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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 6, 2019 | 讞壮 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 14

The mishna and gemara deal with examinations that women do before and after having sex. What are we not concerned that maybe the blood came from a louse? What if the examination cloth wasn’t checked before and after the examination, she put it in a box and the following day found it had blood on it? There are side disucssions that grapple with relationships between student and rabbi and also ask should one always follow the rabbi or can there be circumstances where one can follow the student? What are the times referred to in the different stages in the mishna where the woman examined herself ater having sex – each stage has different halachic ramifications regarding laws of purity and聽the sin offering.


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

专讜讻讘讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讜讻讘讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讻讜诇诐 专砖注讬诐 讛住驻谞讬诐 讻讜诇诐 爪讚讬拽讬诐

It is prohibited for camel riders to partake of teruma, due to the concern for a seminal emission that might result from the friction. The Gemara notes: This opinion of Abaye is also taught in a baraita: Camel riders are all wicked, as they are suspected of emitting semen for naught. Sailors are all righteous, because they are in a constant state of danger at sea, and therefore their hearts are always turned to God in prayer.

讛讞诪专讬诐 诪讛谉 专砖注讬诐 诪讛谉 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 讚诪讻祝 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讻祝 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 讚诪讟专讟讬谉 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讟专讟讬谉

The baraita continues: As for donkey drivers, some of them are wicked while some of them are righteous. With regard to the difference between wicked and righteous donkey drivers, there are those who say that this donkey driver is righteous, as his donkey is saddled, and therefore his penis does not rub against it, whereas that donkey driver is wicked, as his donkey is not saddled, which can cause a seminal emission. And there are those who say: This donkey driver is wicked, as he spreads [demittartein] his thighs on either side of the donkey, whereas that donkey driver is righteous as he does not spread his thighs in this manner, but rides with both legs on one side of the donkey, so that his penis does not rub against the donkey.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讬讬讟 讗诪讗谉 讚讙谞讬 讗驻专拽讬讚 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 驻专拽讚谉 诇讗 讬拽专讗 拽专讬转 砖诪注 拽专讬转 砖诪注 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬拽专讗 讛讗 诪讙谞讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara further discusses actions that are apt to lead to a seminal emission. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would curse one who sleeps lying on his back [aparkeid], as this might lead to a seminal emission. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yosef say: One who is lying on his back may not recite Shema? From this it may be inferred that it is only Shema that one may not recite in this position, but to sleep lying in that position is permitted.

诇注谞讬谉 诪讙谞讗 讻讬 诪爪诇讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诇注谞讬谉 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻讬 诪爪诇讬 讗住讜专 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪爪诇讬 讜拽专讬 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 砖讗谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘注诇 讘砖专 讛讜讛

The Gemara answers: With regard to the prohibition against sleeping while lying on one鈥檚 back, when one leans slightly to the side it is permitted. But with regard to reciting Shema while lying face upward, even when one leans slightly to the side it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: But wouldn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan lie on his back leaning slightly to the side and recite Shema in this manner? The Gemara answers: The halakha in the case of Rabbi Yo岣nan is different, as he was corpulent, and consequently he could lean only slightly.

诪转谞讬壮 讚专讱 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讗讞讚 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇讛 讜讛爪谞讜注讜转 诪转拽谞讜转 砖诇讬砖讬 诇转拽谉 讗转 讛讘讬转

MISHNA: It is the custom of Jewish women that they engage in intercourse with their husbands while using two examination cloths, one for the husband, to see if there is any of the wife鈥檚 blood on him after intercourse, and one for her, to ascertain after intercourse whether her menstrual flow has begun. And the modest women prepare a third examination cloth, to examine themselves and prepare the pubic area for intercourse.

谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 讗讜转讬讜诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪住驻拽 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉

If blood was found on his cloth, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure for seven days, in accordance with the halakha of a menstruating woman and of one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman, and are each liable to bring a sin offering for unwittingly performing an action punishable with excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. If blood was found on her cloth immediately [otyom] after intercourse, the woman and her husband are likewise ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering.

讗讬讝讛讜 讗讞专 讝诪谉 讻讚讬 砖转专讚 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 讜转讚讬讞 驻谞讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛

What is considered as being: After time passed? It is a period of time equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face, a euphemism for her pubic area. And afterward, she retroactively transmits impurity to all ritually pure items with which she came into contact for the preceding twenty-four-hour period, by rabbinic law, but she does not transmit seven-day impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse. He is impure with this impurity by rabbinic law only until the evening, like one who came in contact with a menstruating woman. Rabbi Akiva says: In the case where blood was found on her cloth after time passed, she even transmits seven-day impurity by rabbinic law to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse.

诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘专讜讗讛 讻转诐 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛

The mishna concludes: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva in the case of a woman who sees a blood stain and then engages in intercourse, that she transmits seven-day impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse, although this impurity also applies by rabbinic law.

讙诪壮 讜谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讚诐 诪讗讻讜诇转 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讘讚讜拽 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 诪讗讻讜诇转 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讞讜拽 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 诪讗讻讜诇转

GEMARA: The mishna states that if blood is found on the husband鈥檚 cloth after intercourse the husband and wife are both definitely impure. The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned that perhaps it is the blood of a louse, as it is possible that there was a louse in the woman鈥檚 pubic area that was squashed during intercourse, and its blood was found on the husband鈥檚 penis. Accordingly, it should be uncertain if they are impure. Rabbi Zeira says: There is no concern for this possibility, as that place, a woman鈥檚 genitals, is considered examined [baduk] with regard to the appearance of a louse, i.e., it is clear that no louse was there. And some say a different version of Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement: That place is too narrow [da岣k] for a louse to enter, and therefore this is not a concern.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗砖转讻讞 诪讗讻讜诇转 专爪讜驻讛 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讘讚讜拽 讛讜讗 讛讗 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讗讬 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讚讞讜拽 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 砖诪砖 专爪驻讛

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two versions of Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where a squashed louse was found on the husband鈥檚 cloth, near the blood: According to this version, which states that a woman鈥檚 genitals are considered examined with regard to a louse, this louse certainly came from elsewhere, as a louse is never found in her pubic area, so the blood on the cloth is clearly from the woman, and therefore the couple is ritually impure. By contrast, according to that version, which states that the place is too narrow for a louse to enter, one can say that although it is generally too narrow, in this case one did enter and the man鈥檚 organ squashed it during intercourse, and therefore their impurity is uncertain.

讗转诪专 讘讚拽讛 讘注讚 讛讘讚讜拽 诇讛 讜讟讞转讜 讘讬专讻讛 讜诇诪讞专 诪爪讗讛 注诇讬讛 讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 讟诪讗讛 谞讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讜讛讗 讞讜砖砖转 讗诪专转 诇谉

It was stated: If the woman examined herself with a cloth that was examined by her before she used it and found free of blood, and after the examination she pressed it against her thigh, and did not look at the cloth, and on the following day she found blood on her thigh, Rav says: In such a case she is definitely impure as a menstruating woman. Since it is known that the cloth was clear of blood before the examination, the blood on her thigh must be from her examination, and it must have passed onto her thigh after the cloth was pressed there. Rav Shimi bar 岣yya said to Rav: But didn鈥檛 you say to us with regard to this case that she needs to be concerned for ritual impurity, which indicates that her impurity is uncertain?

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟诪讗讛 谞讚讛 讜讻谉 诪讜专讬谉 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讟诪讗讛 谞讚讛

In this regard it was also stated that Shmuel says: She is definitely impure as a menstruating woman. And they likewise rule as a practical halakha in the study hall that this woman is definitely impure as a menstruating woman.

讗转诪专 讘讚拽讛 讘注讚 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讚讜拽 诇讛 讜讛谞讬讞转讜 讘拽讜驻住讗 讜诇诪讞专 诪爪讗讛 注诇讬讜 讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讟讬诪讗 讜诇注转 讝拽谞转讜 讟讬讛专

With regard to a similar case, it was stated: If a woman examined herself with a cloth that was not examined by her before its use, and she then placed it in a box without looking at it, and on the following day she found blood on this cloth, the question is whether the blood was on the cloth before the examination and the woman is consequently not impure, or whether the blood is from the examination, and she is impure. Rav Yosef says: All the days of Rabbi 岣yya he would deem such a woman impure, but in his old age he would deem her pure.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讟讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛 讜诇注转 讝拽谞转讜 讟讬讛专 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛 讜讟讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讻转诐

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to this statement of Rav Yosef: With regard to what type of impurity status is he speaking? Does he mean that all his days Rabbi 岣yya would deem the woman definitely impure as a menstruating woman, and therefore any teruma with which she came into contact required burning; and in his old age he would deem her pure from the definite impurity status of a menstruating woman, but would deem her impure as a woman who discovered a stain, which is an uncertain source of impurity? If so, according to his ruling from his old age any teruma she touches is not burned but may not be eaten.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讟讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讻转诐 讜诇注转 讝拽谞转讜 讟讬讛专 诪讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

Or perhaps does Rav Yosef mean that all his days Rabbi 岣yya would deem the woman impure as a matter of uncertainty due to the stain, and in his old age he would deem her pure from any type of impurity status?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讘讚拽讛 讘注讚 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讚讜拽 诇讛 讜讛谞讬讞转讜 讘拽讜驻住讗 讜诇诪讞专 诪爪讗讛 注诇讬讜 讚诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 讟诪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讻转诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution for this dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman examined herself with a cloth that was not examined by her before its use, and she placed it in a box, and on the following day she found blood on this cloth, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: She is definitely impure as a menstruating woman, and Rabbi 岣yya says: She is impure as a matter of uncertainty due to the stain.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 讻讙专讬住 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 (讗转讛) 讗祝 讗转讛 注砖讬转讜 讻转诐

Rabbi 岣yya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Do you not concede that for her to become ritually impure she requires that the size of the blood stain on the cloth be more than the size of a split bean? If the stain is smaller, it is assumed to have been caused by a squashed louse. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Indeed [aval], that is correct. Rabbi 岣yya said to him: If so, you too render this blood found on the cloth in the box a stain, which renders one impure as a matter of uncertainty. If you had considered it definitely impure, there would have been no distinction between a small stain and a large one.

讜专讘讬 住讘专 讘注讬谞谉 讻讙专讬住 讜注讜讚 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚诐 诪讗讻讜诇转 讜讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽 诇讛 诪讚诐 诪讗讻讜诇转 讜讚讗讬 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讗

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who deems the woman definitely impure in this case, maintains that although we require that the size of the blood stain be more than the size of a split bean, this is necessary only to exclude the possibility that this is the blood of a louse; and since the possibility that it is the blood of a louse has been excluded, as its size is more than that of a split bean, it certainly came from her body, and therefore she is definitely impure.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讝拽谞讜转讜 拽讗讬 讛讗 讘讬诇讚讜转讜 讟讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara analyzes this statement of Rabbi 岣yya with reference to the dilemma under discussion: What, is it not correct to assume that Rabbi 岣yya was in his old age when he disagreed with his teacher, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He would not have done so when he was young. And if he deemed the woman impure as a matter of uncertainty in his old age, it can be inferred that in his youth he would deem her definitely impure as a menstruating woman. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from here that this is the case.

诪砖转讘讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讘讬住讗 讚讗讚诐 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讻砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讱 讛讘讬讗讛讜 诇讬讚讬

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would praise Rabbi 岣ma bar Bisa to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, by saying that he is a great man. Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: When he comes to you, bring him to me.

讻讬 讗转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讘讚拽讛 讘注讚 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讚讜拽 诇讛 讜讛谞讬讞转讜 讘拽讜驻住讗 讜诇诪讞专 诪爪讗讛 注诇讬讜 讚诐 诪讛讜

When Rabbi 岣ma came before him, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Ask me about a halakhic matter. Rabbi 岣ma asked him: If a woman examined herself with a cloth that was not examined by her before its use, and she placed it in a box, and on the following day she found blood on this cloth, what is the halakha?

讗诪专 诇讜 讻讚讘专讬 讗讘讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗讜 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讬

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Shall I say to you an answer in accordance with the statement of father, Rabbi Yosei, or shall I say to you an answer in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Which would you prefer? Rabbi 岣ma said to him: Say to me an answer in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讝讛讜 砖讗讜诪专讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讗讚诐 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讗 讛讬讗讱 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛专讘 讜砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛转诇诪讬讚

Rabbi Yishmael said: Is this the one that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says about him that he is a great man? How can he neglect the statement of the teacher, Rabbi Yosei, and listen to the statement of the student, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?

讜专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讘讬住讗 住讘专 专讘讬 专讬砖 诪转讬讘转讗 讛讜讗 讜砖讻讬讞讬 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讜诪讞讚讚讬 砖诪注转转讬讛

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi 岣ma bar Bisa did so because he maintains that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is preferable, as he is the head of the yeshiva, and the Sages are frequently in his presence, and due to the constant disputes his statements are sharper than those of Rabbi Yosei, despite the fact that Rabbi Yosei was his teacher.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讜诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 转谞讗 专讘讬 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讟讛专

The Gemara asks: What is this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, referred to by Rabbi Yishmael? Rav Adda bar Mattana says that the reference is to that which was taught in a baraita with regard to this case: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the woman impure and Rabbi Yosei deems her pure.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻砖讟讬诪讗 专讘讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻砖讟讬讛专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇注爪诪讜 讟讬讛专

And Rabbi Zeira says, in explanation of this dispute: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deemed the woman impure, he ruled in accordance with the line of reasoning of Rabbi Meir, and when Rabbi Yosei deemed her pure, he deemed her pure in accordance with his own line of reasoning.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讗砖讛 砖讛讬转讛 注讜砖讛 爪专讻讬讛 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 注讜诪讚转 讟诪讗讛 讗诐 讬讜砖讘转 讟讛讜专讛

As it is taught in a mishna (59b): In the case of a woman who was urinating and saw blood mixed in the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinated while standing, she is impure, as the blood could have originated in the uterus. If she was sitting, she is pure, as the blood is clearly from the urethra.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讟讛讜专讛

Rabbi Yosei says: Whether she urinates in this manner, standing, or whether she urinates in that manner, sitting, she is pure. Like Rabbi Meir, who disregards the possibility that the blood originated in the urethra in a case where the woman was standing, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems a woman impure in the case where blood is found on the cloth in the box, despite the possibility that it could have been on the cloth before she used it to examine herself. Rabbi Yosei, by contrast, maintains that wherever there is a reasonable uncertainty, the woman is not impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻砖讟讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讟讬诪讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讻转诐 讜讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛 讗讬转诪专

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, say that when Rabbi Meir deemed the woman impure in the case involving urination, he merely deemed her impure as a matter of uncertainty, due to contact with a blood stain, whereas Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that in the case involving a stained cloth the woman is definitely impure as a menstruating woman? Rav Ashi said to Rav A岣, son of Rava: This is what we are saying: When that comment of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, concerning the ruling of Rabbi Meir was stated, it was stated that he deemed the woman impure as a menstruating woman.

谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 讗讜转讬讜诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬注讜专 讜住转 诪砖诇 诇砖诪砖 讜注讚 砖注讜诪讚讬谉 讘爪讚 讛诪砖拽讜祝 讘讬爪讬讗转 砖诪砖 谞讻谞住 注讚

搂 The mishna states: If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure and are each liable to bring a sin offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, i.e., what is considered to be immediately after intercourse? This is comparable to a male organ and a cloth that are standing alongside the doorpost, i.e., at the entrance to the vagina; at the exit of the organ the cloth immediately enters.

讛讜讬 讜住转 砖讗诪专讜 诇拽讬谞讜讞 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讘讚讬拽讛

The Gemara comments: This is the period of time concerning which the Sages said: During this period any blood on the cloth renders both the woman and the man ritually impure and liable to bring a sin offering. Yet this period is referring only to an external wipe of the pubic area with the cloth after intercourse, to see if there was a flow of blood during intercourse. But this time frame was not stated with regard to a full internal examination. If the woman conducts a full examination of herself, too much time would have passed since the intercourse for the man to be considered definitely impure.

谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

搂 The mishna further states: If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and therefore they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita: But they are each liable to bring a provisional guilt offering brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering. The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason that he does not render each of them liable to bring a provisional guilt offering?

讘注讬谞谉 讞转讬讻讛 诪砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转

The Gemara answers: The tanna of our mishna holds that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering in every case involving the uncertain violation of a prohibition that, were it certain, would render one liable to bring a sin offering. Rather, we require it to be a case akin to that of one piece from two pieces, e.g., one had two pieces of meat before him, one of which was definitely forbidden while the other was permitted, and he does not know for certain which he ate. But when the uncertainty involves a single item, which may or may not have been forbidden, one does not bring a provisional guilt offering. In the case discussed in the mishna there is only one woman, as it is uncertain whether or not engaging in intercourse with her was permitted, which depends on whether menstruation began before or after intercourse.

讗讬讝讛讜 讗讞专 讝诪谉 讜讻讜壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讞专 讝诪谉 驻讬专砖 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讻讚讬 砖转讜砖讬讟 讬讚讛 转讞转 讛讻专 讗讜 转讞转 讛讻住转 讜转讟讜诇 注讚 讜转讘讚讜拽 讘讜

搂 The mishna states: What is considered after time passed? It is a period of time equivalent to the time needed for the woman to descend from the bed and rinse her pubic area. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: What is considered after time passed? Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, explained: It is a period equivalent to the time in which she may extend her hand under the cushion or under the blanket and take a cloth and examine herself with it. This is a shorter period than that required for her to get out of bed and rinse her pubic area.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讗讞专 讗讞专 讗讞专

Rav 岣sda says: What is the meaning of: After, in the mishna? After, after. In other words, this is referring to the period after the period of time mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, who said it is after the amount of time it takes for the woman to extend her hand under the cushion and take a cloth and examine herself. The mishna is referring to the period of time that follows the time frame referred to by Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, as: After time passed. If blood is found after this amount of time has elapsed the man is not ritually impure for a seven-day period, but only until evening, according to the Rabbis.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 注诇讛 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪住驻拽 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 讗讬讝讛讜 壮讗讞专 讝诪谉壮 讻讚讬 砖转专讚 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 讜转讚讬讞 驻谞讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna with regard to this time period: If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. And the mishna continues: What is considered after time passed? It is a period of time equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face, i.e., her pubic area. This indicates that the period of time that follows the ability to perform an immediate examination is that which is mentioned in the mishna, and the mishna is not discussing the third time frame concerning which the husband is impure only until the evening.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讞专 讝诪谉 讻讚讬 砖转讜砖讬讟 讬讚讛 诇转讞转 讛讻专 讗讜 诇转讞转 讛讻住转 讜转讟讜诇 注讚 讜转讘讚讜拽 讘讜 讜讻讚讬 砖转专讚 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 讜转讚讬讞 讗转 驻谞讬讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: What is considered after time passed? It is a period equivalent to the time in which she may extend her hand under the cushion or under the blanket and take a cloth and examine herself with it, as stated by Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok. And with regard to the other time frame, i.e., equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face, i.e., her pubic area, there is a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis as to whether the man is impure for seven days or only until the evening.

讜讛讗 讗讞专 讻讱 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讝讛讜 讗讞专 讻讱 砖谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis, doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach: Afterward, which indicates that they disagree concerning blood found in the time period that comes after the period in which she can descend from the bed and rinse her pubic area? The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: And this time frame, i.e., which is equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her pubic area, is that period of time labeled: Afterward, with regard to which Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞讚 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗 注讚 讘讬讚讛 讻讚讬 砖转专讚 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 讜转讚讬讞 讗转 驻谞讬讛 讗讬谉 注讚 讘讬讚讛 讻讚讬 砖转讜砖讬讟 讬讚讛 诇转讞转 讛讻专 讗讜 诇转讞转 讛讻住转 讜转讟讜诇 注讚 讜转讘讚讜拽 讘讜

Rav Ashi says a different resolution of the apparent contradiction between the mishna and the baraita: Both this and that are one period, as it all depends on the situation. If the cloth is already in her hand, she does not need to extend her hand, and therefore the time frame is as stated in the mishna: Equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face. If the cloth is not in her hand, the period is equivalent to the time in which she may extend her hand under the cushion or under the blanket and take a cloth and examine herself with it, while she is still in bed.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讞专 讝诪谉 讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讗讜砖讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ashi鈥檚 interpretation from a baraita: What is considered after time passed, at which point the blood found on the woman鈥檚 cloth renders them both impure as a matter of uncertainty for seven days? About this matter Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, asked the Sages in Usha, and he said to them:

  • 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 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 14

专讜讻讘讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讜讻讘讬 讙诪诇讬诐 讻讜诇诐 专砖注讬诐 讛住驻谞讬诐 讻讜诇诐 爪讚讬拽讬诐

It is prohibited for camel riders to partake of teruma, due to the concern for a seminal emission that might result from the friction. The Gemara notes: This opinion of Abaye is also taught in a baraita: Camel riders are all wicked, as they are suspected of emitting semen for naught. Sailors are all righteous, because they are in a constant state of danger at sea, and therefore their hearts are always turned to God in prayer.

讛讞诪专讬诐 诪讛谉 专砖注讬诐 诪讛谉 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 讚诪讻祝 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讻祝 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 讚诪讟专讟讬谉 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讟专讟讬谉

The baraita continues: As for donkey drivers, some of them are wicked while some of them are righteous. With regard to the difference between wicked and righteous donkey drivers, there are those who say that this donkey driver is righteous, as his donkey is saddled, and therefore his penis does not rub against it, whereas that donkey driver is wicked, as his donkey is not saddled, which can cause a seminal emission. And there are those who say: This donkey driver is wicked, as he spreads [demittartein] his thighs on either side of the donkey, whereas that donkey driver is righteous as he does not spread his thighs in this manner, but rides with both legs on one side of the donkey, so that his penis does not rub against the donkey.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讬讬讟 讗诪讗谉 讚讙谞讬 讗驻专拽讬讚 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 驻专拽讚谉 诇讗 讬拽专讗 拽专讬转 砖诪注 拽专讬转 砖诪注 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬拽专讗 讛讗 诪讙谞讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara further discusses actions that are apt to lead to a seminal emission. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would curse one who sleeps lying on his back [aparkeid], as this might lead to a seminal emission. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yosef say: One who is lying on his back may not recite Shema? From this it may be inferred that it is only Shema that one may not recite in this position, but to sleep lying in that position is permitted.

诇注谞讬谉 诪讙谞讗 讻讬 诪爪诇讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诇注谞讬谉 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻讬 诪爪诇讬 讗住讜专 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪爪诇讬 讜拽专讬 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 砖讗谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘注诇 讘砖专 讛讜讛

The Gemara answers: With regard to the prohibition against sleeping while lying on one鈥檚 back, when one leans slightly to the side it is permitted. But with regard to reciting Shema while lying face upward, even when one leans slightly to the side it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: But wouldn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan lie on his back leaning slightly to the side and recite Shema in this manner? The Gemara answers: The halakha in the case of Rabbi Yo岣nan is different, as he was corpulent, and consequently he could lean only slightly.

诪转谞讬壮 讚专讱 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讗讞讚 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇讛 讜讛爪谞讜注讜转 诪转拽谞讜转 砖诇讬砖讬 诇转拽谉 讗转 讛讘讬转

MISHNA: It is the custom of Jewish women that they engage in intercourse with their husbands while using two examination cloths, one for the husband, to see if there is any of the wife鈥檚 blood on him after intercourse, and one for her, to ascertain after intercourse whether her menstrual flow has begun. And the modest women prepare a third examination cloth, to examine themselves and prepare the pubic area for intercourse.

谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 讗讜转讬讜诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪住驻拽 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉

If blood was found on his cloth, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure for seven days, in accordance with the halakha of a menstruating woman and of one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman, and are each liable to bring a sin offering for unwittingly performing an action punishable with excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. If blood was found on her cloth immediately [otyom] after intercourse, the woman and her husband are likewise ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering.

讗讬讝讛讜 讗讞专 讝诪谉 讻讚讬 砖转专讚 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 讜转讚讬讞 驻谞讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛

What is considered as being: After time passed? It is a period of time equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face, a euphemism for her pubic area. And afterward, she retroactively transmits impurity to all ritually pure items with which she came into contact for the preceding twenty-four-hour period, by rabbinic law, but she does not transmit seven-day impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse. He is impure with this impurity by rabbinic law only until the evening, like one who came in contact with a menstruating woman. Rabbi Akiva says: In the case where blood was found on her cloth after time passed, she even transmits seven-day impurity by rabbinic law to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse.

诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘专讜讗讛 讻转诐 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛

The mishna concludes: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva in the case of a woman who sees a blood stain and then engages in intercourse, that she transmits seven-day impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse, although this impurity also applies by rabbinic law.

讙诪壮 讜谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讚诐 诪讗讻讜诇转 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讘讚讜拽 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 诪讗讻讜诇转 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讞讜拽 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 诪讗讻讜诇转

GEMARA: The mishna states that if blood is found on the husband鈥檚 cloth after intercourse the husband and wife are both definitely impure. The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned that perhaps it is the blood of a louse, as it is possible that there was a louse in the woman鈥檚 pubic area that was squashed during intercourse, and its blood was found on the husband鈥檚 penis. Accordingly, it should be uncertain if they are impure. Rabbi Zeira says: There is no concern for this possibility, as that place, a woman鈥檚 genitals, is considered examined [baduk] with regard to the appearance of a louse, i.e., it is clear that no louse was there. And some say a different version of Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement: That place is too narrow [da岣k] for a louse to enter, and therefore this is not a concern.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗砖转讻讞 诪讗讻讜诇转 专爪讜驻讛 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讘讚讜拽 讛讜讗 讛讗 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讗讬 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讚讞讜拽 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 砖诪砖 专爪驻讛

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two versions of Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where a squashed louse was found on the husband鈥檚 cloth, near the blood: According to this version, which states that a woman鈥檚 genitals are considered examined with regard to a louse, this louse certainly came from elsewhere, as a louse is never found in her pubic area, so the blood on the cloth is clearly from the woman, and therefore the couple is ritually impure. By contrast, according to that version, which states that the place is too narrow for a louse to enter, one can say that although it is generally too narrow, in this case one did enter and the man鈥檚 organ squashed it during intercourse, and therefore their impurity is uncertain.

讗转诪专 讘讚拽讛 讘注讚 讛讘讚讜拽 诇讛 讜讟讞转讜 讘讬专讻讛 讜诇诪讞专 诪爪讗讛 注诇讬讛 讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 讟诪讗讛 谞讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讜讛讗 讞讜砖砖转 讗诪专转 诇谉

It was stated: If the woman examined herself with a cloth that was examined by her before she used it and found free of blood, and after the examination she pressed it against her thigh, and did not look at the cloth, and on the following day she found blood on her thigh, Rav says: In such a case she is definitely impure as a menstruating woman. Since it is known that the cloth was clear of blood before the examination, the blood on her thigh must be from her examination, and it must have passed onto her thigh after the cloth was pressed there. Rav Shimi bar 岣yya said to Rav: But didn鈥檛 you say to us with regard to this case that she needs to be concerned for ritual impurity, which indicates that her impurity is uncertain?

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟诪讗讛 谞讚讛 讜讻谉 诪讜专讬谉 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讟诪讗讛 谞讚讛

In this regard it was also stated that Shmuel says: She is definitely impure as a menstruating woman. And they likewise rule as a practical halakha in the study hall that this woman is definitely impure as a menstruating woman.

讗转诪专 讘讚拽讛 讘注讚 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讚讜拽 诇讛 讜讛谞讬讞转讜 讘拽讜驻住讗 讜诇诪讞专 诪爪讗讛 注诇讬讜 讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讟讬诪讗 讜诇注转 讝拽谞转讜 讟讬讛专

With regard to a similar case, it was stated: If a woman examined herself with a cloth that was not examined by her before its use, and she then placed it in a box without looking at it, and on the following day she found blood on this cloth, the question is whether the blood was on the cloth before the examination and the woman is consequently not impure, or whether the blood is from the examination, and she is impure. Rav Yosef says: All the days of Rabbi 岣yya he would deem such a woman impure, but in his old age he would deem her pure.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讟讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛 讜诇注转 讝拽谞转讜 讟讬讛专 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛 讜讟讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讻转诐

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to this statement of Rav Yosef: With regard to what type of impurity status is he speaking? Does he mean that all his days Rabbi 岣yya would deem the woman definitely impure as a menstruating woman, and therefore any teruma with which she came into contact required burning; and in his old age he would deem her pure from the definite impurity status of a menstruating woman, but would deem her impure as a woman who discovered a stain, which is an uncertain source of impurity? If so, according to his ruling from his old age any teruma she touches is not burned but may not be eaten.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讟讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讻转诐 讜诇注转 讝拽谞转讜 讟讬讛专 诪讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

Or perhaps does Rav Yosef mean that all his days Rabbi 岣yya would deem the woman impure as a matter of uncertainty due to the stain, and in his old age he would deem her pure from any type of impurity status?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讘讚拽讛 讘注讚 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讚讜拽 诇讛 讜讛谞讬讞转讜 讘拽讜驻住讗 讜诇诪讞专 诪爪讗讛 注诇讬讜 讚诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 讟诪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讻转诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution for this dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman examined herself with a cloth that was not examined by her before its use, and she placed it in a box, and on the following day she found blood on this cloth, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: She is definitely impure as a menstruating woman, and Rabbi 岣yya says: She is impure as a matter of uncertainty due to the stain.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 讻讙专讬住 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 (讗转讛) 讗祝 讗转讛 注砖讬转讜 讻转诐

Rabbi 岣yya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Do you not concede that for her to become ritually impure she requires that the size of the blood stain on the cloth be more than the size of a split bean? If the stain is smaller, it is assumed to have been caused by a squashed louse. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Indeed [aval], that is correct. Rabbi 岣yya said to him: If so, you too render this blood found on the cloth in the box a stain, which renders one impure as a matter of uncertainty. If you had considered it definitely impure, there would have been no distinction between a small stain and a large one.

讜专讘讬 住讘专 讘注讬谞谉 讻讙专讬住 讜注讜讚 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚诐 诪讗讻讜诇转 讜讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽 诇讛 诪讚诐 诪讗讻讜诇转 讜讚讗讬 诪讙讜驻讛 讗转讗

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who deems the woman definitely impure in this case, maintains that although we require that the size of the blood stain be more than the size of a split bean, this is necessary only to exclude the possibility that this is the blood of a louse; and since the possibility that it is the blood of a louse has been excluded, as its size is more than that of a split bean, it certainly came from her body, and therefore she is definitely impure.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讝拽谞讜转讜 拽讗讬 讛讗 讘讬诇讚讜转讜 讟讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara analyzes this statement of Rabbi 岣yya with reference to the dilemma under discussion: What, is it not correct to assume that Rabbi 岣yya was in his old age when he disagreed with his teacher, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He would not have done so when he was young. And if he deemed the woman impure as a matter of uncertainty in his old age, it can be inferred that in his youth he would deem her definitely impure as a menstruating woman. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from here that this is the case.

诪砖转讘讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讘讬住讗 讚讗讚诐 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讻砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讱 讛讘讬讗讛讜 诇讬讚讬

搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would praise Rabbi 岣ma bar Bisa to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, by saying that he is a great man. Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: When he comes to you, bring him to me.

讻讬 讗转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讘讚拽讛 讘注讚 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讚讜拽 诇讛 讜讛谞讬讞转讜 讘拽讜驻住讗 讜诇诪讞专 诪爪讗讛 注诇讬讜 讚诐 诪讛讜

When Rabbi 岣ma came before him, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Ask me about a halakhic matter. Rabbi 岣ma asked him: If a woman examined herself with a cloth that was not examined by her before its use, and she placed it in a box, and on the following day she found blood on this cloth, what is the halakha?

讗诪专 诇讜 讻讚讘专讬 讗讘讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗讜 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讬

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Shall I say to you an answer in accordance with the statement of father, Rabbi Yosei, or shall I say to you an answer in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Which would you prefer? Rabbi 岣ma said to him: Say to me an answer in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讝讛讜 砖讗讜诪专讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讗讚诐 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讗 讛讬讗讱 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛专讘 讜砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛转诇诪讬讚

Rabbi Yishmael said: Is this the one that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says about him that he is a great man? How can he neglect the statement of the teacher, Rabbi Yosei, and listen to the statement of the student, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?

讜专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讘讬住讗 住讘专 专讘讬 专讬砖 诪转讬讘转讗 讛讜讗 讜砖讻讬讞讬 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讜诪讞讚讚讬 砖诪注转转讬讛

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi 岣ma bar Bisa did so because he maintains that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is preferable, as he is the head of the yeshiva, and the Sages are frequently in his presence, and due to the constant disputes his statements are sharper than those of Rabbi Yosei, despite the fact that Rabbi Yosei was his teacher.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讜诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 转谞讗 专讘讬 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讟讛专

The Gemara asks: What is this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, referred to by Rabbi Yishmael? Rav Adda bar Mattana says that the reference is to that which was taught in a baraita with regard to this case: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the woman impure and Rabbi Yosei deems her pure.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻砖讟讬诪讗 专讘讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻砖讟讬讛专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇注爪诪讜 讟讬讛专

And Rabbi Zeira says, in explanation of this dispute: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deemed the woman impure, he ruled in accordance with the line of reasoning of Rabbi Meir, and when Rabbi Yosei deemed her pure, he deemed her pure in accordance with his own line of reasoning.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讗砖讛 砖讛讬转讛 注讜砖讛 爪专讻讬讛 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 注讜诪讚转 讟诪讗讛 讗诐 讬讜砖讘转 讟讛讜专讛

As it is taught in a mishna (59b): In the case of a woman who was urinating and saw blood mixed in the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinated while standing, she is impure, as the blood could have originated in the uterus. If she was sitting, she is pure, as the blood is clearly from the urethra.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讟讛讜专讛

Rabbi Yosei says: Whether she urinates in this manner, standing, or whether she urinates in that manner, sitting, she is pure. Like Rabbi Meir, who disregards the possibility that the blood originated in the urethra in a case where the woman was standing, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems a woman impure in the case where blood is found on the cloth in the box, despite the possibility that it could have been on the cloth before she used it to examine herself. Rabbi Yosei, by contrast, maintains that wherever there is a reasonable uncertainty, the woman is not impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻砖讟讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讟讬诪讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讻转诐 讜讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛 讗讬转诪专

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, say that when Rabbi Meir deemed the woman impure in the case involving urination, he merely deemed her impure as a matter of uncertainty, due to contact with a blood stain, whereas Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that in the case involving a stained cloth the woman is definitely impure as a menstruating woman? Rav Ashi said to Rav A岣, son of Rava: This is what we are saying: When that comment of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, concerning the ruling of Rabbi Meir was stated, it was stated that he deemed the woman impure as a menstruating woman.

谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 讗讜转讬讜诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬注讜专 讜住转 诪砖诇 诇砖诪砖 讜注讚 砖注讜诪讚讬谉 讘爪讚 讛诪砖拽讜祝 讘讬爪讬讗转 砖诪砖 谞讻谞住 注讚

搂 The mishna states: If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure and are each liable to bring a sin offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, i.e., what is considered to be immediately after intercourse? This is comparable to a male organ and a cloth that are standing alongside the doorpost, i.e., at the entrance to the vagina; at the exit of the organ the cloth immediately enters.

讛讜讬 讜住转 砖讗诪专讜 诇拽讬谞讜讞 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讘讚讬拽讛

The Gemara comments: This is the period of time concerning which the Sages said: During this period any blood on the cloth renders both the woman and the man ritually impure and liable to bring a sin offering. Yet this period is referring only to an external wipe of the pubic area with the cloth after intercourse, to see if there was a flow of blood during intercourse. But this time frame was not stated with regard to a full internal examination. If the woman conducts a full examination of herself, too much time would have passed since the intercourse for the man to be considered definitely impure.

谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

搂 The mishna further states: If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and therefore they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita: But they are each liable to bring a provisional guilt offering brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering. The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason that he does not render each of them liable to bring a provisional guilt offering?

讘注讬谞谉 讞转讬讻讛 诪砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转

The Gemara answers: The tanna of our mishna holds that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering in every case involving the uncertain violation of a prohibition that, were it certain, would render one liable to bring a sin offering. Rather, we require it to be a case akin to that of one piece from two pieces, e.g., one had two pieces of meat before him, one of which was definitely forbidden while the other was permitted, and he does not know for certain which he ate. But when the uncertainty involves a single item, which may or may not have been forbidden, one does not bring a provisional guilt offering. In the case discussed in the mishna there is only one woman, as it is uncertain whether or not engaging in intercourse with her was permitted, which depends on whether menstruation began before or after intercourse.

讗讬讝讛讜 讗讞专 讝诪谉 讜讻讜壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讞专 讝诪谉 驻讬专砖 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讻讚讬 砖转讜砖讬讟 讬讚讛 转讞转 讛讻专 讗讜 转讞转 讛讻住转 讜转讟讜诇 注讚 讜转讘讚讜拽 讘讜

搂 The mishna states: What is considered after time passed? It is a period of time equivalent to the time needed for the woman to descend from the bed and rinse her pubic area. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: What is considered after time passed? Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, explained: It is a period equivalent to the time in which she may extend her hand under the cushion or under the blanket and take a cloth and examine herself with it. This is a shorter period than that required for her to get out of bed and rinse her pubic area.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讗讞专 讗讞专 讗讞专

Rav 岣sda says: What is the meaning of: After, in the mishna? After, after. In other words, this is referring to the period after the period of time mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, who said it is after the amount of time it takes for the woman to extend her hand under the cushion and take a cloth and examine herself. The mishna is referring to the period of time that follows the time frame referred to by Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, as: After time passed. If blood is found after this amount of time has elapsed the man is not ritually impure for a seven-day period, but only until evening, according to the Rabbis.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 注诇讛 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪住驻拽 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 讗讬讝讛讜 壮讗讞专 讝诪谉壮 讻讚讬 砖转专讚 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 讜转讚讬讞 驻谞讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna with regard to this time period: If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. And the mishna continues: What is considered after time passed? It is a period of time equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face, i.e., her pubic area. This indicates that the period of time that follows the ability to perform an immediate examination is that which is mentioned in the mishna, and the mishna is not discussing the third time frame concerning which the husband is impure only until the evening.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讞专 讝诪谉 讻讚讬 砖转讜砖讬讟 讬讚讛 诇转讞转 讛讻专 讗讜 诇转讞转 讛讻住转 讜转讟讜诇 注讚 讜转讘讚讜拽 讘讜 讜讻讚讬 砖转专讚 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 讜转讚讬讞 讗转 驻谞讬讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: What is considered after time passed? It is a period equivalent to the time in which she may extend her hand under the cushion or under the blanket and take a cloth and examine herself with it, as stated by Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok. And with regard to the other time frame, i.e., equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face, i.e., her pubic area, there is a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis as to whether the man is impure for seven days or only until the evening.

讜讛讗 讗讞专 讻讱 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讝讛讜 讗讞专 讻讱 砖谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis, doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach: Afterward, which indicates that they disagree concerning blood found in the time period that comes after the period in which she can descend from the bed and rinse her pubic area? The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: And this time frame, i.e., which is equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her pubic area, is that period of time labeled: Afterward, with regard to which Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞讚 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗 注讚 讘讬讚讛 讻讚讬 砖转专讚 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 讜转讚讬讞 讗转 驻谞讬讛 讗讬谉 注讚 讘讬讚讛 讻讚讬 砖转讜砖讬讟 讬讚讛 诇转讞转 讛讻专 讗讜 诇转讞转 讛讻住转 讜转讟讜诇 注讚 讜转讘讚讜拽 讘讜

Rav Ashi says a different resolution of the apparent contradiction between the mishna and the baraita: Both this and that are one period, as it all depends on the situation. If the cloth is already in her hand, she does not need to extend her hand, and therefore the time frame is as stated in the mishna: Equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face. If the cloth is not in her hand, the period is equivalent to the time in which she may extend her hand under the cushion or under the blanket and take a cloth and examine herself with it, while she is still in bed.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讞专 讝诪谉 讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讗讜砖讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ashi鈥檚 interpretation from a baraita: What is considered after time passed, at which point the blood found on the woman鈥檚 cloth renders them both impure as a matter of uncertainty for seven days? About this matter Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, asked the Sages in Usha, and he said to them:

Scroll To Top