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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 3, 2019 | 讛壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 11

Are there two different categories within the four women who are considered that they don’t bleed, such that there is a difference in the law regarding the second time one sees after not seeing? What is the law regarding one who gets here period based on some outside factors (i.e. jumping)? Can one create a cycle based on that? If it happens based on an act and a particular day, how do we treat it? When do women need to check? Are there women who don’t need to check? Is the pure blood after childbirth inherently different from the impure blood after childbirth? Does one need to check that one type began before counting the days of pure blood? A young girl who got married and hasn’t yet started menstruating – until what point can we assume blood she sees is from the tear in her hymen? When does she need to begin checking before and after relations? The examinations are only required for women dealing with pure items. But the rabbis instituted that women dealing with pure items who are checking anyway, should also check before having relations with their husbands.


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

砖讜驻注讜转 讚诐 讜讘讗讜转 讚讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专谉 讜讚讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讗诇讗 讘专讗讬讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛

continuously discharging menstrual blood, their time is sufficient for all their days of pregnancy and their time is sufficient for all their days of nursing. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon all say: They said that her time is sufficient only 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 examination to examination.

讜讗诐 专讗转讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽驻爪讛 讜专讗转讛 拽驻爪讛 讜专讗转讛 拽驻爪讛 讜专讗转讛 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讬诪讬诐 讛讗 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讚诇讗 拽驻讬抓 诇讗 讞讝讗讬

搂 The mishna teaches: And if she saw the first sighting as a result of unnatural circumstances, then even with regard to the second sighting her time is sufficient. Rav Huna says: If she jumped and saw menstrual blood, and again she jumped and saw menstrual blood, and a third time she jumped and saw menstrual blood, she has established a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara asks: For what occurrence has she established a fixed cycle? If we say that it is a cycle of days alone, this cannot be correct, as every day that she did not jump, she also did not see menstrual blood. Therefore, her cycle cannot be a mere pattern of days.

讗诇讗 诇拽驻讬爪讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻诇 砖转拽讘注谞讛 诪讞诪转 讗讜谞住 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诪讛 驻注诪讬诐 诇讗 拽讘注讛 讜住转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 拽讘注讛 讜住转 讻诇诇

The Gemara explains: Rather, the established menstrual cycle is caused by jumps, i.e., by observing a pattern of jumping and seeing blood three times, she has established that jumping causes the onset of her menstrual period. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Any woman who establishes a pattern of seeing menstrual blood due to a recurring accident, even if the pattern repeats, still has not established a fixed menstrual cycle? An accidental menstrual pattern brought about by external causes does not create a menstrual cycle. The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not correct to say that the baraita means that she has not established a fixed menstrual cycle at all?

诇讗 诇讗 拽讘注讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讜诇拽驻讬爪讜转 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 讜诇拽驻讬爪讜转 诇讬诪讬诐 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讙讜谉 讚拽驻讬抓 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转 讜讞讝讗讬 讜拽驻讬抓 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转 讜讞讝讗讬 讜讘砖讘转 拽驻爪讛 讜诇讗 讞讝讗讬 讜诇讞讚 讘砖讘转 讞讝讗讬 讘诇讗 拽驻讬爪讛

The Gemara answers: No, the baraita means that she has not established a fixed menstrual cycle of days alone, nor of jumps alone, but she has established a fixed menstrual cycle for a combination of days and of jumps. In other words, she has established a fixed menstrual cycle when she jumps on specific days. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that she does not establish a cycle for days alone? Why is it necessary to state this? Rav Ashi says: It is necessary to teach this in a case where she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and again she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and then on the following Shabbat she jumped and did not see blood, but on Sunday, the next day, she saw menstrual blood without jumping.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪驻专注 讚讬讜诪讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讙专讬诐 讜诇讗 拽驻讬爪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚拽驻讬爪讛 谞诪讬 讚讗转诪讜诇 讙专诪讗 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谉 拽驻讬爪讛

Rav Ashi explains: Lest you say that the matter is revealed retroactively that it was the day that caused her to experience menstruation and not the jumping, and therefore she has established a menstrual cycle of menstruating on Sundays, regardless of jumping, the baraita teaches us that it was also the jumping of yesterday, on Shabbat, that caused the menstruation today, on Sunday. And as for the fact that she did not see menstrual blood then, that was because the time when jumping causes menstruation had not yet arrived.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽驻爪讛 讜专讗转讛 拽驻爪讛 讜专讗转讛 拽驻爪讛 讜专讗转讛 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诇拽驻讬爪讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚拽驻讬抓 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转 讜讞讝讗讬 讜拽驻讬抓 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转 讜讞讝讗讬 讜讘砖讘转 拽驻爪讛 讜诇讗 讞讝讗讬 讜诇讞讚 讘砖讘转 (讗讞专讬谞讗) 讞讝讗讬 讘诇讗 拽驻讬爪讛 讚讛转诐 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讬讜诪讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讙专讬诐

The Gemara presents another version of Rav Huna鈥檚 statement. Rav Huna says: If a woman jumped and saw menstrual blood, and again she jumped and saw menstrual blood, and a third time she jumped and saw menstrual blood, she has established a fixed menstrual cycle for a pattern of days and not for a pattern of jumps. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? Rav Ashi says: This is referring to a case where she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and then again she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and then on the following Shabbat she jumped and did not see blood, but on Sunday, the next day, she saw menstrual blood without jumping. In that case there, the matter is revealed retroactively that it is the day that causes her to menstruate, not the jumping.

诪转谞讬壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘讜讚拽转 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞讚讛 讜讛讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专

MISHNA: Although the Rabbis said that for a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle her time is sufficient and she does not transmit impurity retroactively, she is required to examine herself each day to ensure that she is ritually pure and will not impurify pure items that she is handling. All women must examine themselves each day except for a menstruating woman, whose impure status is known, and a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, whose ritually pure status is known even if she experiences bleeding.

讜诪砖诪砖转 讘注讚讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专 讜讘转讜诇讛 砖讚诪讬讛 讟讛讜专讬诐

And even a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle engages in intercourse while using examination cloths to ascertain whether her menstrual flow began, except for a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, and a virgin whose blood is ritually pure for four days after engaging in intercourse for the first time.

讜驻注诪讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘讜讚拽转 砖讞专讬转 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜讘砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 注讜讘专转 诇砖诪砖 讗转 讘讬转讛 讬转讬专讜转 注诇讬讛谉 讻讛谞讜转 讘砖注讛 砖讛谉 讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘砖注转 注讘专转谉 诪诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛

And she is required to examine herself twice each day: In the morning, to ascertain if she menstruated during the night, and at twilight, to ascertain if she menstruated during the day. And she is also required to examine herself at a time that she is about to engage in intercourse with her husband. The obligation of women of priestly families is greater than that of other women, as they are also required to examine themselves when they seek to partake of teruma. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when they conclude partaking of teruma they are required to examine themselves, in order to ascertain whether they experienced bleeding while partaking of teruma.

讙诪壮 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞讚讛 讚讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 诇讗 讘注讬 讘讚讬拽讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: All women must examine themselves each day, except for a menstruating woman. The Gemara explains: Such a woman does not need to examine herself, as during the days of her menstruation she does not need examination.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 讜讗讬谉 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 转讘讚讜拽 讚讬诇诪讗 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that a woman can establish a fixed menstrual cycle even during the days that she has zava status, but a woman does not establish a fixed menstrual cycle during the days of her impurity due to menstruation, as any bleeding during these seven days is merely a continuation of her original menstruation. According to this opinion, it is well, and one can understand the mishna. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that a woman can establish a fixed menstrual cycle during the days of her menstruation, let her examine herself, as perhaps she will establish a fixed menstrual cycle.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讞讝讬转讬讛 诪诪注讬谉 住转讜诐 讗讘诇 讞讝讬转讬讛 诪诪注讬谉 驻转讜讞 诇讗 讗诪专讬

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yo岣nan could say to you: When I say that a woman can establish a fixed menstrual cycle during the days of her menstruation, that applies only in a case where the first two instances of her fixed cycle were established when she first saw blood from a stopped source, i.e., she saw blood on those particulars days at the outset of her period. But when she first saw blood from an open source, i.e., when the first two instances that she experienced bleeding on those particular days was in the middle of her menstrual period, I did not say that she establishes a fixed menstrual cycle, and therefore there is no need for her to examine herself.

讜讛讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讘拽砖转 诇讬砖讘 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专

搂 The mishna teaches: All women must examine themselves each day, except for a menstruating woman, whose impure status is known, and a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity. The Gemara explains: It may enter your mind that when the mishna mentions a woman who is observing the period of the blood of purity, it is referring to one who is finishing the period of impurity following a birth and is anticipating observing the period of the blood of purity. In other words, her days of impurity are ending and she is about to start her days `of purity, and the mishna is stating that there is no need for an examination to conclude her days of impurity before starting her days of purity.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 诪注讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讛转讜专讛 讟诪讗转讜 讜讛转讜专讛 讟讛专转讜 砖驻讬专

The Gemara analyzes the mishna in accordance with this interpretation. This works out well according to the opinion of Rav, who said that blood after birth and blood of purity both come from one source, and the Torah deemed blood after birth impure, and the Torah deemed blood of purity pure. According to this opinion, it is well, and one can understand the mishna, since even if she emits blood continuously through the end of her days of impurity into her days of purity, the blood during her days of purity is pure.

讗诇讗 诇诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 诪注讬谞讜转 讛诐 转讘讚讜拽 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讻转讬 诇讗 驻住拽 讛讛讜讗 诪注讬谉 讟诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讜讬 讛讗 诪谞讬

But according to the opinion of Levi, who said that there are two distinct sources, one for blood after birth and one for blood of purity, she should be required to examine herself at the end of the period following birth, as perhaps that impure source of blood after birth had not yet stopped flowing. The Gemara explains that Levi could say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling?

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪注讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讜住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐

It is the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that there is only one source for the two types of blood (see 35b). The Gemara asks: But can it be that the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna, which is generally accepted as the halakha, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, whose opinion is usually not accepted as halakha? The Gemara answers: It is a case where the mishna first records an unattributed opinion and afterward it records a dispute with regard to the same matter. And there is a principle that any time the mishna first records an unattributed opinion and afterward it records that the ruling is subject to a dispute, then the halakha is not necessarily in accordance with the unattributed opinion.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 诪讘拽砖转 诇讬砖讘 讬讜砖讘转 拽转谞讬 讗讬 讬讜砖讘转 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 转讬讘讚讜拽 讚讚讬诇诪讗 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪注讬谉 讟讛讜专 诇诪注讬谉 讟诪讗 诇讗 拽讘注讛

And if you wish, say instead: Does the mishna teach: A woman is anticipating observing the period of the blood of purity? Rather, it teaches: Who is observing the period of the blood of purity. The Gemara asks: If the mishna is referring to a woman who is already observing the period of the blood of purity, what is the purpose of stating that she is exempt from performing examinations? Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that she should examine herself, as perhaps she will find that she established a fixed menstrual cycle through blood found on her examination cloths, the mishna teaches us that a woman does not establish a cycle from sightings of blood that came from a pure source that transfers to the period when she sees blood from an impure source.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 诪注讬谞讜转 讛诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 诪注讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 转讘讚讜拽 讚讬诇诪讗 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪讬诪讬 讟讛专讛 诇讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 拽讘注讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: This answer works out well according to Levi, who said that there are two distinct sources, one for blood after birth and one for blood of purity; one can understand that she does not establish a cycle with regard to blood from one source, from a sighting of blood from a different source. But according to Rav, who said that blood after birth and blood of purity both come from one source, she should be required to examine herself during the period of the blood of purity, as perhaps she established a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara answers: Even so, i.e., that both types of blood come from the same source, nevertheless a woman does not establish a cycle from her days of purity that transfers to her days of impurity.

讜诪砖诪砖转 讘注讚讬诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 转讬谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讜谞砖讗转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 讗专讘注 诇讬诇讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖转讞讬讛 讛诪讻讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And even a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle engages in intercourse while using examination cloths to ascertain whether her menstrual flow began, except for a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, and a virgin whose blood is ritually pure for four days after engaging in intercourse for the first time. In this connection, the Gemara notes that we learned in a mishna there (64b): With regard to a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived, as she has not yet reached puberty, and she married, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her four nights after intercourse during which the blood is attributed to her torn hymen and she is ritually pure. Thereafter, any blood is menstrual blood and she is impure. And Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪讞诪转 转砖诪讬砖 讜专讗转讛 砖诇讗 诪讞诪转 转砖诪讬砖 讗讘诇 驻住拽讛 诪讞诪转 转砖诪讬砖 讜专讗转讛 讟诪讗讛

With regard to Beit Hillel鈥檚 statement, Rav Giddel says that Shmuel says: They taught this only in a case where she does not stop seeing blood due to intercourse. In other words, every time she engages in intercourse she experiences bleeding. In that case, even if she saw blood not due to intercourse, Beit Hillel still attribute the blood to the torn hymen. But if she stops seeing blood due to intercourse, and then she subsequently saw blood on another occasion, that blood renders her impure.

注讘专 诇讬诇讛 讗讞转 讘诇讗 转砖诪讬砖 讜专讗转讛 讟诪讗讛 谞砖转谞讜 诪专讗讛 讚诪讬诐 砖诇讛 讟诪讗讛 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讜讘转讜诇讛 砖讚诪讬讛 讟讛讜专讬诐 讗诪讗讬 转砖诪砖 讘注讚讬诐 讚讚讬诇诪讗 谞砖转谞讜 诪专讗讛 讚诪讬诐 砖诇讛

He continues: Similarly, if one night passed without them engaging in intercourse and she subsequently saw blood without connection to intercourse, this indicates that the blood is no longer from her torn hymen and therefore she is deemed impure. Likewise, if the appearance of her blood had changed since her initial blood from her torn hymen, she is impure. Rabbi Yona raises an objection to this last halakha from the mishna: And a virgin whose blood is ritually pure is not required to examine herself when she engages in intercourse. Why not? She should engage in intercourse while using examination cloths, as perhaps she will find that the appearance of her blood has changed, which would mean that her blood is no longer ritually pure blood from her torn hymen.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞讚讛 讜讛讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讘诇 讘转讜诇讛 砖讚诪讬讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讗诇讗 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬

Rava says: Say the first clause: All women must engage in intercourse while using examination cloths, except for a menstruating woman whose impure status is certain and a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity. It can be inferred from here that these two exceptions are not required for women to examine themselves, but a virgin whose blood is pure is required to perform an examination. This ruling apparently supports Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that examination is required to determine if there is a change in the appearance of her blood. But if so, then the two clauses of the mishna are difficult, as they contradict each other.

讻讗谉 砖砖诪砖讛 讚讗讬诪讗 砖诪砖 注讻专谉 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 砖诪砖讛

The Gemara explains: Here, in the latter clause that indicates that a virgin requires no examination, it is referring to a case where she had engaged in intercourse. In such a situation an examination would be inconclusive, as even if the appearance of her blood had changed, one can say that it was because the man鈥檚 organ soiled it, i.e., perhaps the intercourse caused the change of appearance in her blood. By contrast, there, in the first clause, it is referring to a case where she had not engaged in intercourse, and therefore she is required to perform an examination to determine if there was a change in appearance in her blood, as any difference in appearance would indicate a change from pure blood to impure blood.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪讞诪转 转砖诪讬砖 讜专讗转讛 砖诇讗 诪讞诪转 转砖诪讬砖

The Gemara notes that this halakha is also taught in a baraita. With regard to the opinion of Beit Hillel that blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals, the baraita asks: In what case is this statement said? In a case where she does not stop seeing blood due to intercourse, i.e., every time she engages in intercourse she experiences bleeding. If so, even when she sees blood not due to intercourse, it is deemed pure.

讗讘诇 驻住拽讛 诪讞诪转 转砖诪讬砖 讜专讗转讛 讟诪讗讛 注讘专 诇讬诇讛 讗讞转 讘诇讗 转砖诪讬砖 讜专讗转讛 讟诪讗讛 谞砖转谞讜 诪专讗讛 讚诪讬诐 砖诇讛 讟诪讗讛

But if she stopped seeing blood due to intercourse, and she subsequently sees blood at a different time, that sighting renders her impure. Similarly, if one night passed without her engaging in intercourse and then she saw blood without connection to intercourse, she is deemed impure. Furthermore, if she sees blood and the appearance of her blood had changed from her initial blood from her torn hymen, she is impure.

驻注诪讬诐 讛讬讗 爪专讬讻讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讟讛专讜转 讗讘诇 诇讘注诇讛 诪讜转专转 驻砖讬讟讗 砖讞专讬转 转谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And she is required to examine herself twice each day, in the morning and at twilight. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The mishna taught this halakha only with regard to touching ritually pure items. But with regard to her husband, she is permitted to him without any requirement to perform examinations. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious, as we learn in the mishna that she must examine herself twice a day, and the first time is in the morning? This indicates that the mishna is concerned about the status of ritually pure items that she will handle during the day, but not about intercourse with her husband, as a couple usually engages in relations at night rather than during the day.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讗住讬驻讗 讗转诪专 讜讘砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 注讜讘专转 诇砖诪砖 讗转 讘讬转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗砖讛 注住讜拽讛 讘讟讛专讜转 讚诪讙讜 讚讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 诇讟讛专讜转 讘注讬讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬拽讛 诇讘注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讛 注住讜拽讛 讘讟讛专讜转 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛

The Gemara answers: Rather, if the statement of Rav Yehuda citing Shmuel was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: And she is also required to examine herself at a time that she is about to engage in intercourse with her husband. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The mishna taught this halakha only with regard to a woman who is engaged in handling pure items. She alone is required to examine herself before intercourse. The reason is that since she is required to perform an examination in preparation for handling pure items, she also requires an examination in preparation for intercourse with her husband. But with regard to a woman who is not engaged in handling pure items, she is not required to perform an examination in preparation for intercourse with her husband.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讗讘诇 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛

The Gemara asks: What is Rav Yehuda teaching us? We already learn this from the mishna (15a): All women have the presumptive status of purity to their husbands, and therefore the husband does not need to ascertain whether she is ritually pure before engaging in intercourse. The Gemara answers: If this halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that this statement applies only to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle. But in the case of a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, she is required to perform an examination before intercourse. Consequently, Rav Yehuda teaches us that even a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle is not required to perform an examination before intercourse, unless she handles pure items.

讜讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 注住拽讬谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 诪讙讜 讚讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 诇讟讛专讜转 讘注讬讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬拽讛 诇讘注诇讛

The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 we are dealing in the mishna with a case of a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle? The Gemara answers: The mishna is dealing both with a case where she has a fixed menstrual cycle and with a case where she does not have a fixed menstrual cycle. And this is what the mishna teaches us: That even though she has a fixed menstrual cycle, and therefore one might think that she is exempt from examination, nevertheless if she handles pure items, since she is required to perform an examination in preparation for handling those pure items, she is also required to perform an examination in preparation for intercourse with her husband.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讗住讜专讛 诇砖诪砖 注讚 砖转讘讚讜拽 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘注住讜拽讛 讘讟讛专讜转 讞讚讗 诪讻诇诇 讞讘专转讛 讗转诪专

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Shmuel already state this halakha on another occasion? As Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya says that Shmuel says: With regard to a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, it is forbidden for her to engage in intercourse with her husband until she examines herself and determines that she is pure. And we interpreted this halakha as referring to a case where she is engaged in handling pure items. The Gemara answers: Shmuel did not in fact issue two statements; rather, one was stated by inference from the other. In other words, Shmuel said one of these statements explicitly; the other was reported by his students in his name based on an inference from what he had said.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讟讛专讜转 讗讘诇 诇讘注诇讛 诪讜转专转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讛谞讬讞讛 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专讛 讗讘诇 讛谞讬讞讛 讘讞讝拽转 讟诪讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讛讬讗 讘讟讜诪讗转讛 注讚 砖转讗诪专 诇讜 讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬

The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that a woman requires an examination, said? It is said with regard to a woman who is preparing for handling pure items. But with regard to engaging in intercourse with her husband, she is permitted to do so without performing an examination. The baraita qualifies this ruling: And in what case is this statement, that she is not required to perform an examination, said? It is said when her husband traveled and left her with the presumptive status of ritual purity. If so, upon his return she does not need to perform an examination before they engage in intercourse. But if he left her with the presumptive status of ritual impurity, she remains forever in her status of impurity, until she says to him: I am ritually pure.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 11

砖讜驻注讜转 讚诐 讜讘讗讜转 讚讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讬 注讬讘讜专谉 讜讚讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讬 诪谞讬拽讜转谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讗诇讗 讘专讗讬讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛

continuously discharging menstrual blood, their time is sufficient for all their days of pregnancy and their time is sufficient for all their days of nursing. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon all say: They said that her time is sufficient only 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 examination to examination.

讜讗诐 专讗转讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽驻爪讛 讜专讗转讛 拽驻爪讛 讜专讗转讛 拽驻爪讛 讜专讗转讛 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讬诪讬诐 讛讗 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讚诇讗 拽驻讬抓 诇讗 讞讝讗讬

搂 The mishna teaches: And if she saw the first sighting as a result of unnatural circumstances, then even with regard to the second sighting her time is sufficient. Rav Huna says: If she jumped and saw menstrual blood, and again she jumped and saw menstrual blood, and a third time she jumped and saw menstrual blood, she has established a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara asks: For what occurrence has she established a fixed cycle? If we say that it is a cycle of days alone, this cannot be correct, as every day that she did not jump, she also did not see menstrual blood. Therefore, her cycle cannot be a mere pattern of days.

讗诇讗 诇拽驻讬爪讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻诇 砖转拽讘注谞讛 诪讞诪转 讗讜谞住 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诪讛 驻注诪讬诐 诇讗 拽讘注讛 讜住转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 拽讘注讛 讜住转 讻诇诇

The Gemara explains: Rather, the established menstrual cycle is caused by jumps, i.e., by observing a pattern of jumping and seeing blood three times, she has established that jumping causes the onset of her menstrual period. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Any woman who establishes a pattern of seeing menstrual blood due to a recurring accident, even if the pattern repeats, still has not established a fixed menstrual cycle? An accidental menstrual pattern brought about by external causes does not create a menstrual cycle. The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not correct to say that the baraita means that she has not established a fixed menstrual cycle at all?

诇讗 诇讗 拽讘注讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讜诇拽驻讬爪讜转 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 讜诇拽驻讬爪讜转 诇讬诪讬诐 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讙讜谉 讚拽驻讬抓 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转 讜讞讝讗讬 讜拽驻讬抓 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转 讜讞讝讗讬 讜讘砖讘转 拽驻爪讛 讜诇讗 讞讝讗讬 讜诇讞讚 讘砖讘转 讞讝讗讬 讘诇讗 拽驻讬爪讛

The Gemara answers: No, the baraita means that she has not established a fixed menstrual cycle of days alone, nor of jumps alone, but she has established a fixed menstrual cycle for a combination of days and of jumps. In other words, she has established a fixed menstrual cycle when she jumps on specific days. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that she does not establish a cycle for days alone? Why is it necessary to state this? Rav Ashi says: It is necessary to teach this in a case where she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and again she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and then on the following Shabbat she jumped and did not see blood, but on Sunday, the next day, she saw menstrual blood without jumping.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪驻专注 讚讬讜诪讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讙专讬诐 讜诇讗 拽驻讬爪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚拽驻讬爪讛 谞诪讬 讚讗转诪讜诇 讙专诪讗 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谉 拽驻讬爪讛

Rav Ashi explains: Lest you say that the matter is revealed retroactively that it was the day that caused her to experience menstruation and not the jumping, and therefore she has established a menstrual cycle of menstruating on Sundays, regardless of jumping, the baraita teaches us that it was also the jumping of yesterday, on Shabbat, that caused the menstruation today, on Sunday. And as for the fact that she did not see menstrual blood then, that was because the time when jumping causes menstruation had not yet arrived.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽驻爪讛 讜专讗转讛 拽驻爪讛 讜专讗转讛 拽驻爪讛 讜专讗转讛 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转 诇讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诇拽驻讬爪讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚拽驻讬抓 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转 讜讞讝讗讬 讜拽驻讬抓 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转 讜讞讝讗讬 讜讘砖讘转 拽驻爪讛 讜诇讗 讞讝讗讬 讜诇讞讚 讘砖讘转 (讗讞专讬谞讗) 讞讝讗讬 讘诇讗 拽驻讬爪讛 讚讛转诐 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讬讜诪讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讙专讬诐

The Gemara presents another version of Rav Huna鈥檚 statement. Rav Huna says: If a woman jumped and saw menstrual blood, and again she jumped and saw menstrual blood, and a third time she jumped and saw menstrual blood, she has established a fixed menstrual cycle for a pattern of days and not for a pattern of jumps. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? Rav Ashi says: This is referring to a case where she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and then again she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and then on the following Shabbat she jumped and did not see blood, but on Sunday, the next day, she saw menstrual blood without jumping. In that case there, the matter is revealed retroactively that it is the day that causes her to menstruate, not the jumping.

诪转谞讬壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘讜讚拽转 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞讚讛 讜讛讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专

MISHNA: Although the Rabbis said that for a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle her time is sufficient and she does not transmit impurity retroactively, she is required to examine herself each day to ensure that she is ritually pure and will not impurify pure items that she is handling. All women must examine themselves each day except for a menstruating woman, whose impure status is known, and a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, whose ritually pure status is known even if she experiences bleeding.

讜诪砖诪砖转 讘注讚讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专 讜讘转讜诇讛 砖讚诪讬讛 讟讛讜专讬诐

And even a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle engages in intercourse while using examination cloths to ascertain whether her menstrual flow began, except for a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, and a virgin whose blood is ritually pure for four days after engaging in intercourse for the first time.

讜驻注诪讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘讜讚拽转 砖讞专讬转 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜讘砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 注讜讘专转 诇砖诪砖 讗转 讘讬转讛 讬转讬专讜转 注诇讬讛谉 讻讛谞讜转 讘砖注讛 砖讛谉 讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘砖注转 注讘专转谉 诪诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛

And she is required to examine herself twice each day: In the morning, to ascertain if she menstruated during the night, and at twilight, to ascertain if she menstruated during the day. And she is also required to examine herself at a time that she is about to engage in intercourse with her husband. The obligation of women of priestly families is greater than that of other women, as they are also required to examine themselves when they seek to partake of teruma. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when they conclude partaking of teruma they are required to examine themselves, in order to ascertain whether they experienced bleeding while partaking of teruma.

讙诪壮 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞讚讛 讚讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 诇讗 讘注讬 讘讚讬拽讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: All women must examine themselves each day, except for a menstruating woman. The Gemara explains: Such a woman does not need to examine herself, as during the days of her menstruation she does not need examination.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 讜讗讬谉 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 转讘讚讜拽 讚讬诇诪讗 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that a woman can establish a fixed menstrual cycle even during the days that she has zava status, but a woman does not establish a fixed menstrual cycle during the days of her impurity due to menstruation, as any bleeding during these seven days is merely a continuation of her original menstruation. According to this opinion, it is well, and one can understand the mishna. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that a woman can establish a fixed menstrual cycle during the days of her menstruation, let her examine herself, as perhaps she will establish a fixed menstrual cycle.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讞讝讬转讬讛 诪诪注讬谉 住转讜诐 讗讘诇 讞讝讬转讬讛 诪诪注讬谉 驻转讜讞 诇讗 讗诪专讬

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yo岣nan could say to you: When I say that a woman can establish a fixed menstrual cycle during the days of her menstruation, that applies only in a case where the first two instances of her fixed cycle were established when she first saw blood from a stopped source, i.e., she saw blood on those particulars days at the outset of her period. But when she first saw blood from an open source, i.e., when the first two instances that she experienced bleeding on those particular days was in the middle of her menstrual period, I did not say that she establishes a fixed menstrual cycle, and therefore there is no need for her to examine herself.

讜讛讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讘拽砖转 诇讬砖讘 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专

搂 The mishna teaches: All women must examine themselves each day, except for a menstruating woman, whose impure status is known, and a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity. The Gemara explains: It may enter your mind that when the mishna mentions a woman who is observing the period of the blood of purity, it is referring to one who is finishing the period of impurity following a birth and is anticipating observing the period of the blood of purity. In other words, her days of impurity are ending and she is about to start her days `of purity, and the mishna is stating that there is no need for an examination to conclude her days of impurity before starting her days of purity.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 诪注讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讛转讜专讛 讟诪讗转讜 讜讛转讜专讛 讟讛专转讜 砖驻讬专

The Gemara analyzes the mishna in accordance with this interpretation. This works out well according to the opinion of Rav, who said that blood after birth and blood of purity both come from one source, and the Torah deemed blood after birth impure, and the Torah deemed blood of purity pure. According to this opinion, it is well, and one can understand the mishna, since even if she emits blood continuously through the end of her days of impurity into her days of purity, the blood during her days of purity is pure.

讗诇讗 诇诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 诪注讬谞讜转 讛诐 转讘讚讜拽 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讻转讬 诇讗 驻住拽 讛讛讜讗 诪注讬谉 讟诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讜讬 讛讗 诪谞讬

But according to the opinion of Levi, who said that there are two distinct sources, one for blood after birth and one for blood of purity, she should be required to examine herself at the end of the period following birth, as perhaps that impure source of blood after birth had not yet stopped flowing. The Gemara explains that Levi could say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling?

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪注讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讜住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐

It is the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that there is only one source for the two types of blood (see 35b). The Gemara asks: But can it be that the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna, which is generally accepted as the halakha, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, whose opinion is usually not accepted as halakha? The Gemara answers: It is a case where the mishna first records an unattributed opinion and afterward it records a dispute with regard to the same matter. And there is a principle that any time the mishna first records an unattributed opinion and afterward it records that the ruling is subject to a dispute, then the halakha is not necessarily in accordance with the unattributed opinion.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 诪讘拽砖转 诇讬砖讘 讬讜砖讘转 拽转谞讬 讗讬 讬讜砖讘转 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 转讬讘讚讜拽 讚讚讬诇诪讗 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪注讬谉 讟讛讜专 诇诪注讬谉 讟诪讗 诇讗 拽讘注讛

And if you wish, say instead: Does the mishna teach: A woman is anticipating observing the period of the blood of purity? Rather, it teaches: Who is observing the period of the blood of purity. The Gemara asks: If the mishna is referring to a woman who is already observing the period of the blood of purity, what is the purpose of stating that she is exempt from performing examinations? Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that she should examine herself, as perhaps she will find that she established a fixed menstrual cycle through blood found on her examination cloths, the mishna teaches us that a woman does not establish a cycle from sightings of blood that came from a pure source that transfers to the period when she sees blood from an impure source.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 诪注讬谞讜转 讛诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 诪注讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 转讘讚讜拽 讚讬诇诪讗 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪讬诪讬 讟讛专讛 诇讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 拽讘注讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: This answer works out well according to Levi, who said that there are two distinct sources, one for blood after birth and one for blood of purity; one can understand that she does not establish a cycle with regard to blood from one source, from a sighting of blood from a different source. But according to Rav, who said that blood after birth and blood of purity both come from one source, she should be required to examine herself during the period of the blood of purity, as perhaps she established a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara answers: Even so, i.e., that both types of blood come from the same source, nevertheless a woman does not establish a cycle from her days of purity that transfers to her days of impurity.

讜诪砖诪砖转 讘注讚讬诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 转讬谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讜谞砖讗转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 讗专讘注 诇讬诇讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖转讞讬讛 讛诪讻讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And even a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle engages in intercourse while using examination cloths to ascertain whether her menstrual flow began, except for a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, and a virgin whose blood is ritually pure for four days after engaging in intercourse for the first time. In this connection, the Gemara notes that we learned in a mishna there (64b): With regard to a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived, as she has not yet reached puberty, and she married, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her four nights after intercourse during which the blood is attributed to her torn hymen and she is ritually pure. Thereafter, any blood is menstrual blood and she is impure. And Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪讞诪转 转砖诪讬砖 讜专讗转讛 砖诇讗 诪讞诪转 转砖诪讬砖 讗讘诇 驻住拽讛 诪讞诪转 转砖诪讬砖 讜专讗转讛 讟诪讗讛

With regard to Beit Hillel鈥檚 statement, Rav Giddel says that Shmuel says: They taught this only in a case where she does not stop seeing blood due to intercourse. In other words, every time she engages in intercourse she experiences bleeding. In that case, even if she saw blood not due to intercourse, Beit Hillel still attribute the blood to the torn hymen. But if she stops seeing blood due to intercourse, and then she subsequently saw blood on another occasion, that blood renders her impure.

注讘专 诇讬诇讛 讗讞转 讘诇讗 转砖诪讬砖 讜专讗转讛 讟诪讗讛 谞砖转谞讜 诪专讗讛 讚诪讬诐 砖诇讛 讟诪讗讛 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讜讘转讜诇讛 砖讚诪讬讛 讟讛讜专讬诐 讗诪讗讬 转砖诪砖 讘注讚讬诐 讚讚讬诇诪讗 谞砖转谞讜 诪专讗讛 讚诪讬诐 砖诇讛

He continues: Similarly, if one night passed without them engaging in intercourse and she subsequently saw blood without connection to intercourse, this indicates that the blood is no longer from her torn hymen and therefore she is deemed impure. Likewise, if the appearance of her blood had changed since her initial blood from her torn hymen, she is impure. Rabbi Yona raises an objection to this last halakha from the mishna: And a virgin whose blood is ritually pure is not required to examine herself when she engages in intercourse. Why not? She should engage in intercourse while using examination cloths, as perhaps she will find that the appearance of her blood has changed, which would mean that her blood is no longer ritually pure blood from her torn hymen.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞讚讛 讜讛讬讜砖讘转 注诇 讚诐 讟讜讛专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讘诇 讘转讜诇讛 砖讚诪讬讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讗诇讗 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬

Rava says: Say the first clause: All women must engage in intercourse while using examination cloths, except for a menstruating woman whose impure status is certain and a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity. It can be inferred from here that these two exceptions are not required for women to examine themselves, but a virgin whose blood is pure is required to perform an examination. This ruling apparently supports Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that examination is required to determine if there is a change in the appearance of her blood. But if so, then the two clauses of the mishna are difficult, as they contradict each other.

讻讗谉 砖砖诪砖讛 讚讗讬诪讗 砖诪砖 注讻专谉 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 砖诪砖讛

The Gemara explains: Here, in the latter clause that indicates that a virgin requires no examination, it is referring to a case where she had engaged in intercourse. In such a situation an examination would be inconclusive, as even if the appearance of her blood had changed, one can say that it was because the man鈥檚 organ soiled it, i.e., perhaps the intercourse caused the change of appearance in her blood. By contrast, there, in the first clause, it is referring to a case where she had not engaged in intercourse, and therefore she is required to perform an examination to determine if there was a change in appearance in her blood, as any difference in appearance would indicate a change from pure blood to impure blood.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪讞诪转 转砖诪讬砖 讜专讗转讛 砖诇讗 诪讞诪转 转砖诪讬砖

The Gemara notes that this halakha is also taught in a baraita. With regard to the opinion of Beit Hillel that blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals, the baraita asks: In what case is this statement said? In a case where she does not stop seeing blood due to intercourse, i.e., every time she engages in intercourse she experiences bleeding. If so, even when she sees blood not due to intercourse, it is deemed pure.

讗讘诇 驻住拽讛 诪讞诪转 转砖诪讬砖 讜专讗转讛 讟诪讗讛 注讘专 诇讬诇讛 讗讞转 讘诇讗 转砖诪讬砖 讜专讗转讛 讟诪讗讛 谞砖转谞讜 诪专讗讛 讚诪讬诐 砖诇讛 讟诪讗讛

But if she stopped seeing blood due to intercourse, and she subsequently sees blood at a different time, that sighting renders her impure. Similarly, if one night passed without her engaging in intercourse and then she saw blood without connection to intercourse, she is deemed impure. Furthermore, if she sees blood and the appearance of her blood had changed from her initial blood from her torn hymen, she is impure.

驻注诪讬诐 讛讬讗 爪专讬讻讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讟讛专讜转 讗讘诇 诇讘注诇讛 诪讜转专转 驻砖讬讟讗 砖讞专讬转 转谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And she is required to examine herself twice each day, in the morning and at twilight. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The mishna taught this halakha only with regard to touching ritually pure items. But with regard to her husband, she is permitted to him without any requirement to perform examinations. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious, as we learn in the mishna that she must examine herself twice a day, and the first time is in the morning? This indicates that the mishna is concerned about the status of ritually pure items that she will handle during the day, but not about intercourse with her husband, as a couple usually engages in relations at night rather than during the day.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讗住讬驻讗 讗转诪专 讜讘砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 注讜讘专转 诇砖诪砖 讗转 讘讬转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗砖讛 注住讜拽讛 讘讟讛专讜转 讚诪讙讜 讚讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 诇讟讛专讜转 讘注讬讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬拽讛 诇讘注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讛 注住讜拽讛 讘讟讛专讜转 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛

The Gemara answers: Rather, if the statement of Rav Yehuda citing Shmuel was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: And she is also required to examine herself at a time that she is about to engage in intercourse with her husband. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The mishna taught this halakha only with regard to a woman who is engaged in handling pure items. She alone is required to examine herself before intercourse. The reason is that since she is required to perform an examination in preparation for handling pure items, she also requires an examination in preparation for intercourse with her husband. But with regard to a woman who is not engaged in handling pure items, she is not required to perform an examination in preparation for intercourse with her husband.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 诇讘注诇讬讛谉 讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讗讘诇 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛

The Gemara asks: What is Rav Yehuda teaching us? We already learn this from the mishna (15a): All women have the presumptive status of purity to their husbands, and therefore the husband does not need to ascertain whether she is ritually pure before engaging in intercourse. The Gemara answers: If this halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that this statement applies only to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle. But in the case of a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, she is required to perform an examination before intercourse. Consequently, Rav Yehuda teaches us that even a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle is not required to perform an examination before intercourse, unless she handles pure items.

讜讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 注住拽讬谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 诪讙讜 讚讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 诇讟讛专讜转 讘注讬讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讬拽讛 诇讘注诇讛

The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 we are dealing in the mishna with a case of a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle? The Gemara answers: The mishna is dealing both with a case where she has a fixed menstrual cycle and with a case where she does not have a fixed menstrual cycle. And this is what the mishna teaches us: That even though she has a fixed menstrual cycle, and therefore one might think that she is exempt from examination, nevertheless if she handles pure items, since she is required to perform an examination in preparation for handling those pure items, she is also required to perform an examination in preparation for intercourse with her husband.

讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讗住讜专讛 诇砖诪砖 注讚 砖转讘讚讜拽 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘注住讜拽讛 讘讟讛专讜转 讞讚讗 诪讻诇诇 讞讘专转讛 讗转诪专

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Shmuel already state this halakha on another occasion? As Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya says that Shmuel says: With regard to a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, it is forbidden for her to engage in intercourse with her husband until she examines herself and determines that she is pure. And we interpreted this halakha as referring to a case where she is engaged in handling pure items. The Gemara answers: Shmuel did not in fact issue two statements; rather, one was stated by inference from the other. In other words, Shmuel said one of these statements explicitly; the other was reported by his students in his name based on an inference from what he had said.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讟讛专讜转 讗讘诇 诇讘注诇讛 诪讜转专转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讛谞讬讞讛 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专讛 讗讘诇 讛谞讬讞讛 讘讞讝拽转 讟诪讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讛讬讗 讘讟讜诪讗转讛 注讚 砖转讗诪专 诇讜 讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬

The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that a woman requires an examination, said? It is said with regard to a woman who is preparing for handling pure items. But with regard to engaging in intercourse with her husband, she is permitted to do so without performing an examination. The baraita qualifies this ruling: And in what case is this statement, that she is not required to perform an examination, said? It is said when her husband traveled and left her with the presumptive status of ritual purity. If so, upon his return she does not need to perform an examination before they engage in intercourse. But if he left her with the presumptive status of ritual impurity, she remains forever in her status of impurity, until she says to him: I am ritually pure.

Scroll To Top