דף 9

as with regard to blood emitted while experiencing labor pain close to the time of a proper birth, the Merciful One deems it pure, and it should not be treated as the blood of a zava. Rav Pappi says: The miscarriage is not considered a proper birth and therefore her blood is considered the blood of a zava. And leave aside the first baraita and do not raise a contradiction from it, as the halakha that a woman who sees menstrual blood is retroactively impure for a twenty-four-hour period, which is the topic under discussion in that baraita, applies by rabbinic law, and they did not impose this stringency in the case of a woman who miscarries.

Rav Pappa says: That reason for the halakha that a pregnant woman is not retroactively impure when she experiences bleeding is only because her head and limbs feel heavy to her. Her physical state is compromised, which also causes her regular menstrual cycle to cease. Here, too, in the case of a pregnancy that precedes a miscarriage, even if it is not considered a proper birth, her head and limbs felt heavy to her during her pregnancy, and therefore it can be assumed that she did not experience a prior menstrual flow.

With regard to the mishna’s ruling that the time of a pregnant woman is sufficient, Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: If she saw blood and only afterward her fetus became known to all who see her, what is the halakha? One can claim that since at the time when she saw the blood her fetus was not yet known, therefore she becomes impure; or perhaps, since she saw blood in close proximity to the time that her fetus became known, she does not become impure.

Rabbi Zeira said to him: That reason for the halakha that a pregnant woman’s time is sufficient is only because her head and limbs feel heavy to her. In this case, where she was yet unaware of her pregnancy at the time when she saw her menstrual flow, neither her head nor her limbs felt heavy to her. Therefore she is impure retroactively, like any other woman.

§ A certain elder asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: If the time of a woman’s fixed menstrual cycle arrived during her pregnancy and she did not perform an examination, what is the halakha? I raise this dilemma only according to the opinion of the one who said that the obligation for a woman to perform a self-examination during her fixed menstrual cycle applies by Torah law. What is the halakha? According to that opinion, one can claim that since the obligation of an examination during one’s fixed menstrual cycle is by Torah law, she is required to perform an examination even during her pregnancy. Or perhaps, since her blood has stopped, as a pregnant woman generally does not experience a flow of menstrual blood, she is not required to perform an examination.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: You learned the answer to your dilemma from a mishna (39a): Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding from danger, and the time of her fixed menstrual cycle came and she did not examine herself, nevertheless she is ritually pure, as it may be assumed that she did not experience bleeding because fear dispels the flow of menstrual blood. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains the proof: The reason she is pure is that there is fear, from which it may be inferred that in a case where there is no fear and the time of her fixed menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she would be impure.

Rabbi Yoḥanan concludes: Evidently, from the fact that Rabbi Meir rules that a woman is impure if the time of her period passed without a proper examination, he maintains that the obligation for a woman to perform an examination at the time of her fixed menstrual cycle applies by Torah law. And, nevertheless, since there is fear, her blood has stopped and she is not required to perform an examination. Here, too, in the case of a pregnant woman, her blood has stopped and therefore she is not required to perform an examination.

§ The mishna teaches: The time of a nursing woman is sufficient until she weans her child from nursing. The Sages taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 2:1): With regard to a nursing woman whose child dies within twenty-four months of his birth, she is like all other women with regard to her impurity status after seeing menstrual blood, and therefore she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination. Therefore, if a woman continued to nurse her child for four or five years, her time is sufficient and she does not retroactively transmit impurity for the entire four or five years. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon all say: With regard to nursing women, their time is sufficient for an entire twenty-four months. Therefore, if she nursed him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

The Gemara discusses the reasoning of each opinion: When you analyze the matter you will find that one must say that according to the statement of Rabbi Meir the case is that menstrual blood spoils and becomes milk. Therefore, it follows that this status continues for as long as she is nursing. By contrast, according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, her limbs become dislocated and her spirit, i.e., her full strength and her regular menstrual cycle, does not return to her until twenty-four months have passed.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the statement of Rabbi Meir: Therefore, if a woman continued to nurse her child for four or five years, her time is sufficient? Since his reasoning is that the menstrual blood of a nursing woman spoils and becomes milk, it is obvious that this applies as long as she continues to nurse him. The Gemara answers: This statement is indeed extraneous. It merely serves to form a parallel between the statement of Rabbi Meir and that of the other Sages. In other words, it was appended due to the statement: Therefore, if she was nursing him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, which is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

The Gemara further asks: And why do I need the statement: Therefore, if she was nursing him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, which is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? The Gemara explains that this clause is necessary, lest you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that there are two reasons that a pregnant woman’s time is sufficient, both because her blood spoils and because her limbs become dislocated. Therefore, the additional clause teaches us that Rabbi Yosei maintains that the reason is only that her limbs become dislocated, and consequently she transmits retroactive impurity after twenty-four months.

That explanation is also taught in a baraita: Menstrual blood spoils and becomes milk; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: Her limbs become dislocated and her spirit does not return to her until twenty-four months have passed. The Gemara analyzes their respective reasons. Rabbi Ilai says: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? It is based upon a verse, as it is written: “Who can bring a pure thing out of an impure? Is it not the One?” (Job 14:4). In other words, is it not true that the One, i.e., God, can bring a pure thing, such as milk, out of an impure thing, such as menstrual blood?

The Gemara asks: And the other Sages, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, how do they interpret this verse? Rabbi Yoḥanan says that according to those Sages this verse is referring to semen, which is impure, and yet the person that is formed from it is pure.

And Rabbi Elazar says: Those Sages maintain that this verse is referring to the water of sprinkling, i.e., the purification water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer. As the individual who sprinkles the water and the one upon whom the water is sprinkled are both pure, and yet one who touches the purification water is rendered impure. The Gemara asks: Is the one who sprinkles the water actually pure? But isn’t it written: “He who sprinkles the water of sprinkling will wash his clothes, and he who touches the water of sprinkling will be impure until evening” (Numbers 19:21)? The Gemara responds: What is the meaning of the term: “He who sprinkles”? It means: He who touches.

The Gemara asks: But it is written: “He who sprinkles,” and it is written in the same verse: “And he who touches.” How can these two terms be referring to the same individual? And furthermore, that verse states that one who sprinkles requires the washing of his clothes, indicating a severe level of impurity, whereas one who touches does not require the washing of his clothes. Evidently, the phrase “he who sprinkles” is not referring to one who touches. Rather, the Gemara explains: What is the meaning of: “He who sprinkles”? This is referring to one who carries the purification waters.

The Gemara asks: But if so, let the Torah write explicitly: One who carries. Why does it state “he who sprinkles” when it is referring to carrying? The Gemara answers: The use of the term sprinkling in reference to carrying teaches us that one becomes impure only by carrying the measure required for sprinkling. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that sprinkling requires a minimum measure of water. But according to the one who said that sprinkling does not require a minimum measure of water, what can be said? According to this opinion, there is apparently no concept of a measure required for sprinkling.

The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who said that sprinkling does not require a minimum measure of water, that statement applies only to the measure of purification water that must be sprinkled onto the back, i.e., onto the body, of the impure man. In this regard, any amount will suffice. But with regard to the vessel into which one dips the hyssop in order to sprinkle the water, it requires a certain measure of water. As we learned in a mishna (Para 12:5): How much water must be in the vessel so that it will be enough for sprinkling? It must be enough to dip the tops of the stems of the hyssop branch, used in the rite of purification, into the water and sprinkle it.

The Gemara concludes the discussion of the purification waters with the following observation: And that is the meaning of that which King Solomon said: “I said I would become wise, but it eludes me” (Ecclesiastes 7:23). According to tradition, even Solomon in his great wisdom could not understand the contradictory nature of the sprinkling of purification water, as it renders an impure person pure, and a pure person impure.

§ The mishna teaches: Who is the woman characterized as an elderly woman in this context? It is any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed at a stage of her life close to her old age, during which she saw no menstrual blood. The Gemara asks: What is considered close to old age? Rav Yehuda says: Any woman about whom her friends say that she is an elderly woman. And Rabbi Shimon says: