In what ways are the laws different for a girl who hasn’t yet reached an age where girls generally menstruate and yet she has seen blood?
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Niddah 10
הֲדַר קָחָזְיָא בְּעוֹנוֹת, מַאי? אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, שְׁלִישִׁית — מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה.
The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if she then sees menstrual blood at regular intervals of thirty-day cycles? Is her time sufficient, or does she transmit impurity retroactively? Rav Giddel says that Rav says: With regard to the first time and the second time that she sees menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. After the third time, she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.
וְעוֹד עָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת, וְרָאֲתָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. הֲדַר קָחָזְיָא בְּעוֹנוֹת, מַאי?
The baraita further teaches, with regard to a young girl who did not experience bleeding for three typical cycles and then saw blood, and three further expected menstrual cycles passed without her experiencing bleeding and then afterward she saw menstrual blood, that her time is sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if she then sees menstrual blood at regular intervals of thirty-day cycles?
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, שְׁנִיָּה — מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה.
The Gemara answers: Rav Kahana says that Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The first time that she sees menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. After the second time, she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.
מַנִּי? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: בִּתְרֵי זִימְנֵי הָוֵי חֲזָקָה.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the baraita? The Gemara answers: Since the baraita teaches that she attains the status of a regular adult woman upon the third sighting of menstrual blood, apparently it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that presumption is established by two occasions.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת וְרָאֲתָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say the latter clause: If she then passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, and then she saw menstrual blood, she returns to the status of a young girl and her time is sufficient. In this ruling we come to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that any woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating and her time is sufficient. Is the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or Rabbi Eliezer?
וְכִי תֵימָא רַבִּי הִיא, וּבְעוֹנוֹת סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וּמִי סָבַר לַהּ? וְהָא לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר קָאָמַר! אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, וּבִוְסָתוֹת סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי.
And if you would say that the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and in the case of a woman who passes three menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but does he really hold in accordance with this opinion? Doesn’t the baraita state that after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that several authorities disagreed with the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer, he said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances, i.e., only in exigent circumstances. The Gemara concludes: Rather, the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Eliezer, and with regard to menstrual cycles he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that a presumptive cycle is established after two occasions of seeing menstrual blood.
כֶּתֶם שֶׁבֵּין רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה — טָהוֹר, שֶׁבֵּין שְׁנִיָּה וּשְׁלִישִׁית — חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: טָמֵא, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: טָהוֹר. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: טָמֵא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ חָזְיָא מְטַמְּאָה — כִּתְמַהּ נָמֵי טָמֵא, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: טָהוֹר, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אִתַּחְזַקָה בְּדָם — כִּתְמַהּ נָמֵי לָא מְטַמֵּינַן לַהּ.
§ With regard to a young girl who was just starting to menstruate, the Gemara states: If she finds a blood stain between the first and second time that she sees menstrual blood, she is pure. If it is between the second and the third time, Ḥizkiyya says: She is impure; Rabbi Yoḥanan says: She is pure. The Gemara explains the reasoning behind their respective opinions. Ḥizkiyya says: She is impure, since if she had seen menstrual blood it would render her impure. Consequently, her blood stain is also impure. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: She is pure, since she has not yet attained the presumptive status of one who sees menstrual blood. Therefore, we also do not render her impure on account of her blood stain.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: וְכִי מָה בֵּין זוֹ לִבְתוּלָה שֶׁדָּמֶיהָ טְהוֹרִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: זוֹ שִׂירְפָהּ מָצוּי וְזוֹ אֵין שִׂירְפָהּ מָצוּי.
Rabbi Ilai objects to this ruling of Ḥizkiyya: And what is the difference between this case of a girl who has not yet started menstruating and a recently married menstrual virgin whose stain is deemed pure for as long as her blood is pure, since the stain is presumed to be from her torn hymen? Rabbi Zeira said to him: With regard to this menstrual virgin, her secretion [sirfah] is common, i.e., blood from her torn hymen is normally found during this period. Therefore, any blood stain that is found is also assumed to be from her hymen. But in the case of this young girl, her secretion is not common. Therefore, if a blood stain is found, it is assumed to be menstrual blood.
אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת, וְרָאֲתָה פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה — רוּקָּהּ וּמִדְרָסָהּ בַּשּׁוּק טָהוֹר, כִּתְמָהּ נָמֵי טָהוֹר. וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִם דִּידֵיהּ, אִם דְּרַבֵּיהּ.
§ Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: With regard to a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived and she saw menstrual blood one time and then a second time, but not the third time that would render her a woman who regularly sees menstrual blood, her saliva and her garment that she treads upon that are found in the marketplace are pure if we do not know whether she has menstruated. Likewise, her blood stain is also pure. Ulla added: And I do not know if this ruling with regard to the stain is merely Rabbi Yoḥanan’s own conclusion or if that is also part of the opinion of his teacher.
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינָּה? לְמִיהְוֵי דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם.
The Gemara asks: What difference is there? That is, what does it matter who said it? The Gemara explains: It makes a difference for it to be considered the statement of one Sage in the place of two dissenting opinions. As stated above, Ḥizkiyya disagrees with this ruling and maintains that a young girl’s blood stain is impure after she sees menstrual blood twice. If this statement is both Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak’s opinion and that of Rabbi Yoḥanan, then Ḥizkiyya’s ruling is opposed by two Sages, which means that his is a minority opinion. If it is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion alone, then the two sides are equal, with one Sage maintaining each opinion.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין וְכֹל נָחוֹתֵי יַמָּא, אַמְרוּהָ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק.
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia along with all the seafarers [naḥotei yamma], they stated this ruling as the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak. If so, Rabbi Yoḥanan was relating his own opinion, which echoed that of his teacher, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, and therefore the halakha is in accordance with this majority opinion.
אֲמַר רַב חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבֵי: תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹפַעַת כׇּל שִׁבְעָה — אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא רְאָיָה אַחַת. אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹפַעַת, וְלָא מִבַּעְיָא פּוֹסֶקֶת? אַדְּרַבָּה, פּוֹסֶקֶת הָוְיָא לַהּ כִּשְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת!
§ Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi says: With regard to a young girl whose time to see menstrual blood has not arrived, even if she continuously discharges menstrual blood for all seven days of a typical menstrual period, it is considered as only one sighting of blood and she remains in the category of one who lacks blood until she sees menstrual blood twice more. The Gemara asks: Why did Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi stress: Even if she continuously discharges menstrual blood, which indicates that it is not necessary to teach that this is the halakha if she stops seeing a discharge and then starts again? On the contrary, if she stops and restarts it is as though she has had two sightings of menstrual blood.
אֶלָּא, תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת, וְשׁוֹפַעַת כׇּל שִׁבְעָה — אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא רְאָיָה אַחַת.
The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi meant: With regard to a young girl whose time to see menstrual blood has not arrived, and she then continuously discharges menstrual blood for all seven days of a typical menstrual period, it is considered as only one sighting of blood. In other words, he did not state the word: Even.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא: מַדְלֶפֶת אֵינָהּ כְּרוֹאָה, וְהָא קָחָזְיָא! אֵימָא: אֵינָהּ כְּשׁוֹפַעַת, אֶלָּא כְּפוֹסֶקֶת.
Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: The case of woman who constantly drips menstrual blood is not considered like a full sighting of blood. The Gemara expresses surprise at this claim: But she saw blood. The Gemara answers: Say that what Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya meant was that she is not considered like one who continuously discharges blood, but rather like one who stops and starts again, even if she drips constantly.
מִכְּלָל דְּשׁוֹפַעַת (נָמֵי) כִּי נַהֲרָא? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא כְּשׁוֹפַעַת.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: From the fact that Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya claims that a different halakha applies to a woman who constantly drips menstrual blood, it can be inferred that the blood of one who continuously discharges menstrual blood streams like a river for seven days. But this is physically impossible. The Gemara explains: Rather, say that Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya meant that the status of a woman who constantly drips menstrual blood is nothing other than the status of a woman who continuously discharges blood. In both cases, it is all considered as one sighting.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲזָקָה בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעוּ לְפִרְקָן — הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה, וְאֵין הַנָּשִׁים בּוֹדְקוֹת אוֹתָן. מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעוּ לְפִרְקָן — הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה, וְנָשִׁים בּוֹדְקוֹת אוֹתָן.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The presumption with regard to the daughters of Israel is that until they have reached their physical maturity they have the presumptive status of ritual purity, and adult women do not need to examine them to check if they are ritually pure before they handle consecrated items or teruma. Once they have reached their physical maturity, they have the presumptive status of ritual impurity, due to the possibility of an unnoticed menstrual discharge, and if they are still minors, adult women must examine them to check if they are ritually pure.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן בַּיָּד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּעַוְּותוֹת אוֹתָן, אֶלָּא סָכוֹת אוֹתָן בְּשֶׁמֶן מִבִּפְנִים, וּמְקַנְּחוֹת אוֹתָן מִבַּחוּץ, וְהֵן נִבְדָּקוֹת מֵאֵילֵיהֶן.
Rabbi Yehuda says: They should not examine them by hand, because that is likely to scratch them and ruin their status, as it will be assumed that they are ritually impure with menstrual blood. Rather, they should smear them with oil inside and wipe them off on the outside. And through this method they are automatically examined, i.e., if at that age they are ready to menstruate, the oil will cause the blood to flow.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְכוּ׳. תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מְעוּבֶּרֶת וּמְנִיקָה שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּתַחְתְּ בִּ״תְרֵי״ וְסַיֵּימְתְּ בַּ״חֲדָא״!
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three expected menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if she then saw blood, her time is sufficient. A tanna taught a baraita before Rabbi Elazar: Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three expected menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if she then experienced bleeding her time is sufficient. Rabbi Elazar said to him: The structure of your baraita is inconsistent. You opened with two categories of women: A pregnant woman and a nursing woman, and you ended your quote with one, as you concluded in the singular form: Her time is sufficient.
דִּלְמָא מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְהִיא מְנִיקָה קָאָמְרַתְּ, וּמִילְּתָא אַגַּב אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — דִּימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ, וִימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: יְמֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ, וִימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ.
Rabbi Elazar continued: Perhaps you are saying that this is a case of a pregnant woman who was also nursing. And if so, the baraita teaches us a matter in passing, that with regard to tallying three menstrual cycles in which she saw no menstrual blood, her days of pregnancy count toward, i.e., combine with, her days of nursing and her days of nursing count toward her days of pregnancy. As it is taught in a baraita: Her days of pregnancy count toward her days of nursing and her days of nursing count toward her days of pregnancy.
כֵּיצַד? הִפְסִיקָה שְׁתַּיִם בִּימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ, וְאַחַת בִּימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ; שְׁתַּיִם בִּימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ, וְאַחַת בִּימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ; אַחַת וּמֶחֱצָה בִּימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ, וְאַחַת וּמֶחֱצָה בִּימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ — מִצְטָרְפוֹת לְשָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת.
The baraita continues: How so? If a woman stopped seeing menstrual blood for two expected menstrual cycles during her days of pregnancy and then for one more cycle during her days of nursing, or she passed two expected menstrual cycles during her days of nursing and one more during her days of pregnancy, or one and a half cycles during her days of pregnancy and one and a half cycles during her days of nursing, in all these cases the missed cycles spanning her pregnancy and nursing combine to a total of three missed cycles, and therefore her time is sufficient.
בִּשְׁלָמָא יְמֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּקָמְנִיקָה וְאָזְלָא וּמִיעַבְּרָה, אֶלָּא יְמֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the claim that her days of pregnancy count toward her days of nursing, you can find it in a case where she was nursing continuously and then she became pregnant. But the scenario mentioned in the baraita where her days of nursing count toward her days of pregnancy, how can you find these circumstances? Since she certainly experienced bleeding when she gave birth, how can there be three consecutive menstrual cycles where she did not experience any discharge of blood?
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּלֵידָה יַבִּשְׁתָּא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דַּם נִדָּה לְחוֹד וְדַם לֵידָה לְחוֹד, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: תְּנִי חֲדָא.
The Gemara provides several answers: If you wish, say that it is referring to a case of a dry birth, i.e., one without any discharge of blood. Or, if you wish, say: The blood of a menstruating woman is discrete and the blood seen during birth is discrete. Blood seen during birth does not disrupt the count of menstrual cycles during which a woman does not see menstrual blood. Therefore, the cycles before and after the birth combine to form the requisite three cycles according to Rabbi Eliezer. Or, if you wish, say: Teach only one of these scenarios. In other words, teach only the case where the days of pregnancy count toward the days of nursing, but not the case where the days of nursing count toward the days of pregnancy.
בַּמֶּה אָמְרוּ דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: אַכּוּלְּהוּ.
§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to what did they say that her time is sufficient? It is with regard to the first sighting of blood. But with regard to the second sighting, her status is like that of any other woman and she transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from her last examination. The Gemara inquires concerning which case this clause is referring to. Rav says: This qualification is stated with regard to all of them, i.e., all four cases of the mishna: The menstrual virgin, the elderly woman, the pregnant woman, and the nursing woman.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּתוּלָה וּזְקֵנָה, אֲבָל מְעוּבֶּרֶת וּמְנִיקָה — דַּיָּין כׇּל יְמֵי עִיבּוּרָן, דַּיָּין כׇּל יְמֵי מְנִיקוּתָן.
And Shmuel says: They taught it only with regard to a menstrual virgin and an elderly woman. But in the case of a pregnant woman and a nursing woman, their time is sufficient for all their days of pregnancy and their time is sufficient for all their days of nursing.
וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אַכּוּלְּהוּ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּתוּלָה וּזְקֵנָה, אֲבָל מְעוּבֶּרֶת וּמְנִיקָה — דַּיָּין כׇּל יְמֵי עִיבּוּרָן, דַּיָּין כׇּל יְמֵי מְנִיקוּתָן. כְּתַנָּאֵי: מְעוּבֶּרֶת וּמְנִיקָה שֶׁהָיוּ
The Gemara notes that another pair of Sages had the same dispute. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: This qualification applies to all of them; and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught it only with regard to a menstrual virgin and an elderly woman. But in the case of a pregnant woman and a nursing woman, their time is sufficient for all their days of pregnancy and their time is sufficient for all their days of nursing. The Gemara suggests: This is like a dispute between tanna’im in the following baraita: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman who were
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy in Early Rabbinic Law, Part 2 of 3: The Law of Niddah
06.30.2021 | כ׳ בתמוז תשפ״א
Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Niddah, Prakim Bet and Gimel
09.27.2012 | י״א בתשרי תשע״ג
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
Niddah 10
הֲדַר קָחָזְיָא בְּעוֹנוֹת, מַאי? אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, שְׁלִישִׁית — מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה.
The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if she then sees menstrual blood at regular intervals of thirty-day cycles? Is her time sufficient, or does she transmit impurity retroactively? Rav Giddel says that Rav says: With regard to the first time and the second time that she sees menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. After the third time, she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.
וְעוֹד עָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת, וְרָאֲתָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. הֲדַר קָחָזְיָא בְּעוֹנוֹת, מַאי?
The baraita further teaches, with regard to a young girl who did not experience bleeding for three typical cycles and then saw blood, and three further expected menstrual cycles passed without her experiencing bleeding and then afterward she saw menstrual blood, that her time is sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if she then sees menstrual blood at regular intervals of thirty-day cycles?
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, שְׁנִיָּה — מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה.
The Gemara answers: Rav Kahana says that Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The first time that she sees menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. After the second time, she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.
מַנִּי? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: בִּתְרֵי זִימְנֵי הָוֵי חֲזָקָה.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the baraita? The Gemara answers: Since the baraita teaches that she attains the status of a regular adult woman upon the third sighting of menstrual blood, apparently it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that presumption is established by two occasions.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת וְרָאֲתָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say the latter clause: If she then passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, and then she saw menstrual blood, she returns to the status of a young girl and her time is sufficient. In this ruling we come to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that any woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating and her time is sufficient. Is the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or Rabbi Eliezer?
וְכִי תֵימָא רַבִּי הִיא, וּבְעוֹנוֹת סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וּמִי סָבַר לַהּ? וְהָא לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר קָאָמַר! אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, וּבִוְסָתוֹת סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי.
And if you would say that the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and in the case of a woman who passes three menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but does he really hold in accordance with this opinion? Doesn’t the baraita state that after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that several authorities disagreed with the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer, he said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances, i.e., only in exigent circumstances. The Gemara concludes: Rather, the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Eliezer, and with regard to menstrual cycles he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that a presumptive cycle is established after two occasions of seeing menstrual blood.
כֶּתֶם שֶׁבֵּין רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה — טָהוֹר, שֶׁבֵּין שְׁנִיָּה וּשְׁלִישִׁית — חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: טָמֵא, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: טָהוֹר. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: טָמֵא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ חָזְיָא מְטַמְּאָה — כִּתְמַהּ נָמֵי טָמֵא, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: טָהוֹר, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אִתַּחְזַקָה בְּדָם — כִּתְמַהּ נָמֵי לָא מְטַמֵּינַן לַהּ.
§ With regard to a young girl who was just starting to menstruate, the Gemara states: If she finds a blood stain between the first and second time that she sees menstrual blood, she is pure. If it is between the second and the third time, Ḥizkiyya says: She is impure; Rabbi Yoḥanan says: She is pure. The Gemara explains the reasoning behind their respective opinions. Ḥizkiyya says: She is impure, since if she had seen menstrual blood it would render her impure. Consequently, her blood stain is also impure. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: She is pure, since she has not yet attained the presumptive status of one who sees menstrual blood. Therefore, we also do not render her impure on account of her blood stain.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: וְכִי מָה בֵּין זוֹ לִבְתוּלָה שֶׁדָּמֶיהָ טְהוֹרִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: זוֹ שִׂירְפָהּ מָצוּי וְזוֹ אֵין שִׂירְפָהּ מָצוּי.
Rabbi Ilai objects to this ruling of Ḥizkiyya: And what is the difference between this case of a girl who has not yet started menstruating and a recently married menstrual virgin whose stain is deemed pure for as long as her blood is pure, since the stain is presumed to be from her torn hymen? Rabbi Zeira said to him: With regard to this menstrual virgin, her secretion [sirfah] is common, i.e., blood from her torn hymen is normally found during this period. Therefore, any blood stain that is found is also assumed to be from her hymen. But in the case of this young girl, her secretion is not common. Therefore, if a blood stain is found, it is assumed to be menstrual blood.
אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת, וְרָאֲתָה פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה — רוּקָּהּ וּמִדְרָסָהּ בַּשּׁוּק טָהוֹר, כִּתְמָהּ נָמֵי טָהוֹר. וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִם דִּידֵיהּ, אִם דְּרַבֵּיהּ.
§ Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: With regard to a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived and she saw menstrual blood one time and then a second time, but not the third time that would render her a woman who regularly sees menstrual blood, her saliva and her garment that she treads upon that are found in the marketplace are pure if we do not know whether she has menstruated. Likewise, her blood stain is also pure. Ulla added: And I do not know if this ruling with regard to the stain is merely Rabbi Yoḥanan’s own conclusion or if that is also part of the opinion of his teacher.
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינָּה? לְמִיהְוֵי דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם.
The Gemara asks: What difference is there? That is, what does it matter who said it? The Gemara explains: It makes a difference for it to be considered the statement of one Sage in the place of two dissenting opinions. As stated above, Ḥizkiyya disagrees with this ruling and maintains that a young girl’s blood stain is impure after she sees menstrual blood twice. If this statement is both Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak’s opinion and that of Rabbi Yoḥanan, then Ḥizkiyya’s ruling is opposed by two Sages, which means that his is a minority opinion. If it is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion alone, then the two sides are equal, with one Sage maintaining each opinion.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין וְכֹל נָחוֹתֵי יַמָּא, אַמְרוּהָ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק.
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia along with all the seafarers [naḥotei yamma], they stated this ruling as the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak. If so, Rabbi Yoḥanan was relating his own opinion, which echoed that of his teacher, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, and therefore the halakha is in accordance with this majority opinion.
אֲמַר רַב חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבֵי: תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹפַעַת כׇּל שִׁבְעָה — אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא רְאָיָה אַחַת. אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹפַעַת, וְלָא מִבַּעְיָא פּוֹסֶקֶת? אַדְּרַבָּה, פּוֹסֶקֶת הָוְיָא לַהּ כִּשְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת!
§ Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi says: With regard to a young girl whose time to see menstrual blood has not arrived, even if she continuously discharges menstrual blood for all seven days of a typical menstrual period, it is considered as only one sighting of blood and she remains in the category of one who lacks blood until she sees menstrual blood twice more. The Gemara asks: Why did Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi stress: Even if she continuously discharges menstrual blood, which indicates that it is not necessary to teach that this is the halakha if she stops seeing a discharge and then starts again? On the contrary, if she stops and restarts it is as though she has had two sightings of menstrual blood.
אֶלָּא, תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת, וְשׁוֹפַעַת כׇּל שִׁבְעָה — אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא רְאָיָה אַחַת.
The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi meant: With regard to a young girl whose time to see menstrual blood has not arrived, and she then continuously discharges menstrual blood for all seven days of a typical menstrual period, it is considered as only one sighting of blood. In other words, he did not state the word: Even.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא: מַדְלֶפֶת אֵינָהּ כְּרוֹאָה, וְהָא קָחָזְיָא! אֵימָא: אֵינָהּ כְּשׁוֹפַעַת, אֶלָּא כְּפוֹסֶקֶת.
Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: The case of woman who constantly drips menstrual blood is not considered like a full sighting of blood. The Gemara expresses surprise at this claim: But she saw blood. The Gemara answers: Say that what Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya meant was that she is not considered like one who continuously discharges blood, but rather like one who stops and starts again, even if she drips constantly.
מִכְּלָל דְּשׁוֹפַעַת (נָמֵי) כִּי נַהֲרָא? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא כְּשׁוֹפַעַת.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: From the fact that Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya claims that a different halakha applies to a woman who constantly drips menstrual blood, it can be inferred that the blood of one who continuously discharges menstrual blood streams like a river for seven days. But this is physically impossible. The Gemara explains: Rather, say that Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya meant that the status of a woman who constantly drips menstrual blood is nothing other than the status of a woman who continuously discharges blood. In both cases, it is all considered as one sighting.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲזָקָה בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעוּ לְפִרְקָן — הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה, וְאֵין הַנָּשִׁים בּוֹדְקוֹת אוֹתָן. מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעוּ לְפִרְקָן — הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה, וְנָשִׁים בּוֹדְקוֹת אוֹתָן.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The presumption with regard to the daughters of Israel is that until they have reached their physical maturity they have the presumptive status of ritual purity, and adult women do not need to examine them to check if they are ritually pure before they handle consecrated items or teruma. Once they have reached their physical maturity, they have the presumptive status of ritual impurity, due to the possibility of an unnoticed menstrual discharge, and if they are still minors, adult women must examine them to check if they are ritually pure.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן בַּיָּד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּעַוְּותוֹת אוֹתָן, אֶלָּא סָכוֹת אוֹתָן בְּשֶׁמֶן מִבִּפְנִים, וּמְקַנְּחוֹת אוֹתָן מִבַּחוּץ, וְהֵן נִבְדָּקוֹת מֵאֵילֵיהֶן.
Rabbi Yehuda says: They should not examine them by hand, because that is likely to scratch them and ruin their status, as it will be assumed that they are ritually impure with menstrual blood. Rather, they should smear them with oil inside and wipe them off on the outside. And through this method they are automatically examined, i.e., if at that age they are ready to menstruate, the oil will cause the blood to flow.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְכוּ׳. תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מְעוּבֶּרֶת וּמְנִיקָה שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּתַחְתְּ בִּ״תְרֵי״ וְסַיֵּימְתְּ בַּ״חֲדָא״!
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three expected menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if she then saw blood, her time is sufficient. A tanna taught a baraita before Rabbi Elazar: Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three expected menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if she then experienced bleeding her time is sufficient. Rabbi Elazar said to him: The structure of your baraita is inconsistent. You opened with two categories of women: A pregnant woman and a nursing woman, and you ended your quote with one, as you concluded in the singular form: Her time is sufficient.
דִּלְמָא מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְהִיא מְנִיקָה קָאָמְרַתְּ, וּמִילְּתָא אַגַּב אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — דִּימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ, וִימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: יְמֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ, וִימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ.
Rabbi Elazar continued: Perhaps you are saying that this is a case of a pregnant woman who was also nursing. And if so, the baraita teaches us a matter in passing, that with regard to tallying three menstrual cycles in which she saw no menstrual blood, her days of pregnancy count toward, i.e., combine with, her days of nursing and her days of nursing count toward her days of pregnancy. As it is taught in a baraita: Her days of pregnancy count toward her days of nursing and her days of nursing count toward her days of pregnancy.
כֵּיצַד? הִפְסִיקָה שְׁתַּיִם בִּימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ, וְאַחַת בִּימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ; שְׁתַּיִם בִּימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ, וְאַחַת בִּימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ; אַחַת וּמֶחֱצָה בִּימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ, וְאַחַת וּמֶחֱצָה בִּימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ — מִצְטָרְפוֹת לְשָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת.
The baraita continues: How so? If a woman stopped seeing menstrual blood for two expected menstrual cycles during her days of pregnancy and then for one more cycle during her days of nursing, or she passed two expected menstrual cycles during her days of nursing and one more during her days of pregnancy, or one and a half cycles during her days of pregnancy and one and a half cycles during her days of nursing, in all these cases the missed cycles spanning her pregnancy and nursing combine to a total of three missed cycles, and therefore her time is sufficient.
בִּשְׁלָמָא יְמֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִימֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּקָמְנִיקָה וְאָזְלָא וּמִיעַבְּרָה, אֶלָּא יְמֵי מְנִיקוּתָהּ עוֹלִין לָהּ לִימֵי עִיבּוּרָהּ, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the claim that her days of pregnancy count toward her days of nursing, you can find it in a case where she was nursing continuously and then she became pregnant. But the scenario mentioned in the baraita where her days of nursing count toward her days of pregnancy, how can you find these circumstances? Since she certainly experienced bleeding when she gave birth, how can there be three consecutive menstrual cycles where she did not experience any discharge of blood?
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּלֵידָה יַבִּשְׁתָּא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דַּם נִדָּה לְחוֹד וְדַם לֵידָה לְחוֹד, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: תְּנִי חֲדָא.
The Gemara provides several answers: If you wish, say that it is referring to a case of a dry birth, i.e., one without any discharge of blood. Or, if you wish, say: The blood of a menstruating woman is discrete and the blood seen during birth is discrete. Blood seen during birth does not disrupt the count of menstrual cycles during which a woman does not see menstrual blood. Therefore, the cycles before and after the birth combine to form the requisite three cycles according to Rabbi Eliezer. Or, if you wish, say: Teach only one of these scenarios. In other words, teach only the case where the days of pregnancy count toward the days of nursing, but not the case where the days of nursing count toward the days of pregnancy.
בַּמֶּה אָמְרוּ דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: אַכּוּלְּהוּ.
§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to what did they say that her time is sufficient? It is with regard to the first sighting of blood. But with regard to the second sighting, her status is like that of any other woman and she transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from her last examination. The Gemara inquires concerning which case this clause is referring to. Rav says: This qualification is stated with regard to all of them, i.e., all four cases of the mishna: The menstrual virgin, the elderly woman, the pregnant woman, and the nursing woman.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּתוּלָה וּזְקֵנָה, אֲבָל מְעוּבֶּרֶת וּמְנִיקָה — דַּיָּין כׇּל יְמֵי עִיבּוּרָן, דַּיָּין כׇּל יְמֵי מְנִיקוּתָן.
And Shmuel says: They taught it only with regard to a menstrual virgin and an elderly woman. But in the case of a pregnant woman and a nursing woman, their time is sufficient for all their days of pregnancy and their time is sufficient for all their days of nursing.
וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אַכּוּלְּהוּ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּתוּלָה וּזְקֵנָה, אֲבָל מְעוּבֶּרֶת וּמְנִיקָה — דַּיָּין כׇּל יְמֵי עִיבּוּרָן, דַּיָּין כׇּל יְמֵי מְנִיקוּתָן. כְּתַנָּאֵי: מְעוּבֶּרֶת וּמְנִיקָה שֶׁהָיוּ
The Gemara notes that another pair of Sages had the same dispute. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: This qualification applies to all of them; and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught it only with regard to a menstrual virgin and an elderly woman. But in the case of a pregnant woman and a nursing woman, their time is sufficient for all their days of pregnancy and their time is sufficient for all their days of nursing. The Gemara suggests: This is like a dispute between tanna’im in the following baraita: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman who were
Follow
