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 week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
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.
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
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 began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
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
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, 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 start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, 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
