape of a beast, a wild animal or a bird, whether clean or unclean: If it was a male she sits in uncleanness as she would for a male; And if it was a female she sits in uncleanness as she would for a female. But if the sex is unknown she sits in uncleanness for both male and female, the words of Rabbi Meir.  According to Rabbi Meir, these animal shapes do count as human births. If the object seems to have been male, then she must be unclean as she would be had she given birth to a male. This means that she is unclean for seven days and then the following 33 days any blood she discharges is pure (see Leviticus 12: 2, 4). If female, she is impure for 14 days and then the following 66 days any blood is pure (v. 5). If it is unclear whether it is a boy or girl, then the rule is stringent. She is impure for two weeks, as if she had given birth to a girl, but subsequent blood is pure for only 33 days, as if she had given birth to a boy.
  The sages say: anything that has not the shape of a human being cannot be regarded as a human child.  The other rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir. If the miscarriage doesn't have the shape of a human being, it doesn't count as a human being and she does not count as having given birth.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If a woman aborted a sac full of water, full of blood, or full of pieces of flesh, she need not be concerned that it was a birth.  These sacs do not count as births (see Bekhorot 8:1). We don't assume that there was a fetus in them.
  But if its limbs were fashioned she must sit for both male and female.  If limbs are noticeable in the shape within the sac, then we must be concerned that this was actually a fetus. Assuming that the gender is unknown, the woman must act stringently in both directions, as we explained in yesterday's mishnah.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If she aborted a sandal or a placenta she sits in uncleanness for both male and female.If a placenta is in a house, the house is unclean, not because a placenta is a fetus but because generally there can be no placenta without a fetus.Rabbi Shimon says: the child might have been mashed before it came out.Section one: A "sandal" is a fetus whose face has not yet been formed. This counts as a human miscarriage and if the sex cannot be determined, then she must observe the impurity rituals for having both a male and a female (see mishnah two).While a placenta is not a fetus, it is a sign that there was a fetus. Therefore, since we can't determine the sex of the fetus, she must act as if she had both a boy and a girl.Section two: If a placenta is found in a house, we can assume that a dead fetus was in the house as well. This makes the house into an "ohel" (a tent) which conveys impurity to all of the contents of the house. (We learned plenty about this in Tractate Ohalot).Rabbi Shimon notes that the presence of a placenta is not a certain sign that she gave birth to a fetus. It is possible that the fetus could have been dissolved or mashed up (I realize that this is not pleasant) before it came out of the woman. In such a case, the fetus does not have the status of a dead body and doesn't defile as does a dead body. The house and its contents will remain pure.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If a woman aborted a tumtum or an androginos, she must sit for a male and a female.  A tumtum is one who has no recognizable signs of gender. An androginos has both male and female signs. If a woman gives birth to either of these, she must act stringently and be impure for both a male and female (see mishnah two). Again, what this means is that she is impure for as long as she would be if she gave birth to a female and pure only for as long as she would be had she given birth to a female.
  [If she gave birth] to a tumtum and a male, or to an androginos and a male, she must sit for a male and a female.  In this case, she gave birth to a child of doubtful status and a certain male. Therefore, she must sit for both a male and female (in case the tumtum or andrigonos is female).
  [If she gave birth] to a tumtum and a female or an androginos and a female, she must sit only for a female.  Here we know she gave birth to a female. Therefore, she is impure for the longer period (14 days). And as far as the days of purity, she certainly is pure for the 66 day period, even if the tumtum or andrigonos was a male.
  If the embryo came out in pieces or in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part come out.  The final two sections deal with the question of when a birth has been determined to have taken place. Some of the ramifications of this include when it is allowed to abort the pregnancy to save the woman's life and at what point does she become impure. If it comes out in pieces or legs first, the birth is determined as occurring once most of the body has come out.
  If it came out in the normal way [it is not deemed born] until the greater part of its head came out. And what is meant by the "greater part of its head"? Once the forehead comes out.  If the birth occurs in a normal way, head first, then the birth is considered to have taken place once the forehead is out. This is the definition of "most of the head."
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If a woman miscarried and it is unknown what it was, she sits for both a male child and a female child.  This is the same rule we have learned in previous mishnayot.
  If it is unknown whether it was a child or not, she sits for both a male and a female   and as a menstruant.  In this case, she isn't even sure if she miscarried or whether she menstruated. The rule is a bit more complicated here because she must also observe the laws of menstrual purity. This means that there will be no days of pure blood, as there would be if she had given birth to either a male or female. The first 14 days after the event, she will be impure as if she had given birth to a female. If she sees blood immediately after that, it is considered menstrual blood, because this is more than 11 days after her previous blood. If she sees blood on the 34th day, the rule is a bit complicated, for in this case we must be concerned that she had given birth to a male. If she sees blood on the 34th day and then again on the 41st day, if we considered her as a niddah at the outset, then at the time of the blood on the 41st she would not be in niddah, because it is within 11 days of the previous blood (on the 34th day), and she would observe only one day of impurity for every day she sees blood (up to three days). If she had given birth to a girl, then she would pure throughout the whole period (she would be pure from days 15-80).  However, if she gave birth to a male, then the blood on the 34th day would be pure because it was within the 33 days of purity after the week of impurity. The blood on the 41st day would be menstrual blood because it was more than 11 days after he previous menstrual blood. Therefore, in this case she must be concerned that the blood is menstrual and she would have to observe the rules of menstrual impurity.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If a woman miscarried on the fortieth day, she need not be concerned that it was a valid childbirth.  The rabbis believed that it took forty days for a fetus to form. We should note that this was a common belief in the ancient world, one that I believe was shared by Aristotle as well. [It also had implications for the laws concerning abortion. For instance Philo, an early Jewish philosopher, stated that abortion was permitted up till the fortieth day, because that is when the fetus is formed.] If she miscarries before the fortieth day, the rabbis believe that it could not be a fetus.
  On the forty-first day, she sits as for both a male and a female and as for a menstruant.  If she miscarries on the 41st day, and it is not clear if it was a miscarriage or blood, she must be concerned lest it was a male, lest it was a female and lest it was menstruation. This situation was explained in yesterday's mishnah.
  Rabbi Ishmael says: [if she miscarried on] the forty-first day she sits as for a male and as for a menstruant, But if on the eighty-first day she sits as for a male and a female and a menstruant, because a male is fully fashioned on the forty-first day and a female on the eighty-first day.  Rabbi Ishmael seems to believe that males are formed on the 41st day after conception and females on the 81st day. Therefore, if she miscarries between the 41st and 80th days, she need not be concerned lest it was female. [What he is saying is that females begin as males and only turn into females on day 81. Interesting, although obviously incorrect]. This means that she will be impure for seven days. If blood appears after this time, she is again a niddah. The blood is not pure because we are not sure if she gave birth.
  But the sages say: the fashioning of the male and the fashioning   of the female both take forty-one days.  The sages espouse a more egalitarian view both males and females are formed on the 41st day. If she miscarries after this, she must be concerned lest it was a male, female or menstruation, as we explained above.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The first three mishnayot of chapter four deal with the menstrual impurity of women from three groups that were considered outside of the Jewish fold, as determined by the rabbis: Samaritans, Sadducees and Gentiles.
  The daughters of the Samaritans  are regarded as menstruants from their cradle.  The Samaritans separated from the other Jewish communities (those whose center of worship was Jerusalem, the Samaritan center of worship was in Shechem) at a pretty early period in history, probably sometime during the first Temple period. As we shall see in section two, they did observe the laws of menstruation, but not according to rabbinic interpretation. One thing they did not believe was that young girls could become menstruants (we shall see in chapter five that the rabbis believed that they could). Therefore, all Samaritan girls had to be considered menstruants from the time they were born.
  And Samaritans impart uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above, since they have intercourse with menstruants, because [their wives] sit [unclean for seven days] on account of any blood.  The problem with Samaritan practice is not that they ignore the laws of niddah. They just observe them in the wrong way. Samaritan women treat all blood as if it were menstrual blood and they sit seven unclean days for any blood flow. If the blood that flowed on the first day was not actually menstrual and then the woman bled blood a subsequent day, she would treat that blood as if it was the continuation of her menstruation and she would go to the mikveh after seven days [Remember, according to the Torah one is impure for seven days after menstruation begins, even if it continues for several days]. According to rabbinic law, she should have begun the count only when actual menstrual blood began. Going to the mikveh too early will be ineffective (according to rabbinic law). Thus, Samaritan women will always be unclean. The men who have relations with them are also unclean and they will always defile any number of cushions upon which they sit, which is the rule concerning one who has relations with a menstruant (see Kelim 1:3). We should note that by declaring all Samaritans impure from birth, the rabbis were able to distance themselves from them. This in my opinion is probably a strong part of the reason for the laws of this mishnah. The rabbis are using the laws of niddah to distance Samaritans from mingling with their community. However, we should also note that simultaneously the Mishnah defines Samaritans as Jews, at least in a genetic sense. Mishnah three deals with Gentiles, and Samaritans are not considered Gentiles.
  However, on account of their [uncleanness] no obligation is incurred for entrance into the Temple nor is terumah burned on their account, since their uncleanness is only of a doubtful nature.  However, it is not certain that all Samirtan women (and men) are unclean, since the women do go to the mikveh. It is theoretically possible that they went to the mikveh on the correct day. Therefore, they only defile due to doubt. If a rabbinic Jew is defiled by contact with a Samaritan, and then he enters the Temple, he is not liable for entering the Temple while impure. If he touches terumah, the terumah is not burned (although it may not be eaten). These two rules always apply in cases of doubtful terumah.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with Sadducean women. The Sadducees were one of the main factions during the Second Temple period. They were the rivals of the Pharisees, the group that the rabbis considered themselves to be the descendents of. Truth be told, we don't know a lot about the Sadducees because they left no historical record. The only information we know about them was written either by Josephus, the New Testament or the rabbis. In addition, many scholars believe that the Dead Sea Sect Jews were a splinter Sadducean group, although this is far from certain.
  The daughters of the Sadducees, so long as they are accustomed to walking in the paths of their fathers, are to be regarded as Samaritan women. If they left those paths to walk in the paths of Israel, they are to be regarded as Israelite women.  The mishnah basically accepts Sadducean women but disqualifies their ancestry. If Sadducean women observe Sadducean halakhah then they must always be regarded as niddot (menstruants), just as are Samaritan women. They will always defile the things that they touch and it will always be prohibited for Jewish men to have relations with them. However, the mishnah gives them more of an opportunity to join the remainder (meaning Pharisaic/rabbinic) Jews than it did for Samaritan women. All they must do is leave the path of their ancestors and "walk in the paths of Israel" and they are to be considered as regular Israelite women. Clearly this means that they must observe halakhah as the rabbis determine it. We should note that in this mishnah "Samaritan" has become a code word for a genetic Jew who does not observe rabbinic halakhah. A Sadducean woman cannot be a Gentile because she is genetically Jewish. But when the mishnah wants to say that she is outside the rabbinic fold, it calls her a Samaritan.
  Rabbi Yose says: they are always regarded as Israelite women unless they leave the paths of Israel to walk in the paths of their fathers.  Rabbi Yose says that the a priori assumption about Sadducean women is that they have left the path of their fathers and act like (rabbinic) Jews. This is probably testimony to the weakness of the Sadducean faction after the destruction of the Temple. The Sadducees were more of a Temple-based group than the Pharisees and they don’t seem to have coped very well with the destruction of the Temple. In Rabbi Yose's time, a woman of Sadducean descent can be assumed to be observing rabbinic halakhah.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  The blood of a Gentile and the clean blood of a metzoraat (a woman with scale: Bet Shammai declares clean. And Bet Hillel holds that it is like her spittle or her urine.  The menstrual blood (or zivah blood, blood that flows when a woman is not supposed to be menstruating) of a Gentile is, according to Bet Shammai, pure. This is because the chapters in Leviticus that discuss this issue are addressed to "the children of Israel" (Leviticus 15:2). "Clean blood" is the blood that flows from a woman during the period after childbirth following her time of impurity. For a boy, she is impure for a week and then pure for 33 days and double that amount of time for a girl. According to Bet Shammai, even if the woman is a metzoraat, who is impure, her blood is pure during this period, just as the blood of any woman is pure during this period. Bet Hillel disagrees on both of these issues. Concerning the blood of Gentile women, while Bet Hillel agrees that it is not impure by virtue of Torah law, they hold that the rabbis declared it impure (it would be impure derabanan). Just as they declared that other fluids that come from a Gentile's body are impure, urine and spittle, so too is their menstrual blood. This means that it defiles when moist, but not when dry, as do urine and spittle. Similarly, the rabbis hold that the "clean blood" of a metzoraat defiles like her spittle and urine when wet and not when dry. We could summarize the debate in the following way: Bet Shammai considers this blood not to be like the other fluids that come from the body, urine and spittle. Therefore, for both of these women, their urine and spittle can be impure while their blood is pure. Bet Hillel groups the blood with the other fluids, and just as urine and spittle are impure, so too is blood.
  The blood of a woman after childbirth who did not immerse [in a mikveh]: Bet Shammai says it is like her spittle or her urine, But Bet Hillel says: it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry.  Seven days after the birth of a boy and 14 days after the birth of a girl a woman is supposed to go to the mikveh, and subsequent blood will be pure. If she does not go to the mikveh, Bet Shammai says that this blood is like other liquids in her body it will defile when wet and not when dry. This is because she is still unclean, even though her blood is clean (i.e. the blood doesn't defile because it is blood, but rather because it is bodily fluid). Bet Hillel says that the blood is like menstrual blood i.e. it defiles because it is blood and not just because it is a fluid. This means that it will defile even when dry.
  They agree that if she gave birth while in zivah, it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry.  Both houses agree that if she gave birth while in a state of zivah, meaning while she was impure due to non-menstrual blood, her blood defiles as would menstrual blood, until she goes to the mikveh, after seven days for a boy and 14 days for a girl. In other words, the fact that this is supposed to be "clean blood" does not get her out of the fact that she had unclean blood before she even gave birth.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A woman who is having difficult labor is regarded as a menstruant.  A woman who is having difficult, protracted labor and is bleeding, is considered to be a niddah.  This seems a bit strange to us after all, a pregnant woman can't menstruate.  But it is in reality a leniency that this blood is not considered to be blood of zivah (non-menstrual blood). If it were non-menstrual blood she would have to wait seven days in which she doesn't bleed to become clean. Since it is considered menstrual blood, she will be clean seven days after giving birth (for a boy, 14 for a girl).
  If she had difficult labor for three days of the eleven days and she ceased having pains for twenty-four hours and then gave birth, she is regarded as having given birth in zivah, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: a night and a day, as the night and the day of Shabbat.  The eleven days referred to here are the eleven days between menstrual periods in which any blood flow is considered to be zivah. This woman had difficult labor for three days, meaning she bled during a period of three days. Normally, this blood would be considered zivah, because it came not during the time when blood is considered menstrual. However, because she was in labor, we considered the blood to be menstrual blood, as we saw in section one. But then she ceased having pains. When she gives birth, we now can consider the blood to be zivah blood. In other words, since the pains stopped, the blood is considered to be zivah after all and not from the birth itself. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cessation of pain must be for 24 hours. Rabbi Joshua says that the cessation must be for a whole day like Shabbat, from night through the entire next day. A simple 24 hour cessation is not enough.
  That she ceased from having pain, but not from bleeding.  This section explains that the cessation is only from the pains of labor. The bleeding continues. If she were to stop bleeding as well and then give birth, she would not even be considered as having given birth from zivah.  The blood that comes at childbirth would be from childbirth and she would be impure 7/14 as is always the case after childbirth.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  How long can protracted labor [be considered] as lasting?  Today's mishnah asks how long we can consider a woman to be in protracted labor such that any blood flow is considered niddah and not zivah. Remember, this is a leniency, for if it were considered zivah, she would need to have seven clean days to become pure. The question is not empirical how long could a woman actually have protracted labor. The question is legal how long can we legally attribute the blood to being from labor and not blood of zivah?
  Rabbi Meir says: even forty or fifty days.  Rabbi Meir says even forty, fifty days, which might mean that there is no limit whatsoever. Any time she has protracted labor, the blood is considered menstrual, as long as she didn't stop having the labor pains.
  Rabbi Judah say: the [ninth] month suffices for her.  Rabbi Judah says that blood during the entire ninth month of her pregnancy is considered menstrual and not zivah, as long as she is having labor pains along with it.
  Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon says: protracted labor is not for more than two weeks [before birth].  Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say that she can be considered to be in protracted labor only for the two weeks before birth. Blood before this period must be considered zivah blood.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If a woman was in hard labor during the eighty days prescribed for the birth of a female, all kinds of blood that she may observe are clean, until the fetus is born. But Rabbi Eliezer holds them to be unclean.  This mishnah discusses an unlikely scenario, but one that the rabbis found interesting (in a legal sort of way) and therefore, worthy of discussion. [This is frequently the case in rabbinic literature. The rabbis wish to discuss legally complex cases, not ones that actually happen most frequently]. A woman gave birth to a girl and then was impure for 14 days. After this time she went to the mikveh and then had relations with her husband (I know, a bit quick, but possible). She became pregnant and was already having pain and blood during the 66 day period in which the blood is considered pure. Note that she knows that this blood is from the new pregnancy, and not the old one. The rabbis hold that this blood is clean until she gives birth again. At this point, if we are sure it is a birth, then she will again be impure with birth uncleanness. Rabbi Eliezer says that since we know that this blood is not from the previous birth, in which case it would be clean, but rather from the difficult labor due to the subsequent birth, we must consider this blood to be unclean. She will have the uncleanness of a menstruant, as was the case in yesterday's mishnah.
  They said to Rabbi Eliezer: if in a case where the law was stringent in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain, it was nevertheless lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor, in a case where it was lenient in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain is there not even more reason to be lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor?  The rabbis now argue out their position.  A woman who is pregnant and discharges blood but doesn't have any labor pains is considered a zavah. Her blood is not considered menstrual rather the greater stringency of zivah applies. Nevertheless, if she was in hard labor at the time, the blood would be considered birth blood, which would give her the status of a niddah and not a zavah. Therefore, in a case where the law is generally lenient, during the days of her purity (the 80 days after the birth of a girl), when all her blood is considered pure, so too we should be lenient with regard to blood that comes from labor pains. She should be a niddah and not a zavah.
  He replied: it is enough for the case inferred to be treated in the same manner as the one from which it is inferred. For in what way were you lenient upon her? From the uncleanness of a zivah, but she does have the uncleanness of a niddah.  Rabbi Eliezer responds that this doesn't make sense. The leniency during pregnancy was that she was not a zavah she was only a niddah. So when we derive a law from this situation, we don't need to say that she is pure. It is enough to say that the derived status is the same as that from which it derived. Just as her blood had the status of niddah during her pregnancy, so too during the 80 days of purity, blood due to hard labor has the status of niddah.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Throughout all the eleven days a woman is in a presumption of cleanness. If she did not examine herself if this was unwittingly, under duress or intentionally, she is clean.  Between one period and the next there are eleven days during which a woman can presume that she will not menstruate (according to the rabbis don't take this as gynecological advice). During this period there is a legal presumption that she is clean. If she doesn't examine herself for any reason, even intentionally, she is still clean.
  If the time of her regular period arrived and she did not examine herself she is unclean.  When her period is supposed to arrive, she loses her presumption of cleanness. She must examine herself, and if she does not, she is considered impure.
  Rabbi Meir says: if a woman was in a hiding place when the time of her regular period arrived and she didn't examine herself she is clean, because fear suspends the flow of blood.  Rabbi Meir holds that fear will suspend the onset of a woman's period. Therefore, if a woman is in hiding, perhaps due to war, and the time of her period arrives, she remains pure because we can assume that she did not have her period.
  But during the days prescribed for a zav or a zavah  or for one who waits day against day, these are  presumed to be unclean.  A woman who has three consecutive days of blood discharge not during the time of her period is a zavah. A man who has non-seminal genital discharge for three straight days is a zav. Both of them must check themselves every day. Every day that they do not, they are under the presumption of being impure. "One who waits day against day" refers to a man or woman who had a genital discharge that is not menstrual or semen for one or two days (on the third day they would become a zav/zavah). They too must check themselves every day to see if more discharge had occurred. If they do not check themselves, they are presumed unclean. To sum up the entire mishnah if there is some sign that would make us assume that she/he would menstruate or have impure discharge, then there is no presumption of cleanness. Without checking, she/he is impure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  For a fetus born from its mother's side, she does not sit the prescribed days of uncleanness  nor the days of cleanness, nor does one incur on its account the obligation to bring a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon says: it is regarded as a regular birth.  A fetus born from its mother's side is one born through a caesarean section. I am not sure how frequently a mother would even live through such an operation in the ancient world, but if she did, she is not impure (1 week for a male or two weeks for a female) nor does she have any days in which discharged blood is pure. Basically, if the child is not born in the normal way, it is not considered a birth and the purity rules relevant to childbirth do not apply. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that a caesarean section is considered a normal birth.
  All women are subject to uncleanness  [as soon as the blood appears] in the outer chamber, as it says, "her discharge being blood in her body" (Leviticus 15:19). But a zav and one who emitted semen convey no uncleanness unless the discharge   came out of the body.  A woman (niddah or zavah) is impure as soon as the blood reaches the outer chamber, which I assume means the vagina. The blood need not flow out for her to be impure. This is midrashically read into the word "in her body."  In contrast, men are impure only when the semen or other discharge has left the penis.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If he was eating terumah when he felt that his limbs shook, he should take hold of his member and swallow the terumah.  If a man is eating terumah and he feels himself about to ejaculate (his limbs are shaking) he should squeeze his penis so that he doesn't ejaculate quite yet and then swallow the terumah. If he ejaculates while terumah is still in his mouth, the terumah will become impure. [I realize, this is a bit strange and I'm not sure if it's realistic. It would also take a large degree of control to accomplish this, but I guess anything's possible.]
  And it conveys uncleanness however small the quantity, even if it is only of the size of a mustard seed or less.  Any amount of genital discharge (zivah, menstrual blood and semen), even an amount smaller than a mustard seed, defiles.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  The remainder of this chapter goes through developmental stages of children and notes when they are obligated or subject to various laws.
  A girl one day old defiles due to menstruation.  If for some reason a baby girl begins to menstruate, the blood can count as menstrual blood which defiles. I realize that this is highly unlikely, but what the rabbis are in essence saying is that there is no age at which we could consider menstrual blood to be something else.
  A girl ten days old defiles due to zivah.  However, she must be ten days old for any bloody discharge to possibly count as zivah, non-menstrual blood. This is because if she bled for the first seven days of her life, it would count as niddah. Then to become a zavah, she must bleed three straight days not during the time of her period. So in order for her to become a zavah she would have to be 10 days old.
  A boy one day old defiles due to zivah, and defiles due to scale disease and due to corpse uncleanness;  A boy on the other hand can't be a niddah (obviously). Therefore, if he has bloody discharge from his penis, he can be a zav immediately. Similarly, other types of defilement need not wait until he is older. If he has scale disease (negaim) he is impure and he conveys impurity; the same is true if he dies his corpse defiles.
  He subjects [his deceased brother's widow] to yibbum [levirate marriage];  If he has a brother who dies childless, his brother's wife is subject to yibbum with him. She will have to wait until he is old enough to perform yibbum or halitzah.
  He exempts [his mother] from yibbum,  If a man dies and he has a child who is even one day old, his wife is not subject to yibbum.
  He enables her to eat terumah  If the father was a kohen and he dies, his wife can continue eating terumah by virtue of her son.
  And he disqualifies her from eating terumah;  If the father was not a kohen and the wife was, and the father dies, because she has a son she does not go back to her father's home to continue to eat terumah. Her one day old son disqualifies her from eating terumah.
  He inherits and transmits inheritance;  If a woman dies on the day her son is born, the son inherits his mother's estate. If the son dies on the same day he can transmit his mother's inheritance to his paternal brother. In this way, the mother's estate can shift to her husband's child from another wife, all within one day.
  He who kills him is guilty of murder,  A one-day old is fully alive therefore one who kills him is liable for murder.
  And he counts to his father, to his mother and to all his relatives as  a fully grown man.  This is basically just a summary of the entire mishnah a one day old child is a full living human being. We might add that there may be a polemic here against the common Greco-Roman tolerance of infanticide. As is well-known, Greek thought allowed for the killing of unwanted babies. The rabbis did not tolerate such a position. At the moment of birth a child is a full human being.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches that in a legal sense, sexual relations with a girl over the age of three counts as sexual relations.
  I should emphasize that this mishnah in no way condones such an act (which is certainly rape) it just teaches that this counts as an act of intercourse. At the core of this notion is their understanding of the physical consequences of intercourse for the first time namely the breaking of the woman's hymen. As we can see at the end of the mishnah, if a girl has intercourse (i.e. is raped) before the age of three her hymen will repair itself. After the age of three, it will not. This, to the rabbis, means that after the age of three, intercourse "counts" in a legal sense. Before the age of three, it does not.
  Having taught this mishnah (and others like it) many times, I realize that this is a very sensitive issue. To talk about sex with young girls is very troubling. I certainly don't want people to read this and think that the rabbis thought that it was okay for men to have relations with little girls. As usual, the mishnah uses a clinical, emotionally distant tone. That's just the way the rabbis composed much of the mishnah.
  A girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse and if a yavam had intercourse with her, he acquires her thereby.  As stated above, intercourse with a girl over the age of three years counts as intercourse. Therefore, since betrothal may be performed by intercourse, she may also be betrothed in this way. If she is liable for yibbum (meaning her previous husband died without any offspring) and the yavam (her dead husband's brother) had intercourse with her, she becomes his wife. Again, this means that intercourse with her creates legal obligations and a legal relationship.
  One can be liable for adultery with her;  If her father marries her off to someone (this can be done even before three years old) and then another man has intercourse with her, he is liable for adultery and he would get the death penalty.
  And she defiles the one who had intercourse with her so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above.  If she is a niddah, she defiles one who has intercourse with her such that he would defile any number of couches or cushions upon which he sat. This was explained in 4:1.
  If she was married to a priest, she may eat terumah.  An Israelite woman married to a priest can eat terumah. Since this marriage counts, she can eat terumah.
  If any of the disqualified men have relations with her he disqualifies her from the priesthood.  If someone who is disqualified from the priesthood, such as a halal (a disqualified priest) or a non-Jew, has relations with her, he disqualifies her from subsequently marrying a priest. This is true of all women.
  If any of the forbidden relatives found in the Torah had relations with her he is to be executed on her account, but she is exempt [from the penalty].  If a man forbidden to her because of incest has relations with her, he gets the death penalty (as long as the incest was punishable by death). She, of course, is not punished because little children cannot be held accountable for their actions. Obviously, this was an act of rape.
  If she was younger than this age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye.  This is the concept I mentioned in the introduction. If one pokes someone in the eye, the eye tears up but returns to normal. So too, the rabbis believed that if one had intercourse with a girl younger than three, her hymen would repair itself. She would remain a "virgin" and therefore there are no legal consequences to relations with her.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah teaches that for a boy to be legally capable of intercourse, he must be 9 years old. Again, I should stress that this is a legal definition. The mishnah is not sanctioning boys having sex at that age. Indeed, I'm sure this was quite uncommon, if not completely unheard of. All they are saying is that a boy under that age is not legally capable of doing having sex.
  While a boy nine years of age can have legally consequential sex, he is not old enough to enter into verbal contracts. We shall see that this creates some interesting ramifications.
  If a boy the age of nine years and one day had relations with his yevamah, he   acquires her thereby;  A yevamah, a woman whose husband has died without children, is acquired by the yavam, the brother of the dead husband, through sexual intercourse. What this means is that marriage with a yevam is done not through the money of kiddushin and then huppah, but through intercourse. Since a boy's intercourse at nine years counts, he can acquire his yevamah at that age. Note, he cannot marry a regular woman until he is of majority age.
  But he cannot divorce her until he is of majority age.  However, divorce is done through a written document and boys of this age do not have the legal ability to execute such documents. Therefore, he couldn't divorce her until he is of majority age.
  He contracts uncleanness through intercourse with a menstruant so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above.  Since his intercourse counts, if he has relations with a niddah, he takes on the according level of impurity. This impurity was explained in 4:1.
  He disqualifies a woman from the priesthood.  If he is disqualified from being a priest, for instance he is a halal (a disqualified priest) or a mamzer, and he has relations with a woman, he disqualifies her from eating terumah.
  But he doesn't give her the right to eat terumah.  Since he can't legally marry a woman, he can't confer upon her the right to eat terumah if he is a priest. This is true even if the woman is his yevamah.
  He renders a beast invalid for the altar, and it is stoned on his account.  If he has sex with an animal (I know, this is a bit sick), the sex disqualifies use of the animal as a sacrifice. The animal with which he had sex is stoned on his account. Both of these rules are the usual rules for an animal that had sex with a human.
  If he had intercourse with any of the forbidden relations mentioned in the Torah, she is to be executed on his account, but he is exempt from punishment.  If he has intercourse with a woman prohibited to him by the Torah (adultery or incest) she is punished with the death penalty. He cannot, however, be punished until he is of majority age. To sum up this mishnah, it teaches that boys' physical ability precedes their legal liabilities, which are based on their mental capacities. While some of the details of this mishnah might be revolting and troubling, the essence seems to me quite prescient.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with the age at which a child's vows are considered valid. This is an intellectual capacity and not a physical capacity as was the case in the first five mishnayot of the chapter.
  The vows discussed directly in this mishnah are biblical types of vows a vow to bring something to the Temple. However, the same laws apply to other types of vows as well.
  We should also note that the ages in this mishnah reflect what in modern times is known as the "bar/bat mitzvah." A celebration of this age did not occur in mishnaic/talmudic times, but the significance of the age was noted.
  A girl of the age of eleven years and one day, her vows must be examined. A girl of the age of twelve years and one day, her vows are valid; And they examine them throughout the whole twelfth year.  During a girls' twelfth year it is possible, although not certain, that she knows the meaning of her vows. Therefore if she makes a vow someone would have to ascertain that she understands its meaning. If she does, it is valid. Upon completing twelve years, meaning on her twelfth birthday (actually the day after), her vows are valid automatically.
  A boy the age of twelve years and one day, his vows must be examined. A boy the age of thirteen years and one day, is vow are valid. And they examine them throughout the whole thirteenth year.  Boys mature one year slower than girls (personally, I think it takes a lot longer than this, but that's based on personal experience). Therefore, they are checked during their thirteenth year and a day after their thirteenth birthday their vows are automatically valid.
  Prior to this age,  even though they said, "We know to whom we have made our vow" or "to whom we have made our dedication," their vow  is not a valid vow and their dedication is not a valid dedication. Subsequent to this age, even though they said, "We do not know to whom we have made our vow" or "to whom we have made our vow," their vow is a valid vow and their dedication is a valid dedication.  Prior to these ages, a child's vows don't count, even if they know the meaning of them. And subsequent to this age, the vows count, even if they don't know their meaning. The only age in which the matter is dependent upon their knowledge, is the twelfth year for the girl and the thirteenth year for the boy.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah teaches that a girl has three stages of physical development, each with their own legal ramifications. These ages are: 1) ketanah, a minor; 2) naarah, a girl beginning to mature; 3) a bogeret, a mature girl. The father's rights over his daughter are limited to the first two stages.
  We should note that this was a significant step in giving a far greater degree of independence to young girls. In the Bible, a father's rights over his daughter probably extended until she was married. The rabbis significantly curtailed this, ending his rights over his daughter at the extremely young age of 12. It is unlikely that in reality a father stopped exerting his decision making authority over his daughters at such a young age even today father's authority over their children extends well past this age. However, even if in reality fathers had significant power over their daughters for a far longer time, the fact is that the rabbis did limit their legal power, thereby creating more room for the girl's independence. .
  The sages spoke of [the physical development of] a woman in a parable: an unripe fig, a fig in its early ripening stage and a ripe fig.  The rabbis used the analogy of a fig to delineate the three stages of the physical development of a girl. This is clearly an allusion to her sexual development. A fig is somewhat of a sensuous fruit, and reminds us of the Garden of Eden. Sex and eating are often compared, so it seems that this mishnah is saying that a young girl is not ready for sex but that by 12 she is. [Again, I realize that this strikes as an extremely early age. However, we should probably realize that this is an issue that is determined by culture and that in many cultures girls are considered to be sexually ready at far younger ages than they are in our society.]
  "An unripe fig": while she is yet a child;  A child here is one who has not developed any signs of sexual development.
  "A fig in its early ripening stage": when she is in her youth (.  Naarut is when a girl begins to show signs of physical development. Her breasts are beginning to grow. Tomorrow's mishnah will go into greater detail.
  In both ages her father is entitled to anything she finds and to her handiwork and to the right of invalidating her vows.  A father has full rights over his ketanah and naarah daughter. Anything she finds and anything she makes belongs to him, and if she makes a vow he has the right to invalidate it (see Ketubot 4:4).
  "A ripe fig"  as soon as she becomes of majority age (, her father has no longer any right over her.  Once she is of majority age, he no longer has any legal rights over her.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  What are the signs [of a bogeret]?Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: the appearance of   the wrinkle beneath the breast.Rabbi Akiva says: from when the breasts hang down.Ben Azzai says: the darkening of the ring around the nipple.Rabbi Yose says: [the development of the breast to a stage] when one's hand is put on the nipple it sinks and only slowly rises again.Today's mishnah contains several opinions as to what constitutes the physical development of a girl such that she is considered a bogeret. All four of these opinions relate to the development of the girl's breasts.I think that the translation of these four opinions is sufficient to understand them, therefore there is no commentary below.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a male or female who never show signs of hitting puberty. A female in this category is called an aylonit, which probably comes from the word "ayil" ram. And a male is called a "saris" which is the Hebrew word for eunuch. The laws of this mishnah can also partly be found in Yevamot 8:5.
  If a woman at the age of twenty did not bring forth two hairs, she must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age and she is an aylonit, she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum.  If a woman turns twenty and has not yet hit puberty, meaning she has no pubic hair, and can prove that she is twenty, then she is an aylonit, a woman who is unable to procreate. If she is married and her husband dies without offspring she is not subject to the laws of levirate marriage halitzah or yibbum. This is because she is unable to procreate.
  If a man at the age of twenty years did not produce two hairs, he  must bring evidence that he is twenty years old and he becomes confirmed   as a saris  and he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum, the words of Bet Hillel.  The same rules apply to a man who reaches age twenty. If his brother dies without children, he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum with the widow. If there are no other brothers, then the widow does not require halitzah or yibbum at all. It is as if her husband died without a brother.
  Bet Shammai says: with both of them at the age of eighteen.  Bet Shammai disagrees with regard to the age at which we assume that the female is an aylonit and the male a saris. They hold that this assumption kicks in at 18, not 20 as held Bet Hillel.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of the male, according to the words of Bet Hillel, while in that of the female, in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai, since a woman matures earlier than a man.  Rabbi Eliezer offers a compromise position. Since girls reach maturity earlier than do boys, the age for them is 18, as said Bet Shammai. For boys, Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Bet Hillel.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is really a continuation of the topic from last chapter. It discusses what counts as a sign of having reached puberty the development of pubic hair (the lower sign) or the development of breasts (the upper sign).
  If the lower sign appears before the upper sign, she can perform halitzah or yibbum.  The appearance of the lower sign (pubic hair) counts as having reached puberty, even if the upper sign (breast development) had not yet appeared. Therefore, she is fully subject to the laws of halitzah and yibbum, for she is certainly of majority age.
  If the upper sign appears before the lower sign, even though this is impossible: Rabbi Meir says: she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. And the sages say: she can perform halitzah or yibbum. For they have said: it is possible for the lower sign to appear before the upper sign, but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign.  Both Rabbi Meir and the other sages agree that the upper sign cannot appear before the lower sign. However, Rabbi Meir still thinks that if such a thing does appear to happen, we must be concerned lest it did happen. In such a case, she couldn't do halitzah or yibbum because she is still a minor. So if she was married and her husband died without children, she would have to wait till she hits majority age to perform either halitzah or yibbum. Note, however, that this is according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that a minor girl cannot do yibbum, lest it eventually turns out the she is an "aylonit," one who never becomes sexually mature. The other sages (see 5:4) hold that we are not concerned with such an eventuality. Even a minor girl could perform yibbum, but not halitzah. In any case, the other sages say that if the upper sign appears then the lower sign must have appeared. She is considered to have reached majority age, and she can even do halitzah.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  The next 9 mishnayot have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Rather, they are all formulated in the same format as yesterday's mishnah it is possible for x without y, but it is not possible for y without x.
  Similarly, any [hole in] an earthen vessel that lets in a liquid  will  let it out, but there may be one that will let liquid out and will not let it in.  An earthenware vessel that has a hole large enough that it lets liquid in is pure because it is no longer usable (see Kelim 3:1, 8:2). Any vessel that has a hole large enough to let in liquid will also let it out. However, there may be a vessel that lets liquid out but doesn't let it in. Such a vessel is still considered usable and is therefore still impure.
  Any limb that grows a nail also has a bone in it, but there may be one that has a bone in it but does not grow a nail.  A limb from a corpse that has a nail is impure, even if the limb is very small (see Ohalot 1:7). Any limb that grows a nail will also grow a bone, but there can be a limb that has a bone without a nail. The Talmud explains that an extra finger (or toe) that doesn't have a nail does defile through contact and by being carried but it doesn't convey impurity in an ohel (a tent) as would a limb with a nail.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Whatever is susceptible to midras uncleanness is also susceptible to corpse-uncleanness.  For an item to be susceptible to midras uncleanness, which is transmitted by sitting, laying down or leaning upon something, the item must have been made to be sat upon or laid upon, for instance a mattress or a chair. Therefore, not all items are susceptible to midras uncleanness (for instance, my shirt is not susceptible). However, all vessels (this includes almost anything of practical use made by a human being) are susceptible to corpse uncleanness. So if an item, such as a sofa, is susceptible to midras uncleanness, it must also be susceptible to corpse uncleanness.
  But there are things that are susceptible to corpse uncleanness but not to midras-uncleanness.  Such as my shirt, or my cereal bowl (or your dress and serving platter, if you like).
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Anyone who is fit to try capital cases is also fit to try monetary cases. But there are those who are fit to try monetary suits and and unfit to try capital cases.  The laws regarding who may adjudicate a capital case are more stringent than those for monetary cases. For instance, a convert or a mamzer cannot judge capital cases (see Sanhedrin 4:2).
  Anyone who is eligible to act as judge is eligible to serve as a witness. But there may be one who is eligible to act as witness and not as judge.  Similarly, the laws regarding who can serve as a judge are stricter than those for a witness.  For instance, an unlearned person can serve as witness, but not as a judge.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Whatsoever is subject to tithes is susceptible to food-uncleanness.  Only food is subject to tithes and terumah. Therefore, anything that is subject to tithes must be a food.
  But there are foods that are to food-uncleanness and not subject to tithes.  However, not all food is subject to tithes and terumah, for instance things that don't grow from the ground (see Maasrot 1:1). Therefore, there can be food that is subject to impurity but not liable for tithes and terumah.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Whatever is subject to peah   is also subject to tithes. But there is [produce] which is subject to tithes and is not subject to peah. The category of produce that is subject to peah (leaving the corner of one's fields) is narrower than that liable for tithes. For produce to be liable for peah it has to be a type that ripens and is harvested all at the same time. Thus, figs, which ripen gradually, are not liable to peah. The produce also has to be able to be stored for a long time, so vegetables are not liable to peah (see Peah 1:4). However, anything that is liable for peah is in the category of liable for tithes.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Whatever [beast] is subject to the laws of the first of the fleece is also subject to that of the priestly gifts.But there may be [a beast] that is subject to the law of the priestly gifts and not to that of the first of the fleece.There are two mitzvot mentioned in this mishnah: the "first of the fleece" and "priestly gifts." A person must give the first of the fleece that he shears to the priest. When he offers a sacrifice that doesn't entirely go to the priest, he gives the priest the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach the "priestly gifts." Only female sheep are liable to the first of the fleece, but all beasts offered as a sacrifice are liable for the priestly gifts.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Whatever is subject to the law of removal is also subject to the sabbatical year.But there is [a kind or produce] that is subject to the sabbatical year and is not subject to the law of removal.Again, there are two laws mentioned in this mishnah. The first is "the law of removal." Produce grown during the sabbatical year can be gathered into one's house and stored, but as soon as it ceases to grow in the field such that animals can eat it, it must be removed from storage in one's house."Subject to the sabbatical year" means that one cannot do business with it i.e. bring it to the marketplace and sell it there. Furthermore, any produce that grows in one's field must be made ownerless.All produce is "subject to the sabbatical year." However, if the produce grows in the field all year round, and is always available for animal consumption, then it need not be removed from one's house. Sheviit 7:2 gives some examples.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Whatever has scales has fins, But there are fish that have fins and no scales.  For fish to be kosher they need fins and scales. Some fish have fins but no scales, but if a fish has scales, for sure it has fins (see Hullin 3:7).
  Whatever has horns has [split] hooves; But there are animals that have [split] hooves and no horns.  Animals need split hooves to be kosher. Any animal with horns must have split hooves. However, there are animal that have split hooves, such as a pig, but do not have horns.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Whatever requires a blessing after it requires one before it;But there are things that require a blessing before them and not after them.One must recite a blessing before eating anything, even of the smallest amount. One also must recite a blessing before the performance of a mitzvah. But in both of these cases, there is no blessing recited after.However, anything that one blesses after it, such as a sufficient portion of food, one would certainly have to bless before it as well.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah returns to the main subject of the chapter at what stage of physical development a child becomes obligated in the commandments.
  If a girl has grown two pubic hairs she may perform either halitzah or contract levirate marriage, and she is obligated in all the commandments in the Torah. So too if a boy has grown two pubic hairs, he is obligated in all of the commandments in the Torah.  Once the "lower sign" two pubic hairs have appeared on a boy or girl, they become fully obligated in all of the mitzvot in the Torah. In addition, for a girl this means that she is liable for halitzah or yibbum; if her husband died without offspring, she must perform either halitzah or yibbum with her dead husband's brother.
  He is fit to become a wayward and rebellious son from the time he has grown two hairs until the time when his beard forms a circle. This refers to the lower, and not to the upper one, but the sages spoke using a euphemism.  For a boy to be subject to the laws of being a wayward and rebellious son (see Sanhedrin 8) he must have reached majority age, but not be so old that he is no longer subject to his parents' authority. This is translated physically to mean that he has already grown two pubic hairs but he is not yet fully physically matured (meaning more pubic hair is left to grow). The beard referred to here is indeed the "lower" beard, but the rabbis used a euphemism (I'm trying to do this too, but it's not easy and to remain understood).
  A girl who has grown two hairs may no longer refuse the marriage. Rabbi Judah says: [she may refuse] until the black [hairs] predominate.  A minor girl who is married off by her brother or mother because her father is no longer alive has the right to refuse the marriage until she becomes of majority age. In Hebrew, this is called "meun," and it is annulment, not divorce. Once she hits puberty and doesn't refuse the marriage, it is as if she has accepted it and she can no longer refuse. Rabbi Judah extends her right to refuse the marriage till the time when she has enough pubic hair that the region looks mostly black.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  The two hairs spoken of in regard to the red heifer and in regard to leprosy as well as those spoken of anywhere else must be long enough for their tips to be bent to their roots, the words of Rabbi Ishmael.Rabbi Eliezer says: long enough to be grasped by a finger-nail.Rabbi Akiva says: long enough to be taken off with scissors.Today's mishnah clarifies how long a hair must be for it to count as a hair.Section one: Besides the context of our chapter hairs that are a sign of human puberty there are several other "halakhic hairs." The first is that black or white hairs can disqualify a red heifer from being used in the purification ritual (see Parah 2:5). The second is that two hairs are a sign of impurity in a leprous spot (see Negaim 4:4, 10:2-3). The issue of hair also comes up in the commandment that a nazirite shave all of his hairs at the end of his naziriteship, and that a metzora (a person with skin disease) shave when becoming pure. If either of them leaves two hairs, the shaving doesn't count.In all of these cases, Rabbi Ishmael holds that the hair must be long enough that one could take the tip and bend it back to the root.Rabbi Eliezer says that it need only be possible to grasp the nail with one's finger nail. Rabbi Akiva says that it must be long enough that one could cut it with scissors. According to commentators, this is the smallest measure.
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  A woman who found a blood-stain is in a spoiled condition and must take into consideration the possibility that it was due to zivah, the words of Rabbi Meir.If a woman makes a mistake in her reckoning there is no re-opening for her [of the niddah count] earlier than seven, nor later than after seventeen days.But the sages say: in the case of blood-stains there is no [need to consider the possibility of their being] due to zivah. Section five: This somewhat complicated halakhah has to do with counting a woman’s menstrual cycle, in order to know the difference between menstrual blood (which causes a woman to be impure for 7 days, even if she continued to bleed all the way through the seventh and non-menstrual blood (which causes a woman to be impure for one day, unless she sees blood for three straight days, in which case she is impure for 7 full days after she stops seeing. The rabbis instituted an 18 day cycle to calculate when blood was menstrual and when it is non-menstrual. When a woman first sees blood she considers it to be menstrual blood and she is impure for seven days, from the time she saw the first blood. After these seven days, any blood seen over the next 11 days is considered to be zivah (non-menstrual. After these eleven days are over, she returns to counting seven days, during which any blood is considered to be menstrual blood. Our mishnah deals with a situation where a woman made a mistake in counting these days (i.e. she didn’t know whether she was in the seven days or in the and she saw blood. She doesn’t know whether the blood she saw is to be considered menstrual, in which case she is impure for seven days, or zivah, in which case she is impure for only one day, or a full seven days if she sees zivah for three straight days. Our mishnah teaches that the beginning of her days of menstrual blood cannot be less then seven days after she doesn’t see any more blood, nor more than seventeen days, all counted from the time she first saw blood. How this works out is a bit complicated, but I shall try to explain very briefly. Let’s say she saw blood for one day, if these were “days of niddah” she could begin to count her next days of niddah after seventeen days, which is the maximum amount. This would mirror the normal situation. However, if she sees blood for several straight days, it may be possible that she only has to wait seven more days after not seeing blood to begin counting her menstrual blood days. Let’s say she sees blood for three straight days, she can then begin counting her menstrual days after seven days without seeing blood, because it doesn’t matter if the blood she saw was menstrual or not, seven days are sufficient to begin counting again. I realize that this is all very complicated, and indeed entire books exist dedicated to these complicated calculations. We will learn much more about this subject when we learn Tractate Niddah.Section one: According to Rabbi Meir, if a woman finds a blood stain on her clothing she is in a "spoiled condition." What this means is that since she doesn't know when the blood stain got there she doesn't know when to begin counting the eleven days of "zivah" the eleven days in which blood is considered zivah and not menstruation. This is a complicated system of calculation that I explained in Arakhin 2:1. For your benefit I have put the explanation of this clause below.Furthermore, if she sees the stain three days into her wearing the garment during the "days of zivah," and the stain is large enough that it could contain three days of blood flow (this is not such a large amount, three split-beans worth of blood) she must be concerned that she had blood flow for three days and therefore she is a zavah. In other words, this is a pretty lousy situation.Section two: The other sages say that if a woman sees a stain on her clothing, she does not have to treat it as if it is potentially zivah.
  
  Mishnah 14
  
  If a woman observed [a discharge of blood] on the eleventh day at twilight, at the beginning of a menstruation period and at the end of a menstruation period, at the beginning of a zivah period and at the end of a zivah period;  Albeck explains this section according to the Talmud which reads it as if it says, "at the beginning of a menstruation period and at the end of a zivah period or at the end of a menstruation period and at the end of a zivah period." In other words, a woman sees a discharge of blood at twilight at the end of the eleventh day of her zivah period which could also be considered the beginning of her menstrual period. If it is zivah, she is impure for one day for every day she saw blood; if it is menstrual blood then she is impure for seven days. The same doubt occurs if she sees blood on the seventh day at twilight of her menstrual days she cannot be sure if it is menstrual blood or zivah blood.
  On the fortieth day after the birth of a male or on the eightieth day after the birth of a female,  If she saw blood at twilight on the fortieth day after the birth of a male or the 80th day after the birth of a female, we are not sure if the blood is pure because for 40/80 days after the birth a male or female child a woman's blood is pure, or it is impure blood.
  At twilight in all these cases, behold these women have made a mistake [in their reckoning].  In all of these cases we must consider the woman as having lost her count. The women must act as if they were zavot and if they had blood for two more days after the first discharge, they must bring the appropriate hatat (sin-offering) sacrifice at the end of their period of impurity. However, since we are not sure whether or not they are actually liable for the hatat, it may not be eaten.
  Rabbi Joshua said: before you fix the situation for the women who lack intelligence, come and fix the situation for the wise ones.  According to Albeck, Rabbi Joshua's comment refers to Mishnah 2:1, where we learned that intelligent women could help supervise women who are not considered to have halakhic intelligence. He says to the sages who composed that mishnah instead of worrying about those woman who lack the intelligence to keep track of their own cycles, you should worry about the intelligent women, who theoretically are able to keep track of these things, but because of the complications of this system, cannot do so.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah teaches which substances defile when both dry and wet and which defile only while still wet or moist.
  The blood of a menstruant and the flesh of a corpse convey uncleanness when wet and when dry.  There are two substances which are treated strictly and defile whether moist or dry the blood of a menstruant and the flesh from a corpse.
  But the discharge [of a zav], and the phlegm [of a zav] and the spittle [of a zav], a dead sheretz, a nevelah and semen convey uncleanness when wet but not when dry.  In contrast, the substances that come from the body of a zav (a man who had an abnormal genital discharge) are impure only while still moist. The same is true for a dead sheretz (creepy crawly thing), a nevelah (an animal not slaughtered in the proper manner) and semen.
  If they can be soaked and then revert to their original condition they convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. And how long must they be soaked?   In lukewarm water for a period of twenty four hours.  However, if one can soak these substances in lukewarm water for a period of up to 24 hours and they return to being moist as they were previously, then they are still impure. In other words, for something to be considered all dried up and therefore pure, it must be irrevocably dried up.
  Rabbi Yose says: If the flesh of a corpse is dry, and it cannot be soaked and brought back to its original condition, it is clean.  Rabbi Yose says that the flesh of a corpse is also pure if it becomes irrevocably dry.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If a dead sheretz was found in an alley it causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can say, "I examined this alley and there was no sheretz in it," or to such time as it was last swept.  A dead sheretz defiles anything that touches it. If a sheretz is found in an alley, everything pure in the alley must be considered impure lest it was touched by the sheretz. This retroactive impurity covers everything that was in the alley until we can be sure that the sheretz wasn't there. We can be sure of this either by someone testifying that he examined the alley or by the alley having been cleaned.
  So also a bloodstain found on a garment causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can say, "I examined this shirt and there was no stain on it" or to such time as it was last washed.  Similarly, if one finds a bloodstain on a garment, any clean things that touched the cloak are impure until such a point when we can ascertain that the stain wasn't there.
  And it conveys uncleanness whether it is wet or dry. Rabbi Shimon says: if it is dry it causes uncleanness retrospectively, but if it is wet it causes uncleanness only to a time when it could still have been wet.  This section connects this mishnah to the topic of yesterday's mishnah whether defiling substances need to be moist to defile. According to the first opinion, the sheretz and blood stain defile even if they are found dry, because they might have been moist when they defiled the clean things. Rabbi Shimon says that we can use the fact that only moist things defile to limit the retroactive impurity. If for instance we know that the stain or sheretz could not have been moist three days ago because it is really dry now, then it doesn't defile things it might have touched in the past three days.  But if something might have touched it when it was wet, it is impure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  All bloodstains that come from Rekem are clean.Rabbi Judah declares them unclean, because the people who live there are proselytes though misguided.Those that come from non-Jews are clean.Those that come from Israelites or from Samaritans: Rabbi Meir declares them unclean, But the sages declare them clean because they are not suspected in regard to their stains.Today's mishnah deals with clothing that is found with a bloodstain on it. The question is do we have to be concerned that the blood is impure and the clothing defiles?Section one: Rekem is on the eastern border of the land of Israel (see Gittin 1:1-2). Its residents, according to the first opinion, are considered to be non-Jews. Since non-Jews don't defile, their bloodstained clothing is also not considered to be defiling.Rabbi Judah says that the people of Rekem are actually converts.It is interesting that in this mishnah we have an argument over the status of these people the first opinion holds that their conversion was not valid, whereas Rabbi Judah holds that their conversion was valid. We can sense, perhaps, that the laws of conversion were still in flux.Despite their conversion, Rabbi Judah holds that they do not properly observe the laws of menstrual purity and therefore their stains are impure. As we shall see below, the sages hold that bloodstained cloaks of Israelites do not defile. These people converted but didn't learn the laws all that well. That is likely why the other rabbis consider them not to be Jewish.Section two: As stated above, non-Israelites do not defile, at least not through their menstrual blood. Therefore, it is obvious that their bloodstained clothing is not impure.Section three: Israelites and Samaritans are both subject to the laws of menstrual purity meaning their menstrual blood is impure. According to Rabbi Meir, if one finds a cloak from an Israelite or Samaritan with a bloodstain on it, one must be concerned that it is menstrual blood. Therefore, it defiles.The other sages say that Israelites and Samaritans are not suspected of simply giving clothing stained with menstrual blood to others. In other words, they are cautious about the laws of menstrual purity. Therefore, if we find blood on their clothing we can assume that it is not menstrual blood. The clothing is pure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  All bloodstains, wherever they are found are clean except those that are found in rooms or in a house for unclean women.A house for unclean Samaritan women conveys uncleanness by overshadowing   because they bury miscarriages there.Rabbi Judah says: they did not bury them but threw them away and the wild beasts dragged them off.Section one: As stated in yesterday's mishnah, bloodstains found on clothing are considered pure, because we can generally assume that they do not come from menstrual blood. Jewish women do not simply cast aside the clothing that has menstrual blood stains on it.However, we can't assume that the bloodstain is not menstrual if the clothing is found in a private room, for in such a place a woman might place clothing that has a menstrual stain on it.Similarly, if bloodstained clothing is found in a house set aside from menstruating women, we must treat the stain as if it were menstrual blood.We should note that this is virtually the only evidence in rabbinic literature that menstruating women were sent to a "red tent" a house for menstruants. It is unclear how widespread this practice might have been, but in my opinion, the existence of this mishnah proves that it did exist, at least in some places in some times.Section two: Houses set aside for unclean Samaritan women defile to a greater extent because we fear there may be dead bodies in such houses, and dead bodies defile through overshadowing. The fear is that in such houses women occasionally miscarriage, and that Samaritan women do not bring their miscarriages to burial grounds. Rather they bury them right in the house.Rabbi Judah says that they don't even bother burying them. They just leave them on the side and wild animals come and drag them off. Paradoxically, the aspersion he casts on Samaritan women (they don't even bother burying their miscarriages) serves to purify their homes, at least from corpse impurity. Since the miscarriages are no longer there, the houses do not defile by overshadowing.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with when we believe the testimony of a Samaritan.
  They are believed when they say, "we buried miscarriages there," or "we did not bury them."  If a Samaritan states that they either did or did not bury a miscarriage in a certain place they are believed. Although they are suspected of casting aside miscarriages, they generally observe the laws of impurity, so they are believed in this matter.
  They are believed when they say concerning a beast whether it had given birth to a firstling or had not given birth to one.  Since they observe the laws of the firstborn animal (that it must be given to the priests and that it is sacred) they are trusted if they say that a certain animal had already given birth or had not.
  They are believed when giving information on the marking of graves.  Samaritans are cautious concerning the impurity of graves. Therefore, they are trusted to say that a marker does or does not signify the presence of a grave.
  But they are not believed either in regard to overhanging branches, or protruding stones or a bet ha-peras.  However, there are aspects of the laws of impurity in which their behavior and interpretation differ from the rabbis. The rabbis hold that an overhanging tree or a protruding stone can serve as an "ohel," a tent which will convey impurity from one thing underneath it to another (we learned a lot about this in Ohalot). The Samaritans evidently don't follow these rules. Therefore, they are not believed to say that such and such a place is pure. A "bet ha-peras" is a place that used to be a graveyard but has been plowed over such that it is difficult to tell what it used to be. The Samaritans evidently are not concerned with the impurity of a "bet ha-peras" and therefore are not believed if they say that a certain place was not plowed over.
  This is the general rule: in any matter in which they are under suspicion they are not believed.  This is the general rule that underlies when a Samaritan is believed and when she/he is not. We should note what this implies about our trust of Samaritans. When Samaritans observe a certain law, we trust that they will tell us (rabbinic Jews) the truth about it. They won't just lie because they don't like us. However, they don't like the cases in which our laws disagree with their way of treating things. In those cases, we fear that they will intentionally lie to us so that we can't observe the system of purity as we understand it.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a woman who finds a bloodstain on her body or her clothing. Does she have to be concerned that it is menstrual blood and therefore she (and the cloak) is impure?
  If a woman observed a bloodstain on her body: If it was opposite her genital area she is unclean; But if it was not near the genital are she remains clean.  If she finds the stain on her body close to her genital region or opposite this area, it is likely to be menstrual and she is impure. If the stain is not near there, then she might still be impure, but it will depend on where it is found, as we shall see now.
  If it was on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, she is unclean.  This section explains what is also considered opposite her genital area. Her heels and the tips of her large toe are both opposite the genitals because she might sit cross-legged with her heels under her body.
  On her thigh or on her feet: If on the inner side, she is unclean; If on their outer side, she remains clean. And if on the front and back sides  she remains clean.  If on the inner sides of her feet or thighs, it is possible that the blood is menstrual. Therefore, she is impure. However, if it is on the outer sides or on the front or back, it can be assumed to be from elsewhere and she is clean.
  If she observed it on her garment: Below the belt, she is unclean, But if above the belt, she remains clean.  The rest of the mishnah is concerned with blood found on her garment. If it is below the belt, then it is possibly menstrual blood and she is unclean. But if above the belt, she is clean.
  If she observed it on the sleeve of her shirt: If it  can reach as low as her genital area, she is unclean, But if it cannot, she remains clean.  If the blood was on the sleeve, we are concerned that it is menstrual only if the sleeve can reach down past her waist.
  If she takes it off and covers herself with it in the night, she is unclean wherever the stain is found, since it can turn about.  If she uses the cloak as a covering at night, then no matter where the blood is found, she must be considered impure because at night the cloak won't stay in one place. Even if she only put it around her head, it is possible she tossed and turned and that it ended up near her groin.
  And the same law applies to a pallium.  The same rules apply to a Roman type of garment called a "pallium" or a "pallios" in other versions. This was a type of jacket.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  [A woman] may attribute [a bloodstain] to any [external] cause to which she can possibly attribute it.If [for instance] she had slaughtered a beast, a wild animal or a bird,Or if she was handling bloodstains or if she sat beside those who handled them.Or if she killed a louse, she may attribute the bloodstain to it. How large a stain may be attributed to a louse? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one up to the size  of a split bean; And even if she did not kill it.She may also attribute it to her son or to her husband.If she herself had a wound that could open again and bleed she may attribute it to it.Section one: If a woman sees a bloodstain on her body or on her cloak in a place where she must suspect that it could be menstrual blood but there is some external circumstance to which she could attribute it, she may attribute it to this source and remain pure. It is interesting that along with all of the stringencies the rabbis initiated when it comes to menstrual blood, they also instituted many leniencies, including those we see in this mishnah.Sections 2-3:  The mishnah now gives some examples of possible things she may have been doing that would allow her to attribute her bloodstain to another source.Section four: Here we can see just to what extent the rabbis ruled leniently. Even if all a woman is doing is killing lice, which probably don't usually bleed that much, she may attribute a stain up to the size of a split bean to a louse. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus disagrees with the first opinion and holds that even if she is not the one killing them, she may attribute the bloodstain to the blood of the louse.Section five: She can also attribute the stain to her husband or son for instance if they slaughtered an animal or did something else connected to blood.Section six: Finally, she can also attribute the blood to her own wound, even if it was already scabbed over. As long as it is possible for the wound to open and bleed she can attribute her bloodstain to a wound. Note that this is so even if it doesn't look like the blood came from that wound.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  In this remarkable mishnah, Rabbi Akiva demonstrates just how lenient he can be in matters of doubtful impurity.
  It happened that a woman came in front of Rabbi Akiva and said. She said to him: I have seen a bloodstain. He said to her: Perhaps you had a wound? She said to him: Yes, but it has healed. He said to her: Perhaps it could have opened again and let out some blood." She said to him: Yes. And Rabbi Akiva declared her clean.  In this story a woman comes in front of Rabbi Akiva, presumably to ask him if the blood that she found somewhere on her body or clothing would make her into a menstruant. Rabbi Akiva searches for a reason to be lenient and finds one she had a wound and it might have opened (see yesterday's mishnah). He then rules that she is clean. This story is typical of Rabbi Akiva's lenient approach to halakhah he wishes to make halakhah lenient so that the woman can prevent being considered unclean.
  He saw his disciples looked at each other in astonishment. He said to them: Why do you find this difficult, for the sages did not say this rule in order to be stringent but rather to be lenient, for it is said, "And if a woman have issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood" blood but not a bloodstain.  Interestingly, his students are astonished by this approach. Instead of searching for a leniency, they feel that Rabbi Akiva should have ruled strictly. Indeed, it is not that likely that the blood came from a wound that had already healed. Rabbi Akiva responds to them that from the Torah, only an actual blood flow can make a woman impure. The fact that a blood stain counts as a sign of impurity is a ruling of the rabbis. In such a case, we can, and indeed should be, lenient. The blood stain is a sign of impurity only if it is certain that it is menstrual blood.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A testing rag that was placed under a pillow and some blood was found: If it is round it is clean If it is elongated it is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok. The testing rag is what a woman uses after sexual intercourse to see if she was menstruating. The woman placed it under her pillow so she could look at it in the morning. According to Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok, if she finds on it a round blood stain, then she can assume that it came from a louse and she is pure. However, if she finds an elongated blood stain then it was likely to be from when she checked herself and she is impure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  A woman who was attending to her needs and observed an issue of blood: Rabbi Meir says: if she was standing she is unclean but if she was sitting she remains clean. Rabbi Yose says: in either case she is clean. A woman is urinating and sees blood while urinating. Rabbi Meir says that if she is standing it is possible that the blood is a result of forceful urinating. According to Rabbi Meir, when a woman urinates while standing she must make an extra effort, and that effort might cause her to bleed. Rabbi Yose says that in both cases we can assume that the blood comes from some sort of wound and that it is not menstrual.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A man and a woman did their needs in the same bowl and blood was found on the water:Rabbi Yose says it is clean,Rabbi Shimon says that it was unclean, since it is not usual for a man to discharge blood, but nevertheless the presumption is that blood is from the woman.A man and woman both urinated into the same chamber pot, and it is unclear whether the blood was from the woman or the man. Rabbi Yose, remaining consistent with his opinion from yesterday's mishnah, says that the woman is clean. After all, even if we know the blood is from her, Rabbi Yose considers her clean.Rabbi Shimon says that it is extremely unusual for a man to discharge blood while urinating. While it may be unusual for a woman to do so, we nevertheless must presume that it is her blood and therefore it is unclean.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If she lent her shirt to a non-Jewish woman or to a menstruant she may attribute a stain to either.  A woman didn't check her shirt for stains before she lent it out to another woman. She then got it back with a blood stain on it (yeah, bad manners, but that is not the issue in this mishnah).  Alternatively, she did check it before she lent it out, but when she got it back she wore it for a while without checking it. In both cases, she doesn't know if the stain is from her or from the other woman. The mishnah rules that if the woman was non-Jewish or a menstruant who are both considered impure, then she can assume that the stain is from them. It seems that the mishnah is saying that they won't be so particular about a blood stain found on a shirt. However, if the shirt was loaned out to a pure Jewish woman, the lender can't assume that the stain was from the borrower because the borrower would be assumed to be clean and would be cautious about such matters.
  If three women had worn the same shirt or had sat on the same wooden bench and subsequently blood was found on it, all are regarded as unclean.  In this case, there is no reason to attribute the blood stain to any one woman more than to another and therefore they all must be considered unclean.
  If they had sat on a stone bench or on the projection within the colonnade of a bath House: Rabbi Nehemiah says that they are clean, for Rabbi Nehemiah says: anything that is not susceptible to uncleanness is not susceptible to stains.  Stone objects are not susceptible to impurity. The projection from the colonnade is probably not made of stone but since it is attached to the ground, it too cannot become impure because any object attached to the ground cannot become impure. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, the rabbis decided that stains are a sign of impurity only if they appear on other things that are susceptible to impurity. If they appear on objects that are not susceptible, then the woman remains pure. Note that this again seems to be an intentional leniency designed to allow a greater percentage of women to remain pure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Three women who were sleeping in one bed and blood was found under one of them, they are all unclean.  This is similar to yesterday's mishnah. Since we do not know whom the discharge is from, we must consider all of them to be impure.
  If one of them examined herself and was found to be unclean, she alone is unclean while the two others are clean, [for] they may attribute the blood to one another.  If one of the three examined herself and found that she was menstruating, the other women can consider themselves to be pure. Similarly, if one of the women was the type of womn not considered likely to menstruate, a young woman, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman or an old woman (see 1:3) then she can attribute the blood to the other women. They will be impure and she will be pure.
  And if they were [all] not likely to observe blood, they must be regarded as though they were likely to observe one.  If all three women were of the category of women who are unlikely to menstruate, then obviously we must attribute the blood to one of them. Since there is no reason to attribute it to one any more than the other, all three must be considered impure, as is the case in section one.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Most of this rather long mishnah is a more complicated version of yesterday's mishnah, concerning three women who were sleeping in one bed and a stain was found under one of them.
  If three women slept in one bed, and blood was found under the middle one, they are all unclean. If it was found under the inner one, the two inner ones are unclean while the outer one is clean. If it was found under the outer one, the two outer ones are unclean while the inner one is clean.  The bed is up against the wall and there are three women sleeping in the bed. The simple principle is that the woman under whom the stain was found and the women sleeping right next to her are impure.  The idea seems to be that the women might shift a bit at night, but not so much that they could get all the way to the position of a woman two over. We should note that this mishnah seems to disagree with mishnah four, for mishnah four stated that if the blood was found under any one of them, they are all impure.
  Rabbi Judah said: when is this so?  When they passed by way of the foot of the bed, but if they passed across it, they are all unclean.  Rabbi Judah points out that this is true only if the women got into the bed from the feet of the bed. However, if they crossed over each other from the outside part of the bed, then all are impure because the blood flow could have occurred while they were entering the bed. Rabbi Judah could attribute yesterday's mishnah to a case where they were crossing over each other to get into bed.
  If one of them examined herself and was found clean, she remains clean while the two others are unclean. If two examined themselves and were found to be clean they remain clean while the third is unclean. If the three examined themselves and were found to be clean, they are all unclean.  This is similar to yesterday's mishnah.
  To what may this be compared? To an unclean heap that was mixed up with two clean heaps: If they examined one of them and found it to be clean, it is clean while the two others are unclean; If they examined two of the heaps and found them to be clean, they are clean while the third one is unclean; And if they examined the three and they were all found to be clean, they are all unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir,  The mishnah analogizes the previous scenario with a case in which there are three heaps of stones and we know that under one of them is a piece of corpse but we don't know under which. According to Rabbi Meir if they examine all three heaps and don't find the piece of corpse under any of them, they are all impure. Even though the source was never found, since we know it is there, they are all impure.
  For Rabbi Meir used to say: any object that is presumed to be unclean remains unclean until it is known to you where the uncleanness is. But the sages say: one continues the examination of the heap until one reaches bedrock or virgin soil.  This accords with Rabbi Meir's general principle of impurity. Once something is under the presumption of impurity, it stays impure until we are sure where the source of uncleanness is. However, the rabbis say that in situations such as the heaps where the source of impurity has not been found, we can assume it is gone and all of the heaps are pure. However, in the case of the women, one of them is certainly the source of the blood and they are all still here in front of us. Therefore, they are all impure.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  The next two mishnayot deal with substances that could be used to remove stains, but not bloodstains, from garments.
  Seven substances should be applied to a stain: tasteless spittle, the liquid of crushed beans, urine, lye, soapwort, cimolian earth, and potash.  These seven substances are considered to be some form of ancient detergent. They are strong enough to remove a bloodstain, but not strong enough to remove dye.
  If one immersed it and then handled clean things on it, and then applied to it the seven substances and the stain did not fade away it must be a dye, and the clean things remain clean and there is no need to immerse it again.  A woman had a garment with a stain on it and then immersed it to make it clean. Then she handled clean objects and only after that she decided she better test the object to see if the stain was blood or dye. If she applied all seven substances to the stain and it remained, then it is clearly dye. The impure things that she touched remain pure and she need not immerse the garment again.
  If the stain faded away or grew fainter, it must be a bloodstain and the clean things are unclean and it is necessary to perform immersion again.  However, if the stain faded or disappeared due to the application of the seven substances, then it is to be considered blood. The pure things she handled are considered impure and she must immerse the garment again.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah relates to the seven substances used as detergents to remove stains from clothing.
  What is meant by tasteless spittle? From one who had eaten nothing [that day].  The "tasteless spittle" refers to the saliva excreted by a person who had not yet eaten that day.
  The liquid of crushed beans? The chewing of split beans, ready to be swallowed.  The "liquid of crushed beans" refers to beans that have been very well chewed in a person's mouth, so chewed up that the person is ready to swallow them.
  Urine? That has fermented.  According to the Tosefta, it takes three days for urine to ferment. Ymm!
  One must scour the stain three times with each of the substances. If he applied them out of the prescribed order, or if he applied the seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing.  Each of the substances must be applied to the garment three times in the order of the appearance of the substance on the list. If they are not applied three times in the correct order then the stain must be considered blood, even if it didn't disappear.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow.And these are the signs of a regular period: [if the woman] yawns, sneezes, feels pain at the top of   her stomach or the bottom of her bowels, discharges mucus, or is seized by a kind of shivering, or any other similar symptoms.Any woman who established for herself [one of the symptoms] three times behold this is a regular period.The next three mishnayot return to the subject of a woman who has a regular menstrual period. To recall from the first chapter, if a woman is able to establish a regular period, then she does not retroactively defile the things she touches.Section one: This section is found in 1:1. As I explained there, if a woman has a regular cycle, she defiles things only from the time in which she discovered that she was menstruating.Sections two and three: In addition to a period that comes at a fixed time period, there are other signs that if followed by menstruation would allow a woman to establish a regular period. In other words, if a woman experiences one of these symptoms and then begins to menstruate closely thereafter, and this occurs three times (see section three) then she can use this sign to establish her cycle. The third time she yawns, for instance, and then has her period close thereafter, she will be able to reckon her uncleanness from the time she discovered the flow. She will not retroactively defile things that she touched during the last twenty-four hour period or the since the last time that she examined herself.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  If a woman usually observed her menstrual discharge at the onset of the symptoms of her regular periods, all clean things that she handled while the symptoms were in progress are unclean. But if she regularly observed them at the end of the symptoms, all clean things that she handled while the symptoms lasted remain clean.  The symptoms mentioned in yesterday's mishnah can last for a while. Our mishnah questions the purity status of the pure things she handled while the symptoms were occurring but before she saw blood flow. If usually she sees blood flow at the onset of these symptoms, then we must assume that the same thing occurred in this case. The things she touched while she experienced these symptoms are impure. But if she usually sees blood only at the end of her experience of these symptoms, then the things she touched while experiencing the symptoms remain pure.
  Rabbi Yose says: even days and hours may determine regular periods: if she regularly observed blood flow at sunrise she is forbidden intercourse at sunrise only.  If a woman has established a pattern of only seeing blood at certain times or on certain days, then those too can be used to keep anything she touched earlier pure and to allow sexual relations before this time period. For instance, if she usually begins to menstruate at sunrise and not before, then it becomes forbidden to have relations only at sunrise on the day that she expects to see blood flow. In other words, if they're up for a little early morning love, then they have the rabbis' permission!
  Rabbi Judah says: all that day is hers.  Rabbi Judah disagrees with Rabbi Yose and holds that there is no such thing as a regular time period with regard to hours. If she expects to begin to menstruate on a particular day, she is forbidden to have relations that entire day.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  If a woman regularly observed [menstrual blood] on the fifteenth of the month, and then she changed and observed it on the twentieth both become prohibited. If she changed twice and observed it on the twentieth both [are still] prohibited.  If a woman regularly menstruates on the fifteenth, and then for one or two months doesn't menstruate on the fifteenth but rather on the twentieth, she is prohibited to have sexual relations on both the fifteenth and the twentieth. The fifteenth remains prohibited because that is the day of her regular cycle, and the twentieth is prohibited because we are concerned that that date has now become her regular cycle.
  If she changed it three times to observe it on the twentieth then the fifteenth becomes permitted and the twentieth is set [as her regular day], for a woman does not establish a regular cycle until she sets it three times, and she doesn't lose her regular cycle until she is free from it three times.  If she changes it three times, then she now has established a new menstrual cycle. She will now be prohibited from having relations only on the twentieth, but she will be permitted to have relations on the fifteenth. As the mishnah explains, it takes three times to establish a cycle and three times to undo the old cycle.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Women in regard to their virginity are like vines:One vine may have red wine, while another has black wine.One vine may yield much wine while another yields little.Rabbi Judah stated: every vine yields wine, and one that yields no wine is but a dorketi.This mishnah and the next mishnah (10:1) really refer back to 1:7 which teaches that blood of virginity is pure. Today's mishnah compares women to wine, that just as wine has different colors, so too does blood of virginity.Section one: The mishnah notes that the color of virginal blood and menstrual blood can be either red or black. Either can be pure, if we think it is virginal blood, and either could be impure, if we think it is menstrual blood.Section two: Similarly, some women bleed a lot, just like some vines yield a lot of wine. And some bleed little, just like some vines yield little wine.Section three: Rabbi Judah adds that vines that don't yield wine are "dorketi" which is a Greek word for barren. A woman who does not menstruate will not be able to have children.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction Today's mishnah continues to deal with the topic of distinguishing between virginal blood and menstrual blood the former is pure and the latter is impure. The specific issue in this mishnah is whether or not one can be sure that the blood that is seen on the wedding night is virginal blood or menstrual blood.
  If a young girl, whose age of menstruation has not arrived, married: Bet Shammai says: she is allowed four nights; And Bet Hillel says: until the wound is healed.  This section describes a girl who gets married before she is old enough to menstruate, meaning before puberty. While such marriages may have been discouraged and may have been rare, they could and probably did occur. According to Bet Shammai, for the first four nights after the wedding, one can assume that any blood is still virginal. The assumption is that virginal blood could last for four days, and therefore all of this blood is pure. If she continues to bleed after four days, we must assume that she has begun to menstruate. According to Bet Hillel until the wound that was caused by her first sexual intercourse heals, all blood is pure. In other words, Bet Hillel thinks that virginity blood can last even longer than four days.
  If the age of her menstruation has arrived and she married: Bet Shammai says: she is allowed the first night; And Bet Hillel says: four nights, until after Shabbat.  This girl has hit puberty but has not yet begun to menstruate. It is more likely, but not at all certain, that any blood she sees could be menstrual blood. Therefore, Bet Shammai says that only for one night do we say that the blood is virginal. If there is blood the second night, we must assume that it is menstrual. Bet Hillel says that we give her four nights. Since a virgin is married on Wednesday (see Ketubot 1:1) that means that through Saturday night the blood is considered virginal. After that, if she bleeds she will not be able to have relations.
  If she had observed blood while she was still in her father's house: Bet Shammai ruled: she is only allowed the obligatory marital intercourse, And Bet Hillel says: all that night.  If the girl has already begun to menstruate, then the possibility that the blood that is issued on her wedding night is menstrual is even greater. This is the rule that would govern any woman, assuming she marries after she begins to menstruate. Bet Shammai says that she is allowed to have intercourse one time, and that's it. The first blood is considered virginal but any blood after that is suspected of being menstrual. Bet Hillel says that the husband and wife can have intercourse as many times as they want that night. Any blood seen on the following night would be suspected of being menstrual blood.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If a menstruant examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself to be clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [from impurity], and after some days she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is in a presumptive state of cleanness.  This woman examines herself on the seventh day of her menstruation and sees that she has stopped bleeding. That night she can go to the mikveh and become pure. However, she doesn't check again that night to make sure that she is really not bleeding. Instead she just goes to the mikveh. Some days later she sees that she is menstruating again. The question is was she menstruating between the last examination and the day that she notices that she is menstruating? The ruling in this case is that we assume that she was pure during those intermediary days. Since she examined herself and found herself to be pure, there is no reason to assume that she wasn't. Any pure thing she might have touched in the meanwhile remains pure.
  If she examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was unclean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [impurity], and after a time she examined herself and found that she was clean, she is in a presumptive state of uncleanness.  In this case, she examines herself in the morning of the seventh and finds that she is still bleeding. She goes to the mikveh that night, simply assuming that she had stopped bleeding. Then a few days later she notices she is menstruating. Since she never saw that she wasn't bleeding, we have to assume that she was impure all along. Any pure thing she might have touched in the meanwhile is assumed to be impure.
  [But] she conveys uncleanness for twenty-four hours retrospectively or during the time between the last and the previous examination. But if she had a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow.  This section refers to section one. Although she is presumed to have been pure in the intermediary days, she still has the same rule that governs any other woman who finds herself to be impure (see 1:1). She retroactively defiles anything she touched within the last twenty-four hours, or since the last time she examined herself. If, however, she had a regular period and she saw that she was menstruating on the same day that she normally does, then she doesn’t defile anything retroactively.
  Rabbi Judah says: Any woman who did not ascertain her separation [from impurity] is regarded as being in a presumptive state of uncleanness. But the sages say: even if she examined herself on the second day of her menstruation and found that she was clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation, and after a time she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is regarded as being in a presumptive state of cleanness.  Rabbi Judah disagrees with section one. According to Rabbi Judah any woman who doesn't check herself right before she goes to the mikveh is considered to be impure. The other rabbis, however, are even more lenient. Even if she only examines herself as early as the second day and finds that she is not menstruating, and then goes to the mikveh after the seventh day, she is still considered pure. The assumption seems to be that if she saw the blood flow stop at some point during her period, it didn't start flowing again.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If a zav or a zavah examined themselves on the first day and found themselves clean and on the seventh day and found themselves clean, but did not examine themselves during the other intervening, days:  A zav or a zavah (people who have experienced unnatural genital discharge, i.e. not semen or menstrual blood) need to be free of discharge for seven days before they become pure. They are supposed to examine themselves every day. However, instead of checking themselves every day, they checked themselves only on the first and last day of their impurity.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: they are in a presumptive condition of cleanness.  Rabbi Eliezer rules the most leniently. Since they checked at the beginning and at the end of their impurity, they are assumed to be clean during the intermediary days.
  Rabbi Joshua says: they are entitled [to count as clean] only the first day and the seventh day.  Rabbi Joshua says that only the first and last days count as days of purity. They need to count five more pure days. This seems to be some sort of penalty because if they had truly been impure during the intermediary days, the first day would not have counted towards the seven.
  Rabbi Akiva says: they are entitled to reckon as clean the seventh day alone.  Rabbi Akiva says exactly this they can only count the last day because they may have been impure for all of the intermediary days. In other words, the fact that they were pure for the first day counts for nothing.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If a zav, a zavah, a niddah, a woman after childbirth or a metzora have died [their corpses] they convey uncleanness by being carried until the flesh has decayed.  When alive these categories of people defile while being carried, even without contact. This continues when they are dead, as long as the flesh has not yet decayed. In other words, it is the flesh that defiles, not the spirit or life force, and therefore as long as the flesh is still there, the body still defiles in the same way.
  If a non-Jew has died he does not convey uncleanness.  While alive, the impurity of a non-Jew is likened to that of a zav (see 4:3). However, this is just a stringency from Torah law a non-Jew does not defile at all. Therefore, when he/she dies, the body no longer defiles in the same way it did before.
  Bet Shammai says: all women die as niddot. But Bet Hillel says: a woman is not regarded as a niddah unless she died while she was in menstruation.  According to Bet Shammai, all women are presumed to have died while menstruating. This is a stringency, not a declaration of fact. This would mean that all women defile by carrying when they are dead until the flesh decays. Bet Hillel rules more leniently only women who actually died while niddot defile through carrying.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If a woman died and a quarter of a log of blood comes out of her, it   conveys uncleanness as a bloodstain and it also conveys uncleanness in a tent. Rabbi Judah says: it does not convey uncleanness as a stain, since it was detached after she had died.  If the blood came out of the woman while she had been alive, it would have counted as menstrual blood. It would defile by carrying and by contact, and it would not need to be a quarter of a log in order to defile. The blood of a dead body, on the other hand, doesn't defile by carrying but does defile if found in a tent (i.e. if it is overshadowed by something it defiles other things that are also overshadowed by the same thing). And it must be a quarter of a log in quantity to defile. The first opinion in the mishnah rules stringently this quarter of a log of blood defiles as if it was menstrual blood and it defiles as if it came from a dead body. Rabbi Judah disagrees this blood is not considered menstrual because it left the body after death. It will only defile in a tent or by contact, and there needs to be 1/4 of a log.
  Rabbi Judah agrees that when a woman was sitting on the birthing stool and died and a quarter of a log of blood issued from her, it conveys uncleanness as a bloodstain. Rabbi Yose says: therefore it does not convey uncleanness in a tent.  However, Rabbi Judah agrees that if a woman is about to die and at that very moment blood comes forth, this blood counts as menstrual, since it came out before she died. Rabbi Yose adds that since it is considered menstrual, it does not defile by overshadowing. Only blood from a dead body defiles in this manner
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah talks about the purity of a woman during the period where she is "dwelling in clean blood." Such a woman gave birth and went to the mikveh either 7 days after the birth of a boy or 14 days after the birth of a girl. For a boy, she now has pure blood for the following 33 days and for a girl for 66 days. During this period her purity status is like that of a "t'vul yom" a person who has been to the mikveh but has not yet had the sun set. Such a person has a secondary form of impurity.
  In earlier times they used to say: a woman who is dwelling in clean blood may pour out water for [washing] the pesah sacrifice.  Originally, they used to say that such a woman can pour water out of a vessel to wash off a pesah sacrifice. A person who has secondary impurity does not defile the vessel in which the water is held. She shouldn't touch the water itself, for the rabbis considered it disgraceful that the pesach sacrifice should be in contact with water touched by a t'vul yom. However, they didn't worry lest she touch the waters, because even if she did, non-sacred water cannot be defiled by a t'vul yom.
  They changed their minds and said: in respect of consecrated food she is like one who came in contact with a person that was subject to corpse uncleanness, this is according to the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: even as one who is subject to corpse uncleanness.  That was the original opinion. Afterwards, assumedly by the time of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai (1st century C.E.) they changed her status to be like a person who had contact with another person who had corpse impurity. Such a person has first degree impurity, and if she were to touch the water, she would defile it and the water would defile the pesah sacrifice. Bet Shammai rules even more strictly she is treated as if she herself touched a corpse. She would be a "father of impurity" and she would even defile the vessel she touches.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues to deal with the purity status of a woman following the one week or two weeks after childbirth.
  But they agree that she may eat second tithe.  Just as a tvul yom (see yesterday's mishnah) can eat second tithe, so too the woman who gave birth.
  And she may set aside her hallah, bring it near to the dough and call it by its name.  She will defile challah, the portion of bread separated and given to the priest. Therefore, we need to find a way for her to bake bread without defiling the challah. What she does is first separate the piece of dough that will be challah without yet calling it challah. It will not be defiled by her because it is not yet challah. She then puts the future challah in a vessel near the other dough because it is a mitzvah to take challah from adjacent dough. Then she can call it challah and no longer touch it.
  And if any of her spit or her pure blood fell on a loaf of terumah it remains clean.  Fluid that comes out of a tvul yom is pure. Thus if the childbearing woman's spit or blood falls on a loaf of terumah, the terumah remains pure.
  Bet Shammai says: she requires immersion at the end [of her days of purification], Bet Hillel says: she does not require immersion at the end.  The two houses disagree whether a woman requires an additional immersion after the 33 or 66 days of "pure blood" that follow childbirth (she would have gone to the mikveh after 7 or 14 days). Bet Shammai seems to feel uncomfortable that a woman should go from a state of any level of impurity to a state of full purity without immersion in a mikveh. They also might hold that the main immersion of a childbearing woman comes at the end of the full period, and not the first part of it (7 days for a boy, 14 for a girl). Therefore, she requires another immersion. Bet Hillel seems to hold that since the Torah doesn't require her to go to a mikveh, she is not required.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  As background to this mishnah, we should remember that the rabbis count two periods in a woman's cycle: a seven day period in which blood she sees counts as menstrual which is followed by an 11 day period in which blood she sees counts as zivah, unnatural bloody discharge.
  If a woman observed a discharge on the eleventh day and immersed in the evening and then had marital intercourse: Bet Shammai say: they defile  a couch and a seat and they are liable to a sacrifice But Bet Hillel says: they are exempt from the sacrifice.  A woman observes a blood discharge on the eleventh day after her menstruation. This is still the period of "zivah" when she should observe a day of purity for each discharge. If she instead goes to the mikveh that night and then has intercourse, Bet Shammai says that both she and her husband defile as do men and women who had relations while she was a zavah. This means they defile things they sit or lay on, even if they don't directly have contact. Bet Hillel says that they are exempt from a sacrifice, although they do defile, at least derabanan (rabbinically). The reason is that the eleventh day cannot be counted as part of  a three day period of zivah, the amount necessary for her to become a "zavah gedolah." For if she had discharge on the 11th, 12th and 13th day, she would not become a zavah gedolah (who is impure for seven days and has to bring a sacrifice) because the latter two days are part of the days of niddah, in the next cycle. Bet Hillel says that she shouldn't bring a sacrifice, because it is forbidden to bring non-sacrificial animals into the Temple. However, they still defile, because this is something she should not have been doing.
  If she immersed on the next day and then had marital intercourse and after that observed a discharge: Bet Shammai say: they convey uncleanness5 to couch and seat6 and are exempt from the sacrifice, But Bet Hillel says: such a person is a glutton.  This woman didn't observe a full day of purity because she immersed during the day and not at night as she should have. Bet Shammai says that since she observed part of the day, she and her husband do not need to bring a sacrifice. However, they still defile, at least according to rabbinic law. Bet Hillel clearly condemns this behavior she is gluttonous, for she put her desire for sex over the laws of purity. However, they don't defile because she did go to the mivkveh before having relations.
  They agree that if a woman observed a discharge during the eleven days and immersed in the evening and then had intercourse that both (she and defile couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice.  Bet Hillel agrees that if she sees a blood discharge during the eleven days and then goes straight to the mikveh instead of observing one day, that the mikveh does not cleanse her. She and her husband defile and must bring a sin-offering to atone for their transgression.
  If she immersed on the next day and then had intercourse, such an act is improper conduct, but the uncleanness of their contact and their liability to a sacrifice on account of their intercourse are in suspense.  This woman saw a discharge during the eleven days and then went to the mivkeh the next day. If she doesn't see blood again, then it will turn out that although what she did was wrong, she and her husband don't defile and are not liable for a sacrifice. However, if she sees blood again the next night, they will defile and be liable for a sacrifice, for she would be considered a zavah. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Niddah! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Niddah was not an easy journey, I'll admit. A lot of discussion about private matters in a very graphic way. If there's one larger point I would like to make it is that in biblical and temple times the impurity of a niddah was just one of many forms of impurity, one part of a much larger system. Today, this is virtually the only part of the system that remains (because of the sex prohibition), and it might seem at time that women are being targeted for being women. I don't believe that this is the case and when one learns all of Seder Toharot, and if you've been following along, you're not very far from being one of those people, one can see that impurity occurs in many different ways. That's my two cents. In any case, as always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Makhshirin.