The mishna states that a woman during her ziva days has a presumptive status of pure. The gemara brings four different opinions regarding the relevance of this status – what is the mishna saying? The last explanation is that one cannot establish a regular cycle if it comes out during her ziva days. Rav Papa asks if maybe in any case one needs to be concerned she may bleed if it comes out during ziva days, even if she can’t establish it as a regular cycle. He tries to answer his own question but Rav Huna rejects his answer.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Niddah 39
יָשְׁבָה לָהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, שָׁגְגָה, נֶאֶנְסָה, הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה.
If a woman sat and did not examine herself every morning and evening to determine whether she emitted blood and is impure, it makes no difference whether she failed to examine herself unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself; she remains ritually pure. She is rendered impure only if she examined herself and was found to have emitted blood.
הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא, וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַדָּמִים.
By contrast, if the time of her menstrual cycle arrived, when she is required to examine herself, and she did not examine herself, that woman is ritually impure, as it is typical for a woman to discharge blood at that time. Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding from danger, and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself on that day, that woman is pure, because fear drives away blood. There is therefore no concern that she might have emitted blood.
אֲבָל יְמֵי הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה, וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה.
But with regard to the seven clean days of the zav and the zava, and with regard to a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge during her days of ziva, if she fails to examine herself on those days, these women have a presumptive status of ritual impurity, as they already experienced a discharge.
גְּמָ’ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״יָשְׁבָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה״ — מִכְּלָל דִּלְכַתְּחִלָּה בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that throughout the eleven days of ziva that follow the seven days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Yehuda says: This serves to say that she does not require an examination during these days. The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If she sat and did not examine herself she remains ritually pure, it can be inferred that she requires examination ab initio.
סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לִימֵי נִדָּה, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל אַחַד עָשָׂר בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה, וְלָא בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה, אֲבָל בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ — בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה. יָשְׁבָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, שָׁגְגָה, נֶאֶנְסָה, הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה.
The Gemara explains: In the latter clause we arrive at the case of a woman who is in the days of menstruation, not in the days of ziva. And this is what the mishna is saying: For all the eleven days of ziva that follow the days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity and she does not require examination. But during the days of her menstruation she requires examination. Nevertheless, if she sat and did not examine herself, whether unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself, she remains ritually pure.
רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ. הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ, אֲבָל בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה קָיְימָא.
Rav Ḥisda said a different answer: The first clause of the mishna is necessary only for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: With regard to a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, she is forbidden to engage in intercourse, lest she emit blood during intercourse. The mishna is teaching that this statement applies only during the days of her menstruation, but during the days of her ziva even Rabbi Meir concedes that she stands in her presumptive status of purity and may engage in intercourse with her husband.
אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: יוֹצִיא וְלֹא יַחְזִיר עוֹלָמִית? דִּלְמָא אָתְיָא לְקַלְקוֹלֵאּ בִּימֵי נִדָּה.
The Gemara asks: If so, that even according to Rabbi Meir there are days in which a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, why did Rabbi Meir say that her husband must divorce her and he may never take her back, even if she eventually develops a fixed menstrual cycle? Let them engage in intercourse during the eleven days of ziva. The Gemara answers: He must divorce her lest the matter lead to failure during the days of menstruation, i.e., in case they come to engage in intercourse during the days of menstruation, when she might experience regular menstrual bleeding.
הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה״ — מִכְּלָל דִּבְאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת עָסְקִינַן! חַסּוֹרֵי מִחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: כׇּל אַחַד עָשָׂר בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה, וְשַׁרְיָא לְבַעְלָהּ, וּבִימֵי נִדָּה אֲסוּרָה.
The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, that woman is ritually impure, it can be inferred that we are dealing with a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara explains: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: For all the eleven days of ziva that follow the days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity and she is permitted to her husband, but during the days of menstruation she is prohibited to her husband.
בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת מוּתֶּרֶת, וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. יָשְׁבָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, שָׁגְגָה, נֶאֶנְסָה, הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה. הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְמֵאָה.
In what case is this statement said? In the case of a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, where there is a concern she might experience bleeding during any of the days of menstruation. But in the case of a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, she is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, and she requires examination. Nevertheless, if she sat and did not examine herself, whether unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself, she remains ritually pure. If the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is impure.
הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי מֵאִיר! כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם לֹא הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְמֵאָה, שֶׁרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁחֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַדָּמִים.
The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the last clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it can be inferred that the first clause is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara explains that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and this is what it is saying: If she was not in hiding and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is impure, as Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is pure, as fear drives away blood.
רָבָא אָמַר: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת.
Rava says a different explanation of the first clause of the mishna: The mishna is coming to say that if a woman experiences bleeding during the eleven days of ziva, as she previously had the presumptive status of purity she does not impart impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period to any ritually pure items she touched. It is assumed that she did not emit any blood before this emission.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַנִּדָּה, וְהַזָּבָה, וְהַשּׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם, וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת — כּוּלָּן מְטַמְּאוֹת מֵעֵת לְעֵת. תְּיוּבְתָּא!
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to a menstruating woman, and a zava, and a woman who observes a day for a day, and a woman who gave birth, they all impart impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. A woman who observes a day for a day is one who experiences bleeding for one or two days during her days of ziva, and the baraita teaches that even such a woman imparts impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. If so, this is a conclusive refutation of Rava’s explanation.
רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי הָא שְׁמַעְתְּתָא.
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says another explanation of the first clause of the mishna in the name of Shmuel: The mishna is coming to say that a woman does not fix a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her ziva. In other words, a sighting during these days does not combine with sightings during the previous two periods of ziva to establish a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara relates that this statement was recited before Rav Yosef, who said: I did not hear this halakha from Shmuel.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ נִיהֲלַן, וְאַהָא אֲמַרְתְּ לַן: הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר (יוֹם), וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין לְשַׁמֵּשׁ. שִׁינְּתָה פַּעֲמַיִם לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין.
Abaye said to him: But you yourself told us this halakha, and it was with regard to that mishna you told it to us, as we learned in a mishna (63b): If the woman was accustomed to see an emission of blood on the fifteenth day, so that this was her fixed menstrual cycle, and she deviated from her cycle to see an emission on the twentieth day, then on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse due to the concern that she might have an emission on either day. If she deviated from her cycle twice, to see an emission on the twentieth day, then on both this day and that day it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. If she deviates a third time to see on the twentieth she has established for herself a new fixed menstrual cycle.
וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁנָא אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִטְבִילָתָהּ, שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם לִרְאִיָּתָהּ, דְּהָתָם בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ קָאֵי לַהּ, אֲבָל חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִרְאִיָּתָהּ, דְּבִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ קָאֵי — לָא קָבְעָה.
Abaye continues: And you said to us with regard to this mishna that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this halakha only with regard to a woman who normally experiences bleeding fifteen days from her immersion, which are twenty-two days from her sighting of menstrual blood. This means that there, she stands in her days of menstruation. But if she normally experiences bleeding fifteen days from her sighting of menstrual blood, so that she stands in her days of ziva, she has not fixed a menstrual cycle, and the previous cycle is uprooted even if she deviates from it only once.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה מִדִּסְקַרְתָּא, מִקְבָּע לָא קָבְעָה, מֵיחָשׁ מַהוּ דְּנֵיחוּשׁ לַהּ?
§ With regard to the ruling that a woman’s menstrual cycle cannot be fixed during her days of ziva, Rav Pappa said: I said this halakha before Rav Yehuda of Diskarta, and I asked him for a clarification of the following matter: Granted, she does not fix a menstrual cycle during the days of ziva, and there is no need for three deviations to uproot her cycle; rather, it is uprooted by even one deviation. But what is the halakha with regard to whether we should be concerned that she might experience bleeding? In other words, if she normally experiences bleeding on a particular day during her days of ziva, must she avoid engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband on that day out of concern that she might emit blood?
אִישְׁתִּיק וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵי. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״נֶחְזֵי אֲנַן״, הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה לְיוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין.
Rav Yehuda of Diskarta was silent and did not say anything to Rav Pappa. Therefore, Rav Pappa said: Let us see and try to resolve this ourselves. The mishna cited above states: If the woman was accustomed to see an emission of blood on the fifteenth day, and she deviated from her cycle to see an emission on the twentieth day, then on both this day and that day it is prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁנָא אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִטְבִילָתָהּ, שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם לִרְאִיָּיתָהּ,
And with regard to this mishna, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this halakha only with regard to a woman who normally experiences bleeding fifteen days from her immersion, which are twenty-two days from her sighting of menstrual blood, which means that there, she stands in her days of menstruation.
וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁבְעָה; דְּכִי הָדְרִי וְאָתוּ עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּי — קָיְימָא לַהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ, וְקָתָנֵי: זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין — אַלְמָא דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לַהּ.
And when the mishna states that she deviated from her cycle and experienced bleeding on the twentieth day, it means she experienced bleeding twenty days from her immersion, i.e., twenty-seven days from her previous sighting, not twenty-two. This means that when twenty-two days again elapse from when she usually experiences bleeding, she stands within what is now the eleven days of her ziva. And the mishna teaches that both this, the twenty-second day, and that, the twenty-seventh day, are prohibited, despite the fact that the twenty-second day now stands during her days of ziva. Evidently, we are concerned for an emission of blood during the days of ziva if she is accustomed to experiencing bleeding on that day.
וְקָסָבַר רַב פָּפָּא: עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין — מֵעֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין מָנֵינַן, נִדָּה וּפִתְחָהּ — מֵעֶשְׂרִין וְשִׁבְעָה מָנֵינַן.
The Gemara elaborates: And Rav Pappa holds that we count twenty-two days of her menstrual cycle from twenty-two days, i.e., from when she usually begins to menstruate, whereas we count the beginning of the days of menstruation from day twenty-seven, when she actually experiences bleeding. Consequently, the twenty-second day of her normal menstrual cycle falls during the days of ziva, according to the actual day of menstruation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין נָמֵי מֵעֶשְׂרִין וְשִׁבְעָה מָנֵינַן, דְּכִי הָדְרִי וְאָתוּ עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין — קָיְימָא לַהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: From where do you know this is the correct reckoning of her days? Perhaps one also counts those twenty-two days from day twenty-seven, such that when twenty-two days again arrive from day twenty-seven, she stands within her days of menstruation. Accordingly, there is no proof from the mishna with regard to a sighting during the days of ziva.
וְהָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא; דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הַאי תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּרָמְיָא יוֹמָא וְכָבְשָׁה יוֹמָא, וְרָמְיָא יוֹמָא וְכָבְשָׁה יוֹמָא, וְכָבְשָׁה תְּרֵי יוֹמֵי וְרָמְיָא חַד יוֹמָא,
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, adds: And so too, it is reasonable that the twenty-two days are counted from when she actually experiences bleeding. As if you do not say so, then consider the case of this chicken that normally lays an egg on one day and withholds an egg the next day, and lays an egg on the third day and withholds an egg on the fourth day. And the chicken deviated from its routine, so that after laying eggs on the first day and third day, it withheld an egg for two days and then laid an egg on one day, i.e., on the sixth day.
כִּי הָדְרָה נָקְטָה — כְּדִלְקַמֵּיהּ נָקְטָה, אוֹ כִּדְמֵעִיקָּרָא נָקְטָה? עַל כׇּרְחָךְ כְּדִלְקַמֵּיהּ נָקְטָה.
When this chicken again takes hold of its previous routine and starts laying an egg on one day and withholding an egg on the next, does it take hold of the order of the routine ahead of it, i.e., will it withhold an egg on the next day, or does it take hold of its routine as it was from the outset, so that it will lay an egg on the seventh day, as if there had been no deviation? Perforce it takes hold of the order of the routine ahead of it. Likewise, a woman who deviated from her normal menstrual cycle counts the days of her cycle according to the order of the cycle ahead of her, i.e., from the time that she experiences bleeding.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ, וְאֵין אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ — הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?
Rav Pappa said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: But if so, a question arises with regard to that which Reish Lakish said: A woman fixes a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her ziva, but a woman does not fix a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her menstruation, i.e., when she is already a menstruating woman. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A woman fixes a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her menstruation. One could ask: What are the circumstances of this dispute? Rabbi Yoḥanan cannot be referring to a case where all her sightings occurred while she was a menstruating woman, as everyone agrees that a woman’s menstrual cycle is not fixed in such a situation (see 11a).
לָאו כְּגוֹן דַּחֲזַאי רֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְחַמְשָׁא בְּיַרְחָא, וְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְחַמְשָׁא בְּיַרְחָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא חֲזַאי בְּחַמְשָׁא בְּיַרְחָא, וּבְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא לָא חֲזַאי,
Rather, is it not referring to a case where she saw blood on the first of the month; and then again on the fifth of that same month, when she was a menstruating woman; and subsequently she saw blood on the first of the next month and then again on the fifth of that month; and now in the third month she saw blood on the fifth of the month but on the first of the month she did not see blood? In such a situation, the woman experienced an emission of blood on the fifth of the month for three consecutive months.
וְקָאָמַר: אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ, אַלְמָא מֵרֵישׁ יַרְחָא מָנֵינָא!
Rav Pappa concludes: And it is with regard to this case that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A woman fixes a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her menstruation. Although she was not actually a menstruating woman before she experienced bleeding on the fifth day of the third month, this is nevertheless considered a sighting during her days of menstruation. Evidently, one counts her menstrual cycle from the first of the month, despite the fact that she did not actually experience bleeding. Likewise, with regard to the case involving twenty-two days, one counts from when she generally experiences bleeding, not from the day she emitted blood in practice.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּגוֹן דַּחֲזַאי רֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְעֶשְׂרִין וְחַמְשָׁה בְּיַרְחָא, וְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא, דְּאָמְרִינַן דָּמֵי יַתִּירִי הוּא דְּאִתּוֹסַפוּ בַּהּ.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: These are not the circumstances of the dispute. Rather, this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The dispute is referring to a case where she saw blood on the first of the month; and then again on the first of the next month, and then again on the twenty-fifth day of that month; and again on the first of the next month, which occurs during her days of menstruation. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that although she is in her days of menstruation, this sighting on the first of the third month serves to fix her menstrual cycle, as we say with regard to the sighting on the twenty-fifth day of the previous month that it is extra blood that gathered inside her. Therefore, it does not negate her regular cycle.
וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין וְכֹל נָחוֹתֵי יַמָּא, אַמְרוּהָ כְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
The Gemara notes: And likewise, when Ravin and all the sea-farers came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and transmitted statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan, they said this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan in accordance with the explanation of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.
.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ בְּנוֹת כּוּתִים.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy in Early Rabbinic Law, Part 2 of 3: The Law of Niddah
06.30.2021 | כ׳ בתמוז תשפ״א
Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Niddah, Prakim Bet and Gimel
09.27.2012 | י״א בתשרי תשע״ג
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Niddah 39
יָשְׁבָה לָהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, שָׁגְגָה, נֶאֶנְסָה, הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה.
If a woman sat and did not examine herself every morning and evening to determine whether she emitted blood and is impure, it makes no difference whether she failed to examine herself unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself; she remains ritually pure. She is rendered impure only if she examined herself and was found to have emitted blood.
הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא, וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַדָּמִים.
By contrast, if the time of her menstrual cycle arrived, when she is required to examine herself, and she did not examine herself, that woman is ritually impure, as it is typical for a woman to discharge blood at that time. Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding from danger, and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself on that day, that woman is pure, because fear drives away blood. There is therefore no concern that she might have emitted blood.
אֲבָל יְמֵי הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה, וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה.
But with regard to the seven clean days of the zav and the zava, and with regard to a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge during her days of ziva, if she fails to examine herself on those days, these women have a presumptive status of ritual impurity, as they already experienced a discharge.
גְּמָ’ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״יָשְׁבָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה״ — מִכְּלָל דִּלְכַתְּחִלָּה בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that throughout the eleven days of ziva that follow the seven days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Yehuda says: This serves to say that she does not require an examination during these days. The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If she sat and did not examine herself she remains ritually pure, it can be inferred that she requires examination ab initio.
סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לִימֵי נִדָּה, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל אַחַד עָשָׂר בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה, וְלָא בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה, אֲבָל בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ — בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה. יָשְׁבָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, שָׁגְגָה, נֶאֶנְסָה, הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה.
The Gemara explains: In the latter clause we arrive at the case of a woman who is in the days of menstruation, not in the days of ziva. And this is what the mishna is saying: For all the eleven days of ziva that follow the days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity and she does not require examination. But during the days of her menstruation she requires examination. Nevertheless, if she sat and did not examine herself, whether unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself, she remains ritually pure.
רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ. הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ, אֲבָל בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה קָיְימָא.
Rav Ḥisda said a different answer: The first clause of the mishna is necessary only for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: With regard to a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, she is forbidden to engage in intercourse, lest she emit blood during intercourse. The mishna is teaching that this statement applies only during the days of her menstruation, but during the days of her ziva even Rabbi Meir concedes that she stands in her presumptive status of purity and may engage in intercourse with her husband.
אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: יוֹצִיא וְלֹא יַחְזִיר עוֹלָמִית? דִּלְמָא אָתְיָא לְקַלְקוֹלֵאּ בִּימֵי נִדָּה.
The Gemara asks: If so, that even according to Rabbi Meir there are days in which a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, why did Rabbi Meir say that her husband must divorce her and he may never take her back, even if she eventually develops a fixed menstrual cycle? Let them engage in intercourse during the eleven days of ziva. The Gemara answers: He must divorce her lest the matter lead to failure during the days of menstruation, i.e., in case they come to engage in intercourse during the days of menstruation, when she might experience regular menstrual bleeding.
הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה״ — מִכְּלָל דִּבְאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת עָסְקִינַן! חַסּוֹרֵי מִחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: כׇּל אַחַד עָשָׂר בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה, וְשַׁרְיָא לְבַעְלָהּ, וּבִימֵי נִדָּה אֲסוּרָה.
The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, that woman is ritually impure, it can be inferred that we are dealing with a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara explains: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: For all the eleven days of ziva that follow the days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity and she is permitted to her husband, but during the days of menstruation she is prohibited to her husband.
בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת מוּתֶּרֶת, וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. יָשְׁבָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, שָׁגְגָה, נֶאֶנְסָה, הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה. הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְמֵאָה.
In what case is this statement said? In the case of a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, where there is a concern she might experience bleeding during any of the days of menstruation. But in the case of a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, she is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, and she requires examination. Nevertheless, if she sat and did not examine herself, whether unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself, she remains ritually pure. If the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is impure.
הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי מֵאִיר! כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם לֹא הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְמֵאָה, שֶׁרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁחֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַדָּמִים.
The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the last clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it can be inferred that the first clause is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara explains that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and this is what it is saying: If she was not in hiding and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is impure, as Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is pure, as fear drives away blood.
רָבָא אָמַר: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת.
Rava says a different explanation of the first clause of the mishna: The mishna is coming to say that if a woman experiences bleeding during the eleven days of ziva, as she previously had the presumptive status of purity she does not impart impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period to any ritually pure items she touched. It is assumed that she did not emit any blood before this emission.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַנִּדָּה, וְהַזָּבָה, וְהַשּׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם, וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת — כּוּלָּן מְטַמְּאוֹת מֵעֵת לְעֵת. תְּיוּבְתָּא!
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to a menstruating woman, and a zava, and a woman who observes a day for a day, and a woman who gave birth, they all impart impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. A woman who observes a day for a day is one who experiences bleeding for one or two days during her days of ziva, and the baraita teaches that even such a woman imparts impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. If so, this is a conclusive refutation of Rava’s explanation.
רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי הָא שְׁמַעְתְּתָא.
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says another explanation of the first clause of the mishna in the name of Shmuel: The mishna is coming to say that a woman does not fix a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her ziva. In other words, a sighting during these days does not combine with sightings during the previous two periods of ziva to establish a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara relates that this statement was recited before Rav Yosef, who said: I did not hear this halakha from Shmuel.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ נִיהֲלַן, וְאַהָא אֲמַרְתְּ לַן: הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר (יוֹם), וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין לְשַׁמֵּשׁ. שִׁינְּתָה פַּעֲמַיִם לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין.
Abaye said to him: But you yourself told us this halakha, and it was with regard to that mishna you told it to us, as we learned in a mishna (63b): If the woman was accustomed to see an emission of blood on the fifteenth day, so that this was her fixed menstrual cycle, and she deviated from her cycle to see an emission on the twentieth day, then on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse due to the concern that she might have an emission on either day. If she deviated from her cycle twice, to see an emission on the twentieth day, then on both this day and that day it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. If she deviates a third time to see on the twentieth she has established for herself a new fixed menstrual cycle.
וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁנָא אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִטְבִילָתָהּ, שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם לִרְאִיָּתָהּ, דְּהָתָם בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ קָאֵי לַהּ, אֲבָל חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִרְאִיָּתָהּ, דְּבִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ קָאֵי — לָא קָבְעָה.
Abaye continues: And you said to us with regard to this mishna that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this halakha only with regard to a woman who normally experiences bleeding fifteen days from her immersion, which are twenty-two days from her sighting of menstrual blood. This means that there, she stands in her days of menstruation. But if she normally experiences bleeding fifteen days from her sighting of menstrual blood, so that she stands in her days of ziva, she has not fixed a menstrual cycle, and the previous cycle is uprooted even if she deviates from it only once.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה מִדִּסְקַרְתָּא, מִקְבָּע לָא קָבְעָה, מֵיחָשׁ מַהוּ דְּנֵיחוּשׁ לַהּ?
§ With regard to the ruling that a woman’s menstrual cycle cannot be fixed during her days of ziva, Rav Pappa said: I said this halakha before Rav Yehuda of Diskarta, and I asked him for a clarification of the following matter: Granted, she does not fix a menstrual cycle during the days of ziva, and there is no need for three deviations to uproot her cycle; rather, it is uprooted by even one deviation. But what is the halakha with regard to whether we should be concerned that she might experience bleeding? In other words, if she normally experiences bleeding on a particular day during her days of ziva, must she avoid engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband on that day out of concern that she might emit blood?
אִישְׁתִּיק וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵי. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״נֶחְזֵי אֲנַן״, הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה לְיוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין.
Rav Yehuda of Diskarta was silent and did not say anything to Rav Pappa. Therefore, Rav Pappa said: Let us see and try to resolve this ourselves. The mishna cited above states: If the woman was accustomed to see an emission of blood on the fifteenth day, and she deviated from her cycle to see an emission on the twentieth day, then on both this day and that day it is prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁנָא אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִטְבִילָתָהּ, שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם לִרְאִיָּיתָהּ,
And with regard to this mishna, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this halakha only with regard to a woman who normally experiences bleeding fifteen days from her immersion, which are twenty-two days from her sighting of menstrual blood, which means that there, she stands in her days of menstruation.
וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁבְעָה; דְּכִי הָדְרִי וְאָתוּ עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּי — קָיְימָא לַהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ, וְקָתָנֵי: זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין — אַלְמָא דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לַהּ.
And when the mishna states that she deviated from her cycle and experienced bleeding on the twentieth day, it means she experienced bleeding twenty days from her immersion, i.e., twenty-seven days from her previous sighting, not twenty-two. This means that when twenty-two days again elapse from when she usually experiences bleeding, she stands within what is now the eleven days of her ziva. And the mishna teaches that both this, the twenty-second day, and that, the twenty-seventh day, are prohibited, despite the fact that the twenty-second day now stands during her days of ziva. Evidently, we are concerned for an emission of blood during the days of ziva if she is accustomed to experiencing bleeding on that day.
וְקָסָבַר רַב פָּפָּא: עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין — מֵעֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין מָנֵינַן, נִדָּה וּפִתְחָהּ — מֵעֶשְׂרִין וְשִׁבְעָה מָנֵינַן.
The Gemara elaborates: And Rav Pappa holds that we count twenty-two days of her menstrual cycle from twenty-two days, i.e., from when she usually begins to menstruate, whereas we count the beginning of the days of menstruation from day twenty-seven, when she actually experiences bleeding. Consequently, the twenty-second day of her normal menstrual cycle falls during the days of ziva, according to the actual day of menstruation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין נָמֵי מֵעֶשְׂרִין וְשִׁבְעָה מָנֵינַן, דְּכִי הָדְרִי וְאָתוּ עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין — קָיְימָא לַהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: From where do you know this is the correct reckoning of her days? Perhaps one also counts those twenty-two days from day twenty-seven, such that when twenty-two days again arrive from day twenty-seven, she stands within her days of menstruation. Accordingly, there is no proof from the mishna with regard to a sighting during the days of ziva.
וְהָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא; דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הַאי תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּרָמְיָא יוֹמָא וְכָבְשָׁה יוֹמָא, וְרָמְיָא יוֹמָא וְכָבְשָׁה יוֹמָא, וְכָבְשָׁה תְּרֵי יוֹמֵי וְרָמְיָא חַד יוֹמָא,
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, adds: And so too, it is reasonable that the twenty-two days are counted from when she actually experiences bleeding. As if you do not say so, then consider the case of this chicken that normally lays an egg on one day and withholds an egg the next day, and lays an egg on the third day and withholds an egg on the fourth day. And the chicken deviated from its routine, so that after laying eggs on the first day and third day, it withheld an egg for two days and then laid an egg on one day, i.e., on the sixth day.
כִּי הָדְרָה נָקְטָה — כְּדִלְקַמֵּיהּ נָקְטָה, אוֹ כִּדְמֵעִיקָּרָא נָקְטָה? עַל כׇּרְחָךְ כְּדִלְקַמֵּיהּ נָקְטָה.
When this chicken again takes hold of its previous routine and starts laying an egg on one day and withholding an egg on the next, does it take hold of the order of the routine ahead of it, i.e., will it withhold an egg on the next day, or does it take hold of its routine as it was from the outset, so that it will lay an egg on the seventh day, as if there had been no deviation? Perforce it takes hold of the order of the routine ahead of it. Likewise, a woman who deviated from her normal menstrual cycle counts the days of her cycle according to the order of the cycle ahead of her, i.e., from the time that she experiences bleeding.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ, וְאֵין אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ — הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?
Rav Pappa said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: But if so, a question arises with regard to that which Reish Lakish said: A woman fixes a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her ziva, but a woman does not fix a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her menstruation, i.e., when she is already a menstruating woman. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A woman fixes a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her menstruation. One could ask: What are the circumstances of this dispute? Rabbi Yoḥanan cannot be referring to a case where all her sightings occurred while she was a menstruating woman, as everyone agrees that a woman’s menstrual cycle is not fixed in such a situation (see 11a).
לָאו כְּגוֹן דַּחֲזַאי רֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְחַמְשָׁא בְּיַרְחָא, וְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְחַמְשָׁא בְּיַרְחָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא חֲזַאי בְּחַמְשָׁא בְּיַרְחָא, וּבְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא לָא חֲזַאי,
Rather, is it not referring to a case where she saw blood on the first of the month; and then again on the fifth of that same month, when she was a menstruating woman; and subsequently she saw blood on the first of the next month and then again on the fifth of that month; and now in the third month she saw blood on the fifth of the month but on the first of the month she did not see blood? In such a situation, the woman experienced an emission of blood on the fifth of the month for three consecutive months.
וְקָאָמַר: אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ, אַלְמָא מֵרֵישׁ יַרְחָא מָנֵינָא!
Rav Pappa concludes: And it is with regard to this case that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A woman fixes a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her menstruation. Although she was not actually a menstruating woman before she experienced bleeding on the fifth day of the third month, this is nevertheless considered a sighting during her days of menstruation. Evidently, one counts her menstrual cycle from the first of the month, despite the fact that she did not actually experience bleeding. Likewise, with regard to the case involving twenty-two days, one counts from when she generally experiences bleeding, not from the day she emitted blood in practice.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּגוֹן דַּחֲזַאי רֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְעֶשְׂרִין וְחַמְשָׁה בְּיַרְחָא, וְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא, דְּאָמְרִינַן דָּמֵי יַתִּירִי הוּא דְּאִתּוֹסַפוּ בַּהּ.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: These are not the circumstances of the dispute. Rather, this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The dispute is referring to a case where she saw blood on the first of the month; and then again on the first of the next month, and then again on the twenty-fifth day of that month; and again on the first of the next month, which occurs during her days of menstruation. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that although she is in her days of menstruation, this sighting on the first of the third month serves to fix her menstrual cycle, as we say with regard to the sighting on the twenty-fifth day of the previous month that it is extra blood that gathered inside her. Therefore, it does not negate her regular cycle.
וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין וְכֹל נָחוֹתֵי יַמָּא, אַמְרוּהָ כְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
The Gemara notes: And likewise, when Ravin and all the sea-farers came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and transmitted statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan, they said this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan in accordance with the explanation of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.
.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ בְּנוֹת כּוּתִים.
Follow
