Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 2, 2019 | 讚壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Niddah 10

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?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讛讚专 拽讞讝讬讗 讘注讜谞讜转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛

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.

讜注讜讚 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讛讚专 拽讞讝讬讗 讘注讜谞讜转 诪讗讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 砖谞讬讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛

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.

诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讘转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛

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.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

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?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜讘注讜谞讜转 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讜讛讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讜讘讜住转讜转 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬

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鈥檛 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.

讻转诐 砖讘讬谉 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 讟讛讜专 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬讛 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讟讛讜专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讟诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讞讝讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讻转诪讛 谞诪讬 讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讟讛讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗转讞讝拽讛 讘讚诐 讻转诪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讬谞谉 诇讛

搂 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, 岣zkiyya says: She is impure; Rabbi Yo岣nan says: She is pure. The Gemara explains the reasoning behind their respective opinions. 岣zkiyya 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 Yo岣nan 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讜 诇讘转讜诇讛 砖讚诪讬讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讝讜 砖讬专驻讛 诪爪讜讬 讜讝讜 讗讬谉 砖讬专驻讛 诪爪讜讬

Rabbi Ilai objects to this ruling of 岣zkiyya: 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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 转讬谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讜专讗转讛 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 专讜拽讛 讜诪讚专住讛 讘砖讜拽 讟讛讜专 讻转诪讛 谞诪讬 讟讛讜专 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗诐 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诐 讚专讘讬讛

Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 own conclusion or if that is also part of the opinion of his teacher.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬讛讜讬 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐

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, 岣zkiyya disagrees with this ruling and maintains that a young girl鈥檚 blood stain is impure after she sees menstrual blood twice. If this statement is both Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak鈥檚 opinion and that of Rabbi Yo岣nan, then 岣zkiyya鈥檚 ruling is opposed by two Sages, which means that his is a minority opinion. If it is Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion alone, then the two sides are equal, with one Sage maintaining each opinion.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讜讻诇 谞讞讜转讬 讬诪讗 讗诪专讜讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia along with all the seafarers [na岣tei yamma], they stated this ruling as the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak. If so, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞诇拽讬讛 讘专 讟讜讘讬 转讬谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜驻注转 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 专讗讬讛 讗讞转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜驻注转 讜诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 驻讜住拽转 讗讚专讘讛 驻讜住拽转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讻砖转讬 专讗讬讜转

Rav 岣lkiya 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 岣lkiya 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.

讗诇讗 转讬谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讜砖讜驻注转 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 专讗讬讛 讗讞转

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rav 岣lkiya 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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪讚诇驻转 讗讬谞讛 讻专讜讗讛 讜讛讗 拽讞讝讬讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讛 讻砖讜驻注转 讗诇讗 讻驻讜住拽转

Rav Shimi bar 岣yya 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 岣yya 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.

诪讻诇诇 讚砖讜驻注转 (谞诪讬) 讻讬 谞讛专讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讻砖讜驻注转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: From the fact that Rav Shimi bar 岣yya 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 岣yya 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞讝拽讛 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注讜 诇驻专拽谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 讜讗讬谉 讛谞砖讬诐 讘讜讚拽讜转 讗讜转谉 诪砖讛讙讬注讜 诇驻专拽谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜谞砖讬诐 讘讜讚拽讜转 讗讜转谉

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讬讚 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注讜讜转讜转 讗讜转谉 讗诇讗 住讻讜转 讗讜转谉 讘砖诪谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜诪拽谞讞讜转 讗讜转谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讛谉 谞讘讚拽讜转 诪讗讬诇讬讛谉

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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪注讜讘专转 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻转讞转 讘转专讬 讜住讬讬诪转 讘讞讚讗

搂 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.

讚诇诪讗 诪注讜讘专转 讜讛讬讗 诪谞讬拽讛 拽讗诪专转 讜诪讬诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 讜讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 讜讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛

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.

讻讬爪讚 讛驻住讬拽讛 砖转讬诐 讘讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 讜讗讞转 讘讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 砖转讬诐 讘讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 讜讗讞转 讘讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 讗讞转 讜诪讞爪讛 讘讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 讜讗讞转 讜诪讞爪讛 讘讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 诪爪讟专驻讜转 诇砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚拽诪谞讬拽讛 讜讗讝诇讗 讜诪讬注讘专讛 讗诇讗 讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

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?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘诇讬讚讛 讬讘砖转讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚诐 谞讚讛 诇讞讜讚 讜讚诐 诇讬讚讛 诇讞讜讚 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转谞讬 讞讚讗

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.

讘诪讛 讗诪专讜 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗讻讜诇讛讜

搂 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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘转讜诇讛 讜讝拽谞讛 讗讘诇 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 讚讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专谉 讚讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转谉

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.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讻讜诇讛讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘转讜诇讛 讜讝拽谞讛 讗讘诇 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 讚讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专谉 讚讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转谉 讻转谞讗讬 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 砖讛讬讜

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 Yo岣nan 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鈥檌m in the following baraita: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman who were

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 10

讛讚专 拽讞讝讬讗 讘注讜谞讜转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛

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.

讜注讜讚 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讛讚专 拽讞讝讬讗 讘注讜谞讜转 诪讗讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 砖谞讬讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛

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.

诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讘转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛

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.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

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?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜讘注讜谞讜转 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讜讛讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讜讘讜住转讜转 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬

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鈥檛 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.

讻转诐 砖讘讬谉 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 讟讛讜专 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬讛 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讟讛讜专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讟诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讞讝讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讻转诪讛 谞诪讬 讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讟讛讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗转讞讝拽讛 讘讚诐 讻转诪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讬谞谉 诇讛

搂 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, 岣zkiyya says: She is impure; Rabbi Yo岣nan says: She is pure. The Gemara explains the reasoning behind their respective opinions. 岣zkiyya 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 Yo岣nan 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讜 诇讘转讜诇讛 砖讚诪讬讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讝讜 砖讬专驻讛 诪爪讜讬 讜讝讜 讗讬谉 砖讬专驻讛 诪爪讜讬

Rabbi Ilai objects to this ruling of 岣zkiyya: 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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 转讬谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讜专讗转讛 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 专讜拽讛 讜诪讚专住讛 讘砖讜拽 讟讛讜专 讻转诪讛 谞诪讬 讟讛讜专 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗诐 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诐 讚专讘讬讛

Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 own conclusion or if that is also part of the opinion of his teacher.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬讛讜讬 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐

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, 岣zkiyya disagrees with this ruling and maintains that a young girl鈥檚 blood stain is impure after she sees menstrual blood twice. If this statement is both Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak鈥檚 opinion and that of Rabbi Yo岣nan, then 岣zkiyya鈥檚 ruling is opposed by two Sages, which means that his is a minority opinion. If it is Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion alone, then the two sides are equal, with one Sage maintaining each opinion.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讜讻诇 谞讞讜转讬 讬诪讗 讗诪专讜讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia along with all the seafarers [na岣tei yamma], they stated this ruling as the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak. If so, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞诇拽讬讛 讘专 讟讜讘讬 转讬谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜驻注转 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 专讗讬讛 讗讞转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜驻注转 讜诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 驻讜住拽转 讗讚专讘讛 驻讜住拽转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讻砖转讬 专讗讬讜转

Rav 岣lkiya 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 岣lkiya 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.

讗诇讗 转讬谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讜砖讜驻注转 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 专讗讬讛 讗讞转

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rav 岣lkiya 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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪讚诇驻转 讗讬谞讛 讻专讜讗讛 讜讛讗 拽讞讝讬讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讛 讻砖讜驻注转 讗诇讗 讻驻讜住拽转

Rav Shimi bar 岣yya 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 岣yya 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.

诪讻诇诇 讚砖讜驻注转 (谞诪讬) 讻讬 谞讛专讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讻砖讜驻注转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: From the fact that Rav Shimi bar 岣yya 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 岣yya 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞讝拽讛 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注讜 诇驻专拽谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 讜讗讬谉 讛谞砖讬诐 讘讜讚拽讜转 讗讜转谉 诪砖讛讙讬注讜 诇驻专拽谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 讜谞砖讬诐 讘讜讚拽讜转 讗讜转谉

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讬讚 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注讜讜转讜转 讗讜转谉 讗诇讗 住讻讜转 讗讜转谉 讘砖诪谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜诪拽谞讞讜转 讗讜转谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讛谉 谞讘讚拽讜转 诪讗讬诇讬讛谉

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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪注讜讘专转 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻转讞转 讘转专讬 讜住讬讬诪转 讘讞讚讗

搂 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.

讚诇诪讗 诪注讜讘专转 讜讛讬讗 诪谞讬拽讛 拽讗诪专转 讜诪讬诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 讜讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 讜讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛

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.

讻讬爪讚 讛驻住讬拽讛 砖转讬诐 讘讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 讜讗讞转 讘讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 砖转讬诐 讘讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 讜讗讞转 讘讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 讗讞转 讜诪讞爪讛 讘讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 讜讗讞转 讜诪讞爪讛 讘讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 诪爪讟专驻讜转 诇砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚拽诪谞讬拽讛 讜讗讝诇讗 讜诪讬注讘专讛 讗诇讗 讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转讛 注讜诇讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

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?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘诇讬讚讛 讬讘砖转讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚诐 谞讚讛 诇讞讜讚 讜讚诐 诇讬讚讛 诇讞讜讚 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转谞讬 讞讚讗

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.

讘诪讛 讗诪专讜 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗讻讜诇讛讜

搂 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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘转讜诇讛 讜讝拽谞讛 讗讘诇 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 讚讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专谉 讚讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转谉

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.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讻讜诇讛讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘转讜诇讛 讜讝拽谞讛 讗讘诇 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 讚讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专谉 讚讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转谉 讻转谞讗讬 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 砖讛讬讜

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 Yo岣nan 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鈥檌m in the following baraita: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman who were

Scroll To Top