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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 1, 2019 | 讙壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Niddah 39

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聽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.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讬砖讘讛 诇讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 砖讙讙讛 谞讗谞住讛 讛讝讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟讛讜专讛

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.

讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讟诪讗讛 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 讛专讬 讝讜 讟讛讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讞专讚讛 诪住诇拽转 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐

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.

讗讘诇 讬诪讬 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讙诪壮 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讬砖讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讻转讞诇讛 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛

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.

住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讬诪讬 谞讚讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讗讞讚 注砖专 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讬砖讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 砖讙讙讛 谞讗谞住讛 讛讝讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟讛讜专讛

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.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讗住讜专讛 诇砖诪砖 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 拽讬讬诪讗

Rav 岣sda 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讬讜爪讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讜诇诪讬转 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬讗 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬诪讬 谞讚讛

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.

讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 注住拽讬谞谉 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讗讞讚 注砖专 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 讜砖专讬讗 诇讘注诇讛 讜讘讬诪讬 谞讚讛 讗住讜专讛

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.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 诪讜转专转 讜爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 讬砖讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 砖讙讙讛 谞讗谞住讛 讛讝讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟诪讗讛

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.

讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 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 讟诪讗讛 砖专讘讬 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

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讚讛 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讜诇讚转 讻讜诇谉 诪讟诪讗讜转 诪注转 诇注转 转讬讜讘转讗

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鈥檚 explanation.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转转讗

Rav Huna bar 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讗讛讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 讛讬转讛 诇诪讜讚讛 诇讛讬讜转 专讜讗讛 讬讜诐 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 (讬讜诐) 讜砖讬谞转讛 诇讬讜诐 注砖专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专讬谉 诇砖诪砖 砖讬谞转讛 驻注诪讬诐 诇讬讜诐 注砖专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专讬谉

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.

讜讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 诇讟讘讬诇转讛 砖讛谉 注砖专讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 诇专讗讬转讛 讚讛转诐 讘讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 拽讗讬 诇讛 讗讘诇 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 诇专讗讬转讛 讚讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 拽讗讬 诇讗 拽讘注讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专讬转讗 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚住拽专转讗 诪拽讘注 诇讗 拽讘注讛 诪讬讞砖 诪讛讜 讚谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛

搂 With regard to the ruling that a woman鈥檚 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?

讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 谞讞讝讬 讗谞谉 讛讬转讛 诇诪讜讚讛 诇讛讬讜转 专讜讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讜砖讬谞转讛 诇讬讜诐 注砖专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专讬谉

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 诇讟讘讬诇转讛 砖讛谉 注砖专讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 诇专讗讬讬转讛

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.

讜砖讬谞转讛 诇讬讜诐 注砖专讬诐 讜砖讘注讛 讚讻讬 讛讚专讬 讜讗转讜 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讛 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 讜拽转谞讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讛

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.

讜拽住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 诪注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 诪谞讬谞谉 谞讚讛 讜驻转讞讛 诪注砖专讬谉 讜砖讘注讛 诪谞讬谞谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 谞诪讬 诪注砖专讬谉 讜砖讘注讛 诪谞讬谞谉 讚讻讬 讛讚专讬 讜讗转讜 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讛 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚讜转讛

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.

讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讚专诪讬讗 讬讜诪讗 讜讻讘砖讛 讬讜诪讗 讜专诪讬讗 讬讜诪讗 讜讻讘砖讛 讬讜诪讗 讜讻讘砖讛 转专讬 讬讜诪讬 讜专诪讬讗 讞讚 讬讜诪讗

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.

讻讬 讛讚专讛 谞拽讟讛 讻讚诇拽诪讬讛 谞拽讟讛 讗讜 讻讚诪注讬拽专讗 谞拽讟讛 注诇 讻专讞讱 讻讚诇拽诪讬讛 谞拽讟讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 讜讗讬谉 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚讜转讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚讜转讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan cannot be referring to a case where all her sightings occurred while she was a menstruating woman, as everyone agrees that a woman鈥檚 menstrual cycle is not fixed in such a situation (see 11a).

诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 讚讞讝讗讬 专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讜讞诪砖讗 讘讬专讞讗 讜专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讜讞诪砖讗 讘讬专讞讗 讜讛砖转讗 讞讝讗讬 讘讞诪砖讗 讘讬专讞讗 讜讘专讬砖 讬专讞讗 诇讗 讞讝讗讬

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.

讜拽讗诪专 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚讜转讛 讗诇诪讗 诪专讬砖 讬专讞讗 诪谞讬谞讗

Rav Pappa concludes: And it is with regard to this case that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讞讝讗讬 专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讜专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讜注砖专讬谉 讜讞诪砖讛 讘讬专讞讗 讜专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诪讬 讬转讬专讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讜住驻讜 讘讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: These are not the circumstances of the dispute. Rather, this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讜讻诇 谞讞讜转讬 讬诪讗 讗诪专讜讛 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注

The Gemara notes: And likewise, when Ravin and all the sea-farers came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and transmitted statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan, they said this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan in accordance with the explanation of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.
.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘谞讜转 讻讜转讬诐

 

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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 39

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 39

讬砖讘讛 诇讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 砖讙讙讛 谞讗谞住讛 讛讝讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟讛讜专讛

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.

讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讟诪讗讛 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 讛专讬 讝讜 讟讛讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讞专讚讛 诪住诇拽转 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐

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.

讗讘诇 讬诪讬 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讙诪壮 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讬砖讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讻转讞诇讛 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛

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.

住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讬诪讬 谞讚讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讗讞讚 注砖专 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讬砖讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 砖讙讙讛 谞讗谞住讛 讛讝讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟讛讜专讛

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.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讗住讜专讛 诇砖诪砖 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 拽讬讬诪讗

Rav 岣sda 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讬讜爪讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讜诇诪讬转 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬讗 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬诪讬 谞讚讛

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.

讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 注住拽讬谞谉 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讗讞讚 注砖专 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 讜砖专讬讗 诇讘注诇讛 讜讘讬诪讬 谞讚讛 讗住讜专讛

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.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讜住转 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 诪讜转专转 讜爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 讬砖讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 砖讙讙讛 谞讗谞住讛 讛讝讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟诪讗讛

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.

讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 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 讟诪讗讛 砖专讘讬 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

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讚讛 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讜诇讚转 讻讜诇谉 诪讟诪讗讜转 诪注转 诇注转 转讬讜讘转讗

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鈥檚 explanation.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转转讗

Rav Huna bar 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讗讛讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 讛讬转讛 诇诪讜讚讛 诇讛讬讜转 专讜讗讛 讬讜诐 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 (讬讜诐) 讜砖讬谞转讛 诇讬讜诐 注砖专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专讬谉 诇砖诪砖 砖讬谞转讛 驻注诪讬诐 诇讬讜诐 注砖专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专讬谉

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.

讜讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 诇讟讘讬诇转讛 砖讛谉 注砖专讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 诇专讗讬转讛 讚讛转诐 讘讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 拽讗讬 诇讛 讗讘诇 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 诇专讗讬转讛 讚讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 拽讗讬 诇讗 拽讘注讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专讬转讗 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚住拽专转讗 诪拽讘注 诇讗 拽讘注讛 诪讬讞砖 诪讛讜 讚谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛

搂 With regard to the ruling that a woman鈥檚 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?

讗讬砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 谞讞讝讬 讗谞谉 讛讬转讛 诇诪讜讚讛 诇讛讬讜转 专讜讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讜砖讬谞转讛 诇讬讜诐 注砖专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专讬谉

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 诇讟讘讬诇转讛 砖讛谉 注砖专讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 诇专讗讬讬转讛

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.

讜砖讬谞转讛 诇讬讜诐 注砖专讬诐 讜砖讘注讛 讚讻讬 讛讚专讬 讜讗转讜 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讛 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 讜拽转谞讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讛

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.

讜拽住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 诪注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 诪谞讬谞谉 谞讚讛 讜驻转讞讛 诪注砖专讬谉 讜砖讘注讛 诪谞讬谞谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 谞诪讬 诪注砖专讬谉 讜砖讘注讛 诪谞讬谞谉 讚讻讬 讛讚专讬 讜讗转讜 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讛 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚讜转讛

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.

讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讚专诪讬讗 讬讜诪讗 讜讻讘砖讛 讬讜诪讗 讜专诪讬讗 讬讜诪讗 讜讻讘砖讛 讬讜诪讗 讜讻讘砖讛 转专讬 讬讜诪讬 讜专诪讬讗 讞讚 讬讜诪讗

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.

讻讬 讛讚专讛 谞拽讟讛 讻讚诇拽诪讬讛 谞拽讟讛 讗讜 讻讚诪注讬拽专讗 谞拽讟讛 注诇 讻专讞讱 讻讚诇拽诪讬讛 谞拽讟讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 讜讗讬谉 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚讜转讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚讜转讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan cannot be referring to a case where all her sightings occurred while she was a menstruating woman, as everyone agrees that a woman鈥檚 menstrual cycle is not fixed in such a situation (see 11a).

诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 讚讞讝讗讬 专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讜讞诪砖讗 讘讬专讞讗 讜专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讜讞诪砖讗 讘讬专讞讗 讜讛砖转讗 讞讝讗讬 讘讞诪砖讗 讘讬专讞讗 讜讘专讬砖 讬专讞讗 诇讗 讞讝讗讬

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.

讜拽讗诪专 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 谞讚讜转讛 讗诇诪讗 诪专讬砖 讬专讞讗 诪谞讬谞讗

Rav Pappa concludes: And it is with regard to this case that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讞讝讗讬 专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讜专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讜注砖专讬谉 讜讞诪砖讛 讘讬专讞讗 讜专讬砖 讬专讞讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诪讬 讬转讬专讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讜住驻讜 讘讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: These are not the circumstances of the dispute. Rather, this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讜讻诇 谞讞讜转讬 讬诪讗 讗诪专讜讛 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注

The Gemara notes: And likewise, when Ravin and all the sea-farers came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and transmitted statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan, they said this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan in accordance with the explanation of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.
.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘谞讜转 讻讜转讬诐

 

Scroll To Top