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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 8, 2019 | 讬壮 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 16

Are laws of vestot聽 (when a woman is expected to get her period) rabbinic or from the Torah? Is it a subjec tof debate among tannaim and emoraim? There is a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding one who has relations multiple times a night – how many examinations does a woman who is dealing with taharot have to do? In the context of that discussion, a question arises regarding having intercourse in a lit room and the prohibtion to have intercourse during the day is a also discussed. What about humans is predetermines before their birth and what is not? The gemara quotes from Ben Sira and also other tanaim regarding a list of聽behaviors that are despised by God.


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

讻诪讬谉 谞驻诇

that she cast an item similar to a non-viable newborn into a pit. Perhaps it was not a non-viable newborn; it might simply have been congealed blood, which does not transmit impurity. Therefore, this is a conflict between uncertainty and uncertainty. It is unclear whether there was anything in the pit that could have rendered the priest ritually impure, and even if there was, it might already have been dragged away.

讜讛讗 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 拽转谞讬

The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita: And a priest came and looked into the pit to ascertain whether it was male or whether it was female? This indicates that the only uncertainty was with regard to its sex; it was certainly a non-viable newborn.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讘讗 讻讛谉 讜讛爪讬抓 讘讜 诇讬讚注 讗诐 谞驻诇 讛驻讬诇讛 讗诐 专讜讞 讛驻讬诇讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 谞驻诇 讛驻讬诇讛 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛

The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita is saying: And a priest came and glanced at the baby to ascertain whether the woman discharged a non-viable newborn, or whether she discharged an amorphous mass. And if you say that she discharged a non-viable newborn, he sought to ascertain whether it was male or whether it was female.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讜诇讚讛 讜讘专讚诇住 诪爪讜讬讬诐 砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讙专专讜讛讜

And if you wish, say instead that this was not a conflict between certainty and uncertainty; rather, it was between two certainties. Since martens and hyenas are common there, they certainly dragged it away immediately. Consequently, the ruling in this case does not contradict the principle that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讜 讚专讘谞谉

搂 The Gemara returns to the issue of a woman鈥檚 examination at the projected time of her period. The Sages asked Rav Na岣an: Does the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods, and in turn the obligation for her to perform an examination at that time, apply by Torah law? If so, if a woman did not examine herself she is ritually impure, even if she later examined herself and did not find any blood, as it is assumed that she emitted blood without her seeing it. Or perhaps the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods, and in turn the obligation for her to perform an examination at that time, applies by rabbinic law? If so, a woman who did not examine herself at the time and did not sense the emission of blood can still examine herself after that time and would be ritually pure.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讚讗诪专 讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讜讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 专讗转讛 讞讜砖砖转 诇讜住转讛 讜讞讜砖砖转 诇专讗讬讬转讛 讗诇诪讗 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rav Na岣an said to them: A resolution can be found for your dilemma from that which Huna our colleague said in the name of Rav: With regard to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, and the projected time of her period arrived and she did not examine herself, and ultimately, when she did examine herself, she saw blood, the halakha is that she must be concerned for ritual impurity from the projected time of her period and that therefore any pure items she touched since then are impure. And additionally, she must be concerned for ritual impurity with regard to the twenty-four hours prior to her seeing the blood, and any items she touched during those twenty-four hours are impure, even if she saw the blood a short while after the projected time of her period. Evidently, the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, which is why the halakha is stringent.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讗转讛 讛讗 诇讗 专讗转讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讜住转讜转 讚专讘谞谉

There are those who say that this is what Rav Na岣an said to the other Sages: The reason for Rav鈥檚 ruling that pure items she touched are retroactively considered impure is that she ultimately saw blood, from which it may be inferred that if she did not see blood, one is not concerned about the status of pure items that she touched from the projected time of her period, despite the fact that she neglected to examine herself at the time. Evidently, the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law.

讗讬转诪专 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讜讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘讚拽讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗转 讟诪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗转 讟讛讜专讛 谞诪讬 讟诪讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讜专讞 讘讝诪谞讜 讘讗

搂 Since the Gemara mentioned Rav鈥檚 ruling it cites the dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to this halakha. It was stated that these amora鈥檌m disagree about a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, and the projected time of her period arrived and she did not examine herself, and ultimately she examined herself. Rav says: If she examined herself at this later time and found that she was ritually impure, she is impure; and if she found that she was pure, she is pure. And Shmuel says: Even if she later examined herself and found that she was pure, she is impure. This is because the manner of women, i.e., a women鈥檚 menstrual period, comes at its usual time.

诇讬诪讗 讘讜住转讜转 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the concern for impurity of women at the pro-jected time of their periods? As one Sage, Shmuel, who rules that the woman is impure in both cases, holds that this concern for impurity applies by Torah law, and one Sage, Rav, who says that if her subsequent examination came out clean then she remains pure, holds that this concern for impurity applies by rabbinic law.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讗谉 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讜住转 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讜住转

Rabbi Zeira says: It is possible that everyone, even Rav, agrees that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, and the reason Rav deems the woman pure in this case is that here it is a situation where she examined herself within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, i.e., very close to the projected time of her period, and therefore it is assumed that if there was blood at the projected time of her period she would have seen it upon this examination. By contrast, there, in other cases of subsequent examinations, she did not examine herself within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讘讜住转讜转 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚专讘谞谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: Actually, Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the matter of the projected time of their periods itself, as one Sage, Shmuel, holds that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, and one Sage, Rav, holds that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗讛 谞讚讛

The Gemara continues to discuss this dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Rav Sheshet says: This disagreement between Rav and Shmuel is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: Rabbi Eliezer says that a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle but who did not examine herself at the projected time of her period is ritually impure as a menstruating woman, which indicates that in his opinion the examination at the projected time of a woman鈥檚 period applies by Torah law.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 转讘讚拽 讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗讛 谞讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讘讚拽

And Rabbi Yehoshua says that she should be examined now, despite the elapsed time, and if the examination came out clean she is pure retroactively as well. Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that this examination applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara adds: And the dispute of these tanna鈥檌m is parallel to the dispute of those tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: She is ritually impure as a menstruating woman, and the Rabbis say: She should be examined now.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讘诪讞讘讗 讜讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖讞专讚讛 诪住诇拽转 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞专讚讛 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讞专讚讛 讟诪讗讛 讗诇诪讗 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Abaye said: We, too, learn likewise in a mishna, as we learned in a mishna (39a): Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding from danger, and the projected time of her period arrived and she did not examine herself, nevertheless she is ritually pure, as it may be assumed that she did not experience bleeding because fear dispels the flow of menstrual blood, and therefore there is no concern that she might have emitted blood without sensing it. By inference, the reason she is pure is that there is fear of danger; but if there is no fear upon this woman, she is impure. Evidently, Rabbi Meir maintains that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law.

诇讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讘讛讗 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讜讗讛 讚诐 诪讞诪转 诪讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 讟讛讜专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara further suggests: Shall we say that these following tanna鈥檌m also disagree with regard to this matter of whether the examination at the projected time of a woman鈥檚 period is required by Torah law? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who sees blood due to a wound in her pubic area, even if she saw the blood during the days of her menstruation, including the projected time of her period, she is pure, as it is assumed that the blood came from the wound; this is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讞讜砖砖转 诇讜住转讛

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that if the woman does not have a fixed menstrual cycle then the blood can be attributed to the wound. But if she has a fixed menstrual cycle, and she saw blood on the projected day of her period, even if the blood was from the wound she must be concerned that blood from her period might be mixed with this blood from the wound, and must therefore observe impurity status.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara clarifies its suggestion: What, is it not the case that these Sages disagree with regard to this matter, i.e., that one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, and though she can examine herself and ascertain that she is pure, if she did not she is presumed impure, and therefore he is stringent in the case of a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle; and one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law, and consequently he rules leniently even with regard to a woman who has a fixed cycle?

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜住转讜转 讚专讘谞谉 讜讛讻讗 讘诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟诪讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Ravina says: No; they do not necessarily disagree with regard to this point, as it is possible that everyone, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, agrees that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law, and here they disagree as to whether the location of a woman鈥檚 source, i.e., her uterus, is impure, and therefore any blood that passes through there is impure, even if it is blood from a wound.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗砖讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讚诐 讟诪讗 讚拽讗转讬 讚专讱 诪拽讜专

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the woman herself is pure from the seven-day impurity status of a menstruating woman, as the requirement of an examination upon the projected time of her period applies by rabbinic law, but the blood is impure, even if it is from a wound, as it came through her source, and was thereby rendered impure. Consequently, the blood renders the woman impure until the evening.

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讬 讞讬讬砖转 诇讜住转 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 讟诪讗讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖转 诇讜住转 诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: If you are concerned due to the possibility that this is blood of her menstrual period, then the woman should also be impure as a menstruating woman. And if you are not concerned due to the possibility that this is blood of her menstrual period, then her source does not transmit impurity to the blood that passes through its location, as that blood is pure.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 注诇 讻诇 转砖诪讬砖 讜转砖诪讬砖 讗讜 转砖诪砖 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讚讬讛 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A woman is required to examine herself with two cloths, once before and once after each and every act of intercourse in which she engages throughout the night, and she must inspect them for blood the following morning, or she must engage in intercourse by the light of a lamp and inspect the cloths before and after each act of intercourse. Beit Hillel say: She is not required to examine herself between each act of intercourse. Rather, it is sufficient for her to examine herself with two cloths throughout the night, once before the first act of intercourse and once after the final act of intercourse.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛诪砖诪砖 诪讟转讜 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讙讜谞讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 注诇 讻诇 转砖诪讬砖 讗讜 转砖诪砖 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讚讬讛 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Beit Shammai it is permitted to engage in intercourse by the light of a lamp. In this regard, the Sages taught in a baraita: Even though the Sages said with regard to one who engages in intercourse by the light of a lamp, that this is disgraceful, Beit Shammai say: A woman is required to examine herself with two cloths, once before and once after each act of intercourse, or she must engage in intercourse by the light of a lamp. And Beit Hillel say: It is sufficient for her to examine herself with two cloths throughout the night, once before the first act of intercourse and once after the final act of intercourse.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 转专讗讛 讟讬驻转 讚诐 讻讞专讚诇 讘讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜转讞驻谞讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘讘讬讗讛 砖谞讬讛

It is taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: According to your statement that a woman may engage in intercourse several times in one night without an examination between each act of intercourse, let us be concerned lest she will see, i.e., emit, a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed during the first act of intercourse, and will thereby become impure, and semen from the second act of intercourse will cover it. Since the examination after the last act of intercourse will not reveal the drop of blood, the woman will erroneously think she is pure.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗祝 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 诇讬讞讜砖 注讚 砖讛专讜拽 讘转讜讱 讛驻讛 砖诪讗 谞讬诪讜拽 讜讛讜诇讱 诇讜

Beit Hillel said to them in response: Even according to your statement, let us be concerned that while the saliva was still in the mouth, i.e., while the blood was in her vagina, perhaps it was squashed and disappeared. Even if she examines herself after each act of intercourse, as mandated by Beit Shammai, it is possible that the semen of that act covered the blood, and it will not be revealed by the examination.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 谞讬诪讜拽 驻注诐 讗讞转 诇谞讬诪讜拽 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: One cannot compare the two situations, as a squashed drop of blood after the woman has engaged in intercourse once is not similar to a squashed drop of blood after the woman has engaged in intercourse twice, and therefore our concern is more reasonable.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专讜 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 专讘讬 讻诪讛 讛讗专讻转 注诇讬谞讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讜讟讘 砖讗讗专讬讱 注诇讬讻诐 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讗专讬讻讜 讬诪讬讻诐 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua said: I see as correct the statement of Beit Shammai in this case. His students said to him: Our teacher, how you have weighed [he鈥檈rakhta] us down with this stringent ruling. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: It is preferable that I weigh you down in this world, so that you do not sin by engaging in prohibited intercourse, i.e., so that your days in the World-to-Come will be lengthened [sheya鈥檃rikhu].

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讚讘专讬 讻讜诇诐 谞诇诪讚 讘注诇 谞驻砖 诇讗 讬讘注讜诇 讜讬砖谞讛

Rabbi Zeira says: From the statements of all of them, i.e., both Beit Shammai, who permit engaging in intercourse a second time only after an examination, and Beit Hillel, who rule that the second examination must be performed only after the final act of intercourse of the night, we can learn that their dispute relates only to that which is permitted after the fact. But a pious person [ba鈥檃l nefesh] should not engage in intercourse and repeat his act without an examination between each act.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讜注诇 讜砖讜谞讛 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讟讛专讜转

Rava says: Even a pious person may engage in intercourse and repeat the act without an examination in between, as when that baraita is taught, it is referring to a woman who handles pure items. But with regard to intercourse with her husband, there is no cause for concern.

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 讜讘诪讛 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 讘讞讝拽转讛 注讚 砖转讗诪专 诇讜 讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬

This opinion is also taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that a woman must examine herself before and after every act of intercourse according to Beit Shammai, or before the first act and after the last act, according to Beit Hillel? It was said with regard to a woman who handles pure items; but a woman is permitted to her husband even without any examination, and he is not required to ask her if she is pure. But in what case is this lenient statement said? When her husband traveled and left her with the presumptive status of ritual purity. But if he left her with the presumptive status of ritual impurity, she remains forever in her presumptive status of impurity until she says to him: I am pure.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘讚拽讛 讘注讚 讜讗讘讚 讗住讜专讛 诇砖诪砖 注讚 砖转讘讚讜拽 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讗讬诇讜 讗讬转讗 诪讬 诇讗 诪砖诪砖讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讬讚注讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 转砖诪砖

Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi says that Rav says: If a woman examined herself at night with a cloth, and the cloth was then immediately lost, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse again until she examines herself with another cloth, as perhaps there was blood on the cloth that was lost. Rabbi Ila objects to this: If this cloth were intact, i.e., if it were not lost, couldn鈥檛 this woman engage in intercourse with her husband that night, on the basis that she will examine the cloth only the following day, and isn鈥檛 this the halakha even though she does not know at the time of intercourse whether there is blood on the cloth? Now too, although the cloth is lost, let her engage in intercourse with her husband.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讝讜 诪讜讻讬讞讛 拽讬讬诐 讜讝讜 讗讬谉 诪讜讻讬讞讛 拽讬讬诐

Rava said to him: There is a difference between the two cases, as when the cloth is intact, this woman鈥檚 proof exists, and if she discovers on the following day that she was impure they will be obligated to bring sin offerings for engaging in intercourse in a state of ritual impurity. But with regard to that woman who lost her cloth, her proof does not exist, and therefore they will never know if they require atonement.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬砖诪砖 诪讟转讜 讘讬讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗 砖谞讗诪专 讬讗讘讚 讬讜诐 讗讜诇讚 讘讜 讜讛诇讬诇讛 讗诪专 讛专讛 讙讘专 诇讬诇讛 谞讬转谉 诇讛专讬讜谉 讜讬讜诐 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛专讬讜谉 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讘讜讝讛 讚专讻讬讜 讬诪讜转

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is prohibited for a person to engage in intercourse by day. Rav Hamnuna says: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is stated: 鈥淟et the day perish on which I was born, and the night on which it was said: Conceived is a man-child鈥 (Job 3:3). It is derived from here that nighttime is meant for conception, but daytime is not meant for conception. Reish Lakish says that the proof is from here: 鈥淏ut he who despises his ways shall die鈥 (Proverbs 19:16). One might see something unpleasing in his wife in the daylight and come to despise her.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讗讜转讜 诪诇讗讱 讛诪诪讜谞讛 注诇 讛讛专讬讜谉 诇讬诇讛 砖诪讜 讜谞讜讟诇 讟驻讛 讜诪注诪讬讚讛 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讜讗讜诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讟驻讛 讝讜 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛 讙讘讜专 讗讜 讞诇砖 讞讻诐 讗讜 讟讬驻砖 注砖讬专 讗讜 注谞讬

The Gemara asks: And how does Reish Lakish interpret this verse cited by Rabbi Yo岣nan? The Gemara answers that he requires that verse for that which Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappa taught. As Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappa interpreted that verse in the following manner: That angel that is appointed over conception is called: Night. And that angel takes the drop of semen from which a person will be formed and presents it before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and says before Him: Master of the Universe, what will be of this drop? Will the person fashioned from it be mighty or weak? Will he be clever or stupid? Will he be wealthy or poor?

讜讗讬诇讜 专砖注 讗讜 爪讚讬拽 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讻讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讻诇 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讬专讗转 砖诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜注转讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 砖讗诇 诪注诪讱 讻讬 讗诐 诇讬专讗讛 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara notes: But this angel does not say: Will he be wicked or righteous? This is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi 岣nina, as Rabbi 岣nina said: Everything is in the hand of Heaven, except for fear of Heaven. People have free will to serve God or not, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you other than to fear the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 10:12). The fact that God asks of the Jewish people to fear Him indicates that it is a person鈥檚 choice to do so.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讙讘专 讛讜专讛 诪讗讬 讛讜专讛 讙讘专 诇讬诇讛 谞讬转谉 诇讛专讬讜谉 讜讬讜诐 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛专讬讜谉

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Yo岣nan derives two halakhot from the verse 鈥渁nd the night on which it was said: Conceived is a man-child,鈥 as he holds as follows: If so, i.e., if it is referring only to the statement of the angel, let the verse write: And the night that said: A man-child is conceived. What is the meaning of: 鈥淐onceived is a man-child鈥? It is derived from the juxtaposition of the word 鈥渘ight鈥 and the word 鈥渃onceived鈥 that nighttime is meant for conception but daytime is not meant for conception.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚讻转讬讘 讘住驻专 讘谉 住讬专讗 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讗转讬 讜讗专讘注讛 诇讗 讗讛讘转讬 砖专 讛谞专讙诇 讘讘讬转 讛诪砖转讗讜转 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 砖专 讛谞专讙谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 砖专 讛谞专讙讝

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, how does he interpret that verse cited by Reish Lakish? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan requires that verse: 鈥淏ut he who despises his ways shall die,鈥 to teach that which is written in the book of ben Sira: Three people I have hated, and a fourth I have not loved: A minister who frequents [hanirgal] drinking houses, as he disgraces himself and leads himself to ruin and death; and some say a different version of the text: A minister who chats [hanirgan] in drinking houses; and some say a third version: A minister who is short-tempered [hanirgaz] when in drinking houses.

讜讛诪讜砖讬讘 砖讘转 讘诪专讜诪讬 拽专转 讜讛讗讜讞讝 讘讗诪讛 讜诪砖转讬谉 诪讬诐 讜讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讞讘讬专讜 驻转讗讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讘讬转讜

That is the first that he hated. And the others are one who dwells at the highest point of the city, where everyone sees him; and one who holds his penis and urinates. And the fourth, whom he has not loved, is one who enters the house of another suddenly, without warning. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And this includes even one who comes into his own house without prior warning, as the members of his household might be engaged in private activities.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 砖讜谞讗谉 讜讗谞讬 讗讬谞讬 讗讜讛讘谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 驻转讗讜诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 诇讘讬转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讗讜讞讝 讘讗诪讛 讜诪砖转讬谉 诪讬诐

The Gemara cites a similar saying. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: Four matters the Holy One, Blessed be He, hates, and I do not love them, and they are: One who enters his house suddenly, and needless to say one who suddenly enters the house of another; and one who holds his penis and urinates;

  • 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 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 16

讻诪讬谉 谞驻诇

that she cast an item similar to a non-viable newborn into a pit. Perhaps it was not a non-viable newborn; it might simply have been congealed blood, which does not transmit impurity. Therefore, this is a conflict between uncertainty and uncertainty. It is unclear whether there was anything in the pit that could have rendered the priest ritually impure, and even if there was, it might already have been dragged away.

讜讛讗 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 拽转谞讬

The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita: And a priest came and looked into the pit to ascertain whether it was male or whether it was female? This indicates that the only uncertainty was with regard to its sex; it was certainly a non-viable newborn.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讘讗 讻讛谉 讜讛爪讬抓 讘讜 诇讬讚注 讗诐 谞驻诇 讛驻讬诇讛 讗诐 专讜讞 讛驻讬诇讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 谞驻诇 讛驻讬诇讛 诇讬讚注 讗诐 讝讻专 讗诐 谞拽讘讛

The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita is saying: And a priest came and glanced at the baby to ascertain whether the woman discharged a non-viable newborn, or whether she discharged an amorphous mass. And if you say that she discharged a non-viable newborn, he sought to ascertain whether it was male or whether it was female.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讜诇讚讛 讜讘专讚诇住 诪爪讜讬讬诐 砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讙专专讜讛讜

And if you wish, say instead that this was not a conflict between certainty and uncertainty; rather, it was between two certainties. Since martens and hyenas are common there, they certainly dragged it away immediately. Consequently, the ruling in this case does not contradict the principle that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讜 讚专讘谞谉

搂 The Gemara returns to the issue of a woman鈥檚 examination at the projected time of her period. The Sages asked Rav Na岣an: Does the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods, and in turn the obligation for her to perform an examination at that time, apply by Torah law? If so, if a woman did not examine herself she is ritually impure, even if she later examined herself and did not find any blood, as it is assumed that she emitted blood without her seeing it. Or perhaps the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods, and in turn the obligation for her to perform an examination at that time, applies by rabbinic law? If so, a woman who did not examine herself at the time and did not sense the emission of blood can still examine herself after that time and would be ritually pure.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讚讗诪专 讛讜谞讗 讞讘专讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讜讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 专讗转讛 讞讜砖砖转 诇讜住转讛 讜讞讜砖砖转 诇专讗讬讬转讛 讗诇诪讗 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rav Na岣an said to them: A resolution can be found for your dilemma from that which Huna our colleague said in the name of Rav: With regard to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, and the projected time of her period arrived and she did not examine herself, and ultimately, when she did examine herself, she saw blood, the halakha is that she must be concerned for ritual impurity from the projected time of her period and that therefore any pure items she touched since then are impure. And additionally, she must be concerned for ritual impurity with regard to the twenty-four hours prior to her seeing the blood, and any items she touched during those twenty-four hours are impure, even if she saw the blood a short while after the projected time of her period. Evidently, the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, which is why the halakha is stringent.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讗转讛 讛讗 诇讗 专讗转讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讜住转讜转 讚专讘谞谉

There are those who say that this is what Rav Na岣an said to the other Sages: The reason for Rav鈥檚 ruling that pure items she touched are retroactively considered impure is that she ultimately saw blood, from which it may be inferred that if she did not see blood, one is not concerned about the status of pure items that she touched from the projected time of her period, despite the fact that she neglected to examine herself at the time. Evidently, the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law.

讗讬转诪专 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讜讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘讚拽讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗转 讟诪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗转 讟讛讜专讛 谞诪讬 讟诪讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讜专讞 讘讝诪谞讜 讘讗

搂 Since the Gemara mentioned Rav鈥檚 ruling it cites the dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to this halakha. It was stated that these amora鈥檌m disagree about a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, and the projected time of her period arrived and she did not examine herself, and ultimately she examined herself. Rav says: If she examined herself at this later time and found that she was ritually impure, she is impure; and if she found that she was pure, she is pure. And Shmuel says: Even if she later examined herself and found that she was pure, she is impure. This is because the manner of women, i.e., a women鈥檚 menstrual period, comes at its usual time.

诇讬诪讗 讘讜住转讜转 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the concern for impurity of women at the pro-jected time of their periods? As one Sage, Shmuel, who rules that the woman is impure in both cases, holds that this concern for impurity applies by Torah law, and one Sage, Rav, who says that if her subsequent examination came out clean then she remains pure, holds that this concern for impurity applies by rabbinic law.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讗谉 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讜住转 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讜住转

Rabbi Zeira says: It is possible that everyone, even Rav, agrees that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, and the reason Rav deems the woman pure in this case is that here it is a situation where she examined herself within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, i.e., very close to the projected time of her period, and therefore it is assumed that if there was blood at the projected time of her period she would have seen it upon this examination. By contrast, there, in other cases of subsequent examinations, she did not examine herself within the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讘讜住转讜转 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚专讘谞谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: Actually, Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the matter of the projected time of their periods itself, as one Sage, Shmuel, holds that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, and one Sage, Rav, holds that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗讛 谞讚讛

The Gemara continues to discuss this dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Rav Sheshet says: This disagreement between Rav and Shmuel is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: Rabbi Eliezer says that a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle but who did not examine herself at the projected time of her period is ritually impure as a menstruating woman, which indicates that in his opinion the examination at the projected time of a woman鈥檚 period applies by Torah law.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 转讘讚拽 讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗讛 谞讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讘讚拽

And Rabbi Yehoshua says that she should be examined now, despite the elapsed time, and if the examination came out clean she is pure retroactively as well. Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that this examination applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara adds: And the dispute of these tanna鈥檌m is parallel to the dispute of those tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: She is ritually impure as a menstruating woman, and the Rabbis say: She should be examined now.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讘诪讞讘讗 讜讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖讞专讚讛 诪住诇拽转 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞专讚讛 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讞专讚讛 讟诪讗讛 讗诇诪讗 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Abaye said: We, too, learn likewise in a mishna, as we learned in a mishna (39a): Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding from danger, and the projected time of her period arrived and she did not examine herself, nevertheless she is ritually pure, as it may be assumed that she did not experience bleeding because fear dispels the flow of menstrual blood, and therefore there is no concern that she might have emitted blood without sensing it. By inference, the reason she is pure is that there is fear of danger; but if there is no fear upon this woman, she is impure. Evidently, Rabbi Meir maintains that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law.

诇讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讘讛讗 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讜讗讛 讚诐 诪讞诪转 诪讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 讟讛讜专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara further suggests: Shall we say that these following tanna鈥檌m also disagree with regard to this matter of whether the examination at the projected time of a woman鈥檚 period is required by Torah law? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who sees blood due to a wound in her pubic area, even if she saw the blood during the days of her menstruation, including the projected time of her period, she is pure, as it is assumed that the blood came from the wound; this is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讞讜砖砖转 诇讜住转讛

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that if the woman does not have a fixed menstrual cycle then the blood can be attributed to the wound. But if she has a fixed menstrual cycle, and she saw blood on the projected day of her period, even if the blood was from the wound she must be concerned that blood from her period might be mixed with this blood from the wound, and must therefore observe impurity status.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讜住转讜转 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara clarifies its suggestion: What, is it not the case that these Sages disagree with regard to this matter, i.e., that one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by Torah law, and though she can examine herself and ascertain that she is pure, if she did not she is presumed impure, and therefore he is stringent in the case of a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle; and one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law, and consequently he rules leniently even with regard to a woman who has a fixed cycle?

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜住转讜转 讚专讘谞谉 讜讛讻讗 讘诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟诪讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Ravina says: No; they do not necessarily disagree with regard to this point, as it is possible that everyone, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, agrees that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods applies by rabbinic law, and here they disagree as to whether the location of a woman鈥檚 source, i.e., her uterus, is impure, and therefore any blood that passes through there is impure, even if it is blood from a wound.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗砖讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讚诐 讟诪讗 讚拽讗转讬 讚专讱 诪拽讜专

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the woman herself is pure from the seven-day impurity status of a menstruating woman, as the requirement of an examination upon the projected time of her period applies by rabbinic law, but the blood is impure, even if it is from a wound, as it came through her source, and was thereby rendered impure. Consequently, the blood renders the woman impure until the evening.

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讬 讞讬讬砖转 诇讜住转 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 讟诪讗讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖转 诇讜住转 诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: If you are concerned due to the possibility that this is blood of her menstrual period, then the woman should also be impure as a menstruating woman. And if you are not concerned due to the possibility that this is blood of her menstrual period, then her source does not transmit impurity to the blood that passes through its location, as that blood is pure.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 注诇 讻诇 转砖诪讬砖 讜转砖诪讬砖 讗讜 转砖诪砖 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讚讬讛 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A woman is required to examine herself with two cloths, once before and once after each and every act of intercourse in which she engages throughout the night, and she must inspect them for blood the following morning, or she must engage in intercourse by the light of a lamp and inspect the cloths before and after each act of intercourse. Beit Hillel say: She is not required to examine herself between each act of intercourse. Rather, it is sufficient for her to examine herself with two cloths throughout the night, once before the first act of intercourse and once after the final act of intercourse.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛诪砖诪砖 诪讟转讜 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讙讜谞讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 注诇 讻诇 转砖诪讬砖 讗讜 转砖诪砖 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讚讬讛 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Beit Shammai it is permitted to engage in intercourse by the light of a lamp. In this regard, the Sages taught in a baraita: Even though the Sages said with regard to one who engages in intercourse by the light of a lamp, that this is disgraceful, Beit Shammai say: A woman is required to examine herself with two cloths, once before and once after each act of intercourse, or she must engage in intercourse by the light of a lamp. And Beit Hillel say: It is sufficient for her to examine herself with two cloths throughout the night, once before the first act of intercourse and once after the final act of intercourse.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 转专讗讛 讟讬驻转 讚诐 讻讞专讚诇 讘讘讬讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜转讞驻谞讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘讘讬讗讛 砖谞讬讛

It is taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: According to your statement that a woman may engage in intercourse several times in one night without an examination between each act of intercourse, let us be concerned lest she will see, i.e., emit, a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed during the first act of intercourse, and will thereby become impure, and semen from the second act of intercourse will cover it. Since the examination after the last act of intercourse will not reveal the drop of blood, the woman will erroneously think she is pure.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗祝 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 诇讬讞讜砖 注讚 砖讛专讜拽 讘转讜讱 讛驻讛 砖诪讗 谞讬诪讜拽 讜讛讜诇讱 诇讜

Beit Hillel said to them in response: Even according to your statement, let us be concerned that while the saliva was still in the mouth, i.e., while the blood was in her vagina, perhaps it was squashed and disappeared. Even if she examines herself after each act of intercourse, as mandated by Beit Shammai, it is possible that the semen of that act covered the blood, and it will not be revealed by the examination.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 谞讬诪讜拽 驻注诐 讗讞转 诇谞讬诪讜拽 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: One cannot compare the two situations, as a squashed drop of blood after the woman has engaged in intercourse once is not similar to a squashed drop of blood after the woman has engaged in intercourse twice, and therefore our concern is more reasonable.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专讜 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 专讘讬 讻诪讛 讛讗专讻转 注诇讬谞讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪讜讟讘 砖讗讗专讬讱 注诇讬讻诐 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讗专讬讻讜 讬诪讬讻诐 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua said: I see as correct the statement of Beit Shammai in this case. His students said to him: Our teacher, how you have weighed [he鈥檈rakhta] us down with this stringent ruling. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: It is preferable that I weigh you down in this world, so that you do not sin by engaging in prohibited intercourse, i.e., so that your days in the World-to-Come will be lengthened [sheya鈥檃rikhu].

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讚讘专讬 讻讜诇诐 谞诇诪讚 讘注诇 谞驻砖 诇讗 讬讘注讜诇 讜讬砖谞讛

Rabbi Zeira says: From the statements of all of them, i.e., both Beit Shammai, who permit engaging in intercourse a second time only after an examination, and Beit Hillel, who rule that the second examination must be performed only after the final act of intercourse of the night, we can learn that their dispute relates only to that which is permitted after the fact. But a pious person [ba鈥檃l nefesh] should not engage in intercourse and repeat his act without an examination between each act.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讜注诇 讜砖讜谞讛 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讟讛专讜转

Rava says: Even a pious person may engage in intercourse and repeat the act without an examination in between, as when that baraita is taught, it is referring to a woman who handles pure items. But with regard to intercourse with her husband, there is no cause for concern.

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 讜讘诪讛 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 讘讞讝拽转讛 注讚 砖转讗诪专 诇讜 讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬

This opinion is also taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that a woman must examine herself before and after every act of intercourse according to Beit Shammai, or before the first act and after the last act, according to Beit Hillel? It was said with regard to a woman who handles pure items; but a woman is permitted to her husband even without any examination, and he is not required to ask her if she is pure. But in what case is this lenient statement said? When her husband traveled and left her with the presumptive status of ritual purity. But if he left her with the presumptive status of ritual impurity, she remains forever in her presumptive status of impurity until she says to him: I am pure.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘讚拽讛 讘注讚 讜讗讘讚 讗住讜专讛 诇砖诪砖 注讚 砖转讘讚讜拽 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讗讬诇讜 讗讬转讗 诪讬 诇讗 诪砖诪砖讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讬讚注讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 转砖诪砖

Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi says that Rav says: If a woman examined herself at night with a cloth, and the cloth was then immediately lost, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse again until she examines herself with another cloth, as perhaps there was blood on the cloth that was lost. Rabbi Ila objects to this: If this cloth were intact, i.e., if it were not lost, couldn鈥檛 this woman engage in intercourse with her husband that night, on the basis that she will examine the cloth only the following day, and isn鈥檛 this the halakha even though she does not know at the time of intercourse whether there is blood on the cloth? Now too, although the cloth is lost, let her engage in intercourse with her husband.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讝讜 诪讜讻讬讞讛 拽讬讬诐 讜讝讜 讗讬谉 诪讜讻讬讞讛 拽讬讬诐

Rava said to him: There is a difference between the two cases, as when the cloth is intact, this woman鈥檚 proof exists, and if she discovers on the following day that she was impure they will be obligated to bring sin offerings for engaging in intercourse in a state of ritual impurity. But with regard to that woman who lost her cloth, her proof does not exist, and therefore they will never know if they require atonement.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住讜专 诇讗讚诐 砖讬砖诪砖 诪讟转讜 讘讬讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗 砖谞讗诪专 讬讗讘讚 讬讜诐 讗讜诇讚 讘讜 讜讛诇讬诇讛 讗诪专 讛专讛 讙讘专 诇讬诇讛 谞讬转谉 诇讛专讬讜谉 讜讬讜诐 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛专讬讜谉 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讘讜讝讛 讚专讻讬讜 讬诪讜转

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is prohibited for a person to engage in intercourse by day. Rav Hamnuna says: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is stated: 鈥淟et the day perish on which I was born, and the night on which it was said: Conceived is a man-child鈥 (Job 3:3). It is derived from here that nighttime is meant for conception, but daytime is not meant for conception. Reish Lakish says that the proof is from here: 鈥淏ut he who despises his ways shall die鈥 (Proverbs 19:16). One might see something unpleasing in his wife in the daylight and come to despise her.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讗讜转讜 诪诇讗讱 讛诪诪讜谞讛 注诇 讛讛专讬讜谉 诇讬诇讛 砖诪讜 讜谞讜讟诇 讟驻讛 讜诪注诪讬讚讛 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讜讗讜诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讟驻讛 讝讜 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛 讙讘讜专 讗讜 讞诇砖 讞讻诐 讗讜 讟讬驻砖 注砖讬专 讗讜 注谞讬

The Gemara asks: And how does Reish Lakish interpret this verse cited by Rabbi Yo岣nan? The Gemara answers that he requires that verse for that which Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappa taught. As Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappa interpreted that verse in the following manner: That angel that is appointed over conception is called: Night. And that angel takes the drop of semen from which a person will be formed and presents it before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and says before Him: Master of the Universe, what will be of this drop? Will the person fashioned from it be mighty or weak? Will he be clever or stupid? Will he be wealthy or poor?

讜讗讬诇讜 专砖注 讗讜 爪讚讬拽 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讻讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讻诇 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讬专讗转 砖诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜注转讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 砖讗诇 诪注诪讱 讻讬 讗诐 诇讬专讗讛 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara notes: But this angel does not say: Will he be wicked or righteous? This is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi 岣nina, as Rabbi 岣nina said: Everything is in the hand of Heaven, except for fear of Heaven. People have free will to serve God or not, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you other than to fear the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 10:12). The fact that God asks of the Jewish people to fear Him indicates that it is a person鈥檚 choice to do so.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讙讘专 讛讜专讛 诪讗讬 讛讜专讛 讙讘专 诇讬诇讛 谞讬转谉 诇讛专讬讜谉 讜讬讜诐 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛专讬讜谉

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Yo岣nan derives two halakhot from the verse 鈥渁nd the night on which it was said: Conceived is a man-child,鈥 as he holds as follows: If so, i.e., if it is referring only to the statement of the angel, let the verse write: And the night that said: A man-child is conceived. What is the meaning of: 鈥淐onceived is a man-child鈥? It is derived from the juxtaposition of the word 鈥渘ight鈥 and the word 鈥渃onceived鈥 that nighttime is meant for conception but daytime is not meant for conception.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚讻转讬讘 讘住驻专 讘谉 住讬专讗 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讗转讬 讜讗专讘注讛 诇讗 讗讛讘转讬 砖专 讛谞专讙诇 讘讘讬转 讛诪砖转讗讜转 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 砖专 讛谞专讙谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 砖专 讛谞专讙讝

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, how does he interpret that verse cited by Reish Lakish? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan requires that verse: 鈥淏ut he who despises his ways shall die,鈥 to teach that which is written in the book of ben Sira: Three people I have hated, and a fourth I have not loved: A minister who frequents [hanirgal] drinking houses, as he disgraces himself and leads himself to ruin and death; and some say a different version of the text: A minister who chats [hanirgan] in drinking houses; and some say a third version: A minister who is short-tempered [hanirgaz] when in drinking houses.

讜讛诪讜砖讬讘 砖讘转 讘诪专讜诪讬 拽专转 讜讛讗讜讞讝 讘讗诪讛 讜诪砖转讬谉 诪讬诐 讜讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讞讘讬专讜 驻转讗讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讘讬转讜

That is the first that he hated. And the others are one who dwells at the highest point of the city, where everyone sees him; and one who holds his penis and urinates. And the fourth, whom he has not loved, is one who enters the house of another suddenly, without warning. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And this includes even one who comes into his own house without prior warning, as the members of his household might be engaged in private activities.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 砖讜谞讗谉 讜讗谞讬 讗讬谞讬 讗讜讛讘谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 驻转讗讜诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 诇讘讬转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讗讜讞讝 讘讗诪讛 讜诪砖转讬谉 诪讬诐

The Gemara cites a similar saying. Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: Four matters the Holy One, Blessed be He, hates, and I do not love them, and they are: One who enters his house suddenly, and needless to say one who suddenly enters the house of another; and one who holds his penis and urinates;

Scroll To Top