Niddah 4

Niddah 4

כִּי פְּלִיגִי חִזְקִיָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּקוּפָּה בְּדוּקָה, מָר סָבַר: הָא בַּדְקַהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: אֵימוֹר עִם סִילּוּק יָדוֹ נָפַל.

When Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree, it is with regard to a basket that was examined. One Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds that since it was examined before the produce was placed inside and was found to be clean of creeping animals, it is reasonable to assume that the creeping animal entered only after the ritually pure produce was removed. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that one can say that it is possible that when he removed his hand after feeling around to examine the basket, the creeping animal fell in.

וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דְּאִשָּׁה קָתָנֵי, וְאִשָּׁה בְּדוּקָה הִיא! כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁכִיחִי בָּהּ דָּמִים — כְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּדוּקָה דָּמְיָא.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t the case of a basket taught as being similar to the case of a menstruating woman? Hillel had cited the case of the basket as a difficulty with regard to Shammai’s opinion in the case of a menstruating woman. And since a woman is considered fully examined, since she examines herself with examination cloths twice a day, the other case must also be referring to a basket that had been examined. The Gemara answers: Since blood is commonly found flowing from her, as women regularly experience menstrual flows, it is considered as though she were not examined.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי מוֹדוּ שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל בְּקוּפָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְכוּסָּה, כִּי פְּלִיגִי חִזְקִיָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּקוּפָּה מְכוּסָּה. מְכוּסָּה — הֵיכִי נְפַל? כְּגוֹן שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישָׁהּ עַל יְדֵי כִּסּוּי.

The Gemara suggests another resolution of the apparent contradiction between the ruling of Ḥizkiyya and the opinions of Hillel and Shammai. And if you wish, say: When Shammai and Hillel agree, it is with regard to a basket that is not covered. When do Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree? With regard to a basket that is covered. The Gemara asks: If the basket is covered, how did the creeping animal fall inside? The Gemara answers: For example, if the basket is used by removing its lid. Ḥizkiyya holds that the creeping animal must have fallen in after the produce was removed, because as long as the produce was inside one would be careful not to allow anything else inside. Rabbi Yoḥanan is concerned that perhaps while the basket was uncovered a creeping animal could have fallen inside without one noticing.

וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דְאִשָּׁה קָתָנֵי, וְאִשָּׁה מְכוּסָּה הִיא, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁכִיחִי בַּהּ דָּמִים — כְּשֶׁאֵין מְכוּסָּה דָּמְיָא.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t the case of a basket taught as being similar to the case of a menstruating woman? And just as a woman is considered covered, since no outside blood can enter her, so too in the case of a basket, it must be one where it is constantly covered. The Gemara explains: Since blood is commonly found flowing from her, as women regularly experience menstrual flows, it is considered as though she is not always covered.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי מוֹדוּ שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל בְּזָוִית קוּפָּה, כִּי פְּלִיגִי חִזְקִיָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּזָוִית בַּיִת, וְהָא ״קוּפָּה״ קָאָמַר!

The Gemara suggests another resolution. And if you wish, say: When do Shammai and Hillel agree? In a case where the produce was stored in the corner of a basket. By contrast, when Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree, it is in a case where the produce was stored in the corner of a house. The Gemara expresses puzzlement at this suggestion: But the Gemara on 3b explicitly states that they are referring to a case of a basket.

הָכִי קָאָמַר: קוּפָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהּ טְהָרוֹת בְּזָוִית בַּיִת זוֹ, וְטִלְטְלוּהָ בְּזָוִית אַחֶרֶת, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁרֶץ בְּזָוִית אַחֶרֶת. חִזְקִיָּה סָבַר: לָא מַחְזְקִינַן טוּמְאָה מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר: מַחְזְקִינַן.

The Gemara explains that this is what the Gemara on 3b is saying: If one has a basket that was used as a container for ritually pure produce in this corner of the house, and after the produce was removed it was subsequently carried to another corner, and the carcass of a creeping animal was found in the basket while it was in that other corner, Ḥizkiyya holds: The produce remains ritually pure, as we do not presume that ritual impurity moved from place to place. In other words, the impure creeping animal is not assumed to have moved from the first corner where the produce was kept. Instead, it fell inside while the basket was in the second corner, and therefore the produce that it previously contained remains pure. And Rabbi Yoḥanan holds: The produce is retroactively considered impure, as we do presume that ritual impurity, i.e., the carcass of the creeping animal in the basket, moved from place to place.

וּמִי מַחְזְקִינַן? וְהָתְנַן: נָגַע בְּאֶחָד בַּלַּיְלָה, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם חַי אִם מֵת, וּלְמָחָר הִשְׁכִּים וּמְצָאוֹ מֵת — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַהֵר.

The Gemara asks a question with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: And do we presume that ritual impurity moved from place to place? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Teharot 5:7): If someone touched one other person at night, and he does not know whether the person he touched was alive or dead, and on the following day he arose and found him dead, and he is uncertain whether or not he contracted ritual impurity from contact with a corpse, Rabbi Meir deems him ritually pure. It is assumed that the deceased was still alive until the point that it is known with certainty that he was dead.

וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִין, שֶׁכׇּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן.

And the Rabbis deem him ritually impure, as it is presumed that all ritually impure items had already been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered. Just as the deceased was found dead in the morning, so too, it is presumed that he was dead when he was touched in the middle of the night.

וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן, וּבִמְקוֹם מְצִיאָתָן!

The Gemara concludes its question: And it is taught with regard to this mishna: It is presumed that ritually impure items had been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered, but only in the place in which they were discovered. In other words, if the corpse had been found in a different spot than he was at night, it is not presumed that he was already dead in the first spot, and the man who touched him remains ritually pure. If so, how can Rabbi Yoḥanan maintain that we presume impurity moved from place to place?

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי לִשְׂרוֹף, אֲבָל לִתְלוֹת — תָּלֵינַן? וּמִי תָּלֵינַן?!

And if you would say in response: This statement, that impurity is presumed only in the place in which it was discovered, applies specifically with regard to definite impure status, i.e., to burn teruma, but with regard to uncertain impurity, i.e., to suspend the status of teruma, we do in fact suspend its status and it may be neither burned nor eaten; is this distinction correct? Do we in fact suspend the status of ritually pure items in such a case, due to the concern that the dead man whom this individual touched might have already been dead in the first location?

וְהָתְנַן: מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מְלֵאָה חֲלוּדָּה אוֹ שְׁבוּרָה — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁכׇּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא: הַאי מֵעִיקָּרָא מַחַט מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא, וְהַשְׁתָּא הוּא דְּהֶעֱלָה חֲלוּדָּה.

But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Teharot 3:5): With regard to a previously impure needle that is found on top of teruma and it is full of rust or broken, and therefore no longer contracts or transmit ritual impurity, the teruma remains pure, as it is presumed that in all cases of impurity, the items in question had already been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered? But why should that be the case? Let us say that initially, when it had fallen onto the teruma, this needle was a proper, non-rusty and unbroken, needle, capable of contracting and transmitting ritual impurity, and it is only now that rust had formed on it. The status of the teruma should at least be held in suspension. Rather, it is evident that the teruma is considered definitely pure and is not held in suspension due to the possibility that it might have become impure from the nail at a previous time or, presumably, in a previous place.

וְעוֹד תְּנַן: מָצָא שֶׁרֶץ שָׂרוּף עַל גַּבֵּי הַזֵּיתִים, וְכֵן מַטְלִית הַמְהוּמְהָם — טָהוֹר, שֶׁכׇּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן!

And furthermore, we learned in a mishna (Teharot 9:9): If one found the carcass of a burned creeping animal on top of a pile of olives, and that animal no longer transmits impurity as it is burned, and similarly if one finds a tattered rag of a zav, which likewise no longer transmits impurity, on top of a pile of olives, the olives are pure. The reason is that it is presumed in all cases of impurity, the items in question had already been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered. Once again, this demonstrates that when this presumption is applied, the item is considered definitely pure, and is not held in suspension due to uncertainty.

וְכִי תֵּימָא, כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן בֵּין לְקוּלָּא בֵּין לְחוּמְרָא, וּבִמְקוֹם מְצִיאָתָן, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מְצִיאָתָן — מִשְׂרָף לָא שָׂרְפִינַן, מִתְלֵא תָּלֵינַן.

And if you would say that there is a difference between these last cases, where the items did not move, and the case of the basket that moved, this distinction is not correct. The suggestion is that in the last cases the items are treated entirely as if they had always been as they were at the time they were discovered, whether this leads to a leniency, as in the cases of the needle and the rag, and whether it leads to a stringency, in the case of one who touched someone at night, when he is considered to be definitely impure, but this is the halakha only with regard to the place where they were discovered, i.e., if they did not move. But with regard to a location that is not the place where they were discovered, we do suspect that ritual impurity moved from place to place, and therefore although we do not burn the teruma in question, we hold it in suspension.

וְהָתְנַן: כִּכָּר עַל גַּבֵּי הַדַּף, וּמַדָּף טָמֵא מוּנָּח תַּחְתָּיו, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִם נָפְלָה אִי אֶפְשָׁר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָגְעָה — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אָדָם טָהוֹר נִכְנַס לְשָׁם וּנְטָלָהּ,

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: But didn’t we learn in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 4:3): There was a loaf resting on top of a shelf, and there was an item of light impurity, e.g., a garment of a zav, which transmits impurity to food but not to people or vessels, lying underneath it, and the loaf was later found on the ground. Even though the situation was such that if the loaf fell to the ground it would be impossible for it to have done anything other than touch the impure garment on its way down, nevertheless the loaf is pure. The reason is that I say that a ritually pure man entered there and took it off the shelf and placed it onto the ground without it touching the impure garment.

עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר: ״בָּרִי לִי שֶׁלֹּא נִכְנַס אָדָם שָׁם״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִמְקוֹם מִדְרוֹן!

The baraita concludes: This ruling applies unless someone says: It is clear to me that no person entered there. And Rabbi Elazar says: This principle is necessary only when the top shelf is an inclined surface. In other words, even if it is very likely that the loaf rolled off the shelf and touched the garment on its way down to the ground, nevertheless it is assumed to be pure. This indicates that one does not presume that the loaf contracted impurity and then fell to the ground where it was found. Since such a possibility is not even entertained to the extent that the teruma is held in suspension, this demonstrates that in a case involving a movement from one place to another there is no presumption of ritual impurity at all.

הָתָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא,

The Gemara explains that no proof can be cited from there, as that baraita explicitly teaches the reason for its ruling:

שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אָדָם טָהוֹר נִכְנַס לְשָׁם וּנְטָלָהּ.

The reason is not that one does not presume that ritual impurity moved from place to place, but because I say that a ritually pure man entered there and took it off the shelf and placed it onto the ground, avoiding the impure garment it would have hit had it fallen. When there is no such explanation, the principle that one presumes impurity moved from place to place does apply, e.g., in the case of the basket where the carcass of a creeping animal was found inside.

הָכָא נָמֵי נֵימָא: עוֹרֵב אֲתָא וּשְׁדָא! אָדָם דִּבְכַוָּנָה — אָמְרִינַן, עוֹרֵב דְּשֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה — לָא אָמְרִינַן.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Here, too, let us say that a raven, which often touches creeping animals, came and threw the creeping animal into the basket when it was in the second corner, after the produce had been emptied from it. The Gemara rejects this claim: In the case of a person, who acts with intent, we can say that perhaps a person moved the loaf from the shelf onto the ground. By contrast, with regard to a raven, which does not act with intent, we do not say that perhaps it committed such a purposeful act.

מִכְּדִי הַאי כִּכָּר סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד הוּא, וְכֹל סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — סְפֵקָהּ טָמֵא, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל, בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the ruling of the Tosefta: Now the status of this loaf found on the ground is one of uncertain impurity found in a private domain, and the guiding principle in any case of uncertainty involving impurity in a private domain is that the item with uncertain status is deemed impure. If so, shouldn’t the loaf be deemed impure? The Gemara answers: No, as this is an entity that lacks consciousness in order for it to be asked, and the guiding principle is that with regard to any entity that lacks consciousness in order for it to be asked, whether it is found in a public domain or in a private domain, the item with uncertain status is deemed pure.

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָכָא בְּטוּמְאָה דְרַבָּנַן. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי ״מַדָּף״, כְּדִכְתִיב ״עָלֶה נִדָּף״.

And if you wish, say instead: That principle, that in any case of uncertainty involving impurity in a private domain the item with uncertain status is deemed impure, applies to a case of impurity by Torah law, whereas here we are dealing with ritual impurity by rabbinic law. The Gemara adds: The language of the Tosefta is also precise, as it teaches: There was a loaf resting on top of a shelf, and there was an item of light impurity [madaf ] lying underneath it. The term madaf is similar to that which is written: “A driven leaf [niddaf ]” (Leviticus 26:36), i.e., a light item. Likewise, the Tosefta is referring to a light, or rabbinic, impurity.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה, לֹא כְּדִבְרֵי שַׁמַּאי — שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה סְיָיג לִדְבָרָיו, וְלֹא כְּדִבְרֵי הִלֵּל — שֶׁהִפְרִיז עַל מִדּוֹתָיו.

§ The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this tanna nor in accordance with the statement of that tanna. The Sages taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this tanna nor in accordance with the statement of that tanna. It is not accordance with the statement of Shammai, who rules that her time is sufficient and she does not need to be concerned that her menstrual flow started earlier, as he did not enact any safeguard for his statement. And is it not in accordance with the statement of Hillel, who rules that she assumes ritual impurity status retroactive to the time of her most recent examination, as he went beyond [hifriz] his bounds with his safeguard.

אֶלָּא, מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

The Rabbis continue: Rather, a twenty-four-hour period reduces the time from examination to examination, i.e., if her most recent self-examination took place more than twenty-four hours earlier, she need concern herself with ritual impurity only for the twenty-four-hour period prior to discerning the blood. And from examination to examination reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period, i.e., if she examined herself in the course of the previous day and discovered no blood, she was definitely pure prior to the examination.

מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, כֵּיצַד? בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּאֶחָד בַּשַּׁבָּת וּמָצָאת טְהוֹרָה, וְיָשְׁבָה שֵׁנִי וּשְׁלִישִׁי וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, וְלִרְבִיעִי בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טְמֵאָה — אֵין אוֹמְרִים תְּטַמֵּא מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, אֶלָּא מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

The baraita elaborates: A twenty-four-hour period reduces the time from examination to examination, how so? A woman examined herself on Sunday and found that she was ritually pure, and then she sat through Monday and Tuesday and did not examine herself. And then on Wednesday she examined herself and found that she was impure. In such a case we do not say that she should be impure retroactively from the time of this examination extending back until the time of her most recent examination. Rather, she is impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period.

וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מֵעֵת לְעֵת, כֵּיצַד? בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּשָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּמָצָאת טְהוֹרָה, וְיָשְׁבָה לָהּ שְׁנִיָּה וּשְׁלִישִׁית וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, וְלִרְבִיעִית בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טְמֵאָה — אֵין אוֹמְרִים תְּטַמֵּא מֵעֵת לְעֵת, אֶלָּא מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה.

The baraita continues: And from examination to examination reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period, how so? A woman examined herself in the first hour of a day and found that she was ritually pure, and then she sat through the second and third hours of the day and did not examine herself. And then at the fourth hour she examined herself and found that she was impure. In such a case we do not say that she should be impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. Rather, she is impure retroactively from the time of this examination extending back until the time of her most recent examination, three hours earlier.

פְּשִׁיטָא! כֵּיוָן דְּבָדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּשָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּמָצָאת טְהוֹרָה, לָא מְטַמֵּינַן לַהּ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, תְּנָא נָמֵי מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This halakha is obvious. Since she examined herself at the first hour and found that she was pure, there is no reason to render her impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. Why does the baraita state such an obvious halakha? The Gemara answers: Since the baraita taught that according to the Rabbis a twenty-four-hour period reduces the time from examination to examination, it also taught the parallel case, that from examination to examination reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period, despite the fact that this halakha is obvious.

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? אִשָּׁה מַרְגֶּשֶׁת בְּעַצְמָהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִם כֵּן, תְּהֵא דַּיָּה שְׁעָתָהּ! וְרַבָּה לְחַדּוֹדֵי לְאַבָּיֵי הוּא דְּבָעֵי. אֶלָּא מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן?

Rabba says: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis? A woman can sense within herself if she is experiencing a flow of blood. Abaye said to Rabba: If so, her time should be sufficient, as there should be no concern that her flow began earlier. The Gemara explains: And Rabba did not in fact mean this explanation seriously; rather, he wanted to hone the mind of Abaye. The Gemara asks: But if so, what is the real reason for the opinion of the Rabbis?

כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֲכָמִים תִּקְּנוּ לָהֶן לִבְנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיְּהוּ בּוֹדְקוֹת עַצְמָן שַׁחֲרִית וְעַרְבִית, שַׁחֲרִית — לְהַכְשִׁיר טְהָרוֹת שֶׁל לַיְלָה, וְעַרְבִית — לְהַכְשִׁיר טְהָרוֹת שֶׁל יוֹם.

The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel says: The Sages instituted that the Jewish women should examine themselves twice each day, morning and evening. The morning examination is in order to render fit the ritually pure items of the night, i.e., any items that she touched the night before. And the evening examination is in order to render fit the pure items that she touched during the day.

וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — הִפְסִידָה עוֹנָה. מַאי ״עוֹנָה״? עוֹנָה יְתֵירָה.

The Gemara continues its explanation: And this woman, since she did not examine herself in accordance with the rabbinic enactment, she loses the status of the ritually pure items she touched over the period [ona] of a day or a night. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Period of a day or a night? Doesn’t her retroactive impurity status extend back for a twenty-four-hour period? The Gemara answers: It means an additional period of a day or a night, i.e., twenty-four hours in total.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: וְהָא זִימְנִין מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת בְּמֵעֵת לְעֵת! הִשְׁווּ חֲכָמִים מִדּוֹתֵיהֶן, שֶׁלֹּא תַּחְלוֹק בְּמֵעֵת לְעֵת.

Rav Pappa says to Rava: But occasionally you find three periods of day or night within a twenty-four-hour period. For example, if she examined herself on Monday afternoon and finds blood, then the twenty-four-hour period extending back to Sunday afternoon includes three periods of day or night: Monday day, Sunday night and Sunday day from the time of her most recent examination, as these twenty-four hours do not fit precisely into two such periods. The Gemara answers: The Sages rendered their measures equal, so that one should not differentiate between cases. In other words, they wanted to issue a uniform ruling that applies universally and therefore they established a set twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity, regardless of the circumstances.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר.

And if you wish, say instead that they established the set twenty-four-hour period so that the sinner should not profit from his transgression. If the extent of retroactive impurity would be fixed at one additional period of day or night, a woman who remembers and examines herself in the early morning would be impure retroactively for a full twenty-four hours, back to early morning the previous day, whereas one who waits until noon would be impure only for the period of the morning and the previous night.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאִתְּנִיסָה, וְלָא בְּדַקָה.

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two answers? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case where she was prevented by outside circumstances and did not perform an examination. According to the second answer she would not be considered a sinner and therefore she would be impure only for an additional period of a day or night. By contrast, according to the first answer her impure status would span twenty-four hours regardless of the circumstances.

כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת [וְכוּ׳]. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי דּוֹסָא הִיא, וְלָא רַבָּנַן? דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַרְבַּע נָשִׁים דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן — בְּתוּלָה, מְעוּבֶּרֶת, מְנִיקָה, וּזְקֵנָה. רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת דַּיָּה שְׁעָתָהּ.

§ The mishna teaches: For any woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, and she examined herself at that time and discovered blood, her time is sufficient, and she transmits impurity only from that time onward. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: There are four categories of women for whom the halakha is that their time is sufficient: A virgin, i.e., a girl who has never experienced menstruation, a pregnant woman, a nursing mother, and an elderly woman. Rabbi Dosa says: For every woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, and she examined herself at that time and discovered blood, her time is sufficient, and it is only from that stage that she transmits ritual impurity.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי דּוֹסָא אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ, וּמַתְנִיתִין בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Dosa only in the case of a woman who discovers blood at an irregular time, not at the fixed time of her menstrual cycle. But if she discovers blood at the fixed time of her menstrual cycle, they agree with him that her time is sufficient and there is no retroactive impurity. And the mishna is referring to a woman who discovers blood at the fixed time of her menstrual cycle, and therefore everyone agrees that her time is sufficient.

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי דּוֹסָא אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ אֲמַר? מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת — כִּתְמָהּ טָמֵא לְמַפְרֵעַ, שֶׁאִם תִּרְאֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ — מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: By inference, one can conclude that Rabbi Dosa says that her time is sufficient even if she discovers blood not at the fixed time of her menstrual cycle. If so, who is the tanna who taught the following baraita? As the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle who finds a blood stain, her blood stain is impure retroactively from when the garment in question was laundered. The reason is that if she sees a flow of menstrual blood not at the fixed time of her menstrual cycle, it renders her impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. Therefore, the blood stain likewise renders her retroactively impure.

נֵימָא רַבָּנַן הִיא, וְלָא רַבִּי דּוֹסָא? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי דּוֹסָא, עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי דּוֹסָא עֲלַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ מוֹדֵי לְהוּ, וּמַתְנִיתִין בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא הִיא,

The Gemara concludes its question: Shall we say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa? The Gemara answers: You may even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, as one can claim that Rabbi Dosa disagrees with the Rabbis only in a case where a woman sees menstrual blood at the fixed time of her menstrual cycle. But if she sees blood not at the fixed time of her menstrual cycle, he agrees with them that she is impure retroactively. And according to this answer the mishna, which deals with a woman who discovers blood at the fixed time of her menstrual cycle, is only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, in contrast to the earlier claim.