Niddah

R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Zera: What is the ruling  where a woman observed a flow and immediately after her pregnancy was discerned? Is she retrospectively unclean because her pregnancy was not known at the time she observed the flow or is she not retrospectively unclean since she observed it immediately before she became aware of her pregnancy? — The other replied: The sole reason  is that she  feels a heaviness in her head and limbs  but  at the time she observed the flow she felt no heaviness either in her head or in her limbs. A certain old man asked R. Johanan: 'What is the ruling if, when the time of her fixed period had come during the days of her pregnancy and she did not examine herself? I am raising this question on the view of the authority who laid down [that a woman's duty to hold an examination on the arrival of her] fixed periods is an ordinance of the Torah.  What is the ruling [I ask]? Must she  examine herself since [the duty of holding an examination on the arrival of] the fixed periods is an ordinance of the Torah  or is it possible that since  her menstrual blood is suspended,  she requires no examination'?  — The other  replied, You have learnt it: R. Meir ruled, If a woman was in a hiding-place  when the time of her fixed period arrived and she did not examine herself she is nevertheless clean because fear suspends the menstrual flow.  Now the reason is  that there was fear, but if there had been no fear and the time of her fixed period had arrived and she did not examine herself she would have been deemed unclean. It is thus clear  [that a woman's duty to examine herself at the time of the arrival of her] fixed periods is an ordinance of the Torah and that, nevertheless, since there was fear, her menstrual blood is deemed to be suspended and she requires no exemption; so also here,  since her menstrual blood is suspended she requires no examination. 'A NURSING WOMAN'? A WOMAN BEFORE SHE HAS WEANED etc. Our Rabbis taught: A nursing mother whose child died within twenty-four months  is in exactly the same position as all other women  and causes retrospective uncleanness for a period of twenty-four hours or from the previous to the last examination. If, therefore,  she continued to suck it for four or five years it suffices for her to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she has observed the flow; so R. Meir. R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simeon ruled: Only during the twenty-four months  does it suffice for women to reckon their uncleanness from the time they have observed a flow.  Therefore,  even if she suckled it for four or five years she causes uncleanness retrospectively for twenty-four hours or from the previous to the last examination.  Now if you will carefully consider [the views just expressed] you will find that  according to the view of R. Meir the menstrual blood is decomposed and turns into milk while according to the view of R. Jose, R. Judah and R. Simeon the woman's limbs  are disjointed and her natural vigour  does not return before the lapse of twenty-four months. Why the necessity for the 'therefore'  of R. Meir?  — On account of the 'therefore'  of R. Jose. But why the necessity for the 'therefore' of R. Jose?  — It might have been assumed that R. Jose maintains that  there are two [causes];  hence we were informed  [that he upholds the one cause only].  So it was also taught: The menstrual blood  is decomposed and turns into milk; so R. Meir. R. Jose stated: Her limbs  are disjointed and her natural strength does not return before twenty-four months.  R. Elai explained: What is R. Meir's reason?  That it is written, Who can bring a clean thing  from out of an unclean?  Is it not the Only One?  And the Rabbis?  — R. Johanan replied: The reference  is to semen which is unclean, while the man who is created from it is clean; and R. Eleazar replied: The reference  is to the water of sprinkling  in the case of which the man who sprinkles it as well as the man upon whom it is sprinkled is clean while he who touches it is unclean. But is the man who sprinkles it clean? Is it not in fact written, And he that sprinkleth the water of sprinkling shall wash his clothes?  — What is meant by 'He that sprinkleth'? He that touches it. But is it not actually written, 'He that sprinkleth'  and also 'He that toucheth'?  Furthermore, is not 'He that sprinkleth' required to wash his clothes  while 'He that toucheth' is not required to do so?  — Rather say: What is meant by 'He that sprinkleth'? He that carries.  Then why was it not written, 'He that carries'? — We were informed  that uncleanness is not contracted unless one carried the minimum quantity prescribed for sprinkling. This is a satisfactory explanation according to him who holds  that sprinkling must be performed with a prescribed minimum of the water.  What, however, can be said according to him who holds that no prescribed minimum is required?  — Even according to him who holds that no prescribed quantity is required the ruling refers only to the quantity applied to the body of the man but as regards that which is in the vessel a prescribed quantity is required; as we have learnt: What must be the quantity of water  that it shall suffice for a sprinkling? As much as suffices for both the dipping therein of the tops of the stalks and for the sprinkling.  It is, in fact, in view of such laws  that Solomon observed, I said: 'I will get wisdom'; but it was far from me. WHO IS REGARDED 'AN OLD WOMAN'? ANY WOMAN OVER WHOM THREE ONAHS HAVE PASSED NEAR THE TIME OF HER OLD AGE. What is to be understood by NEAR THE TIME OF HER OLD AGE? — Rab Judah replied: The age when her women friends speak of her as an old woman; and R. Simeon  replied: