Niddah 5

וברייתא דברי הכל

And as for the ruling of the baraita, that a woman who discovers menstrual blood not at her fixed time for menstruation is impure retroactively, this is a halakha with which everyone agrees.

ולוקמא איפכא

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let us interpret the mishna in the opposite manner. Why interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa and the baraita in accordance with everyone, when we can give precedence to the mishna, which is more authoritative, by interpreting it in accordance with all opinions, as was first explained, and the baraita only in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

כיון דאיכא לאוקומי לקולא ולחומרא לחומרא מוקמינן

The Gemara answers: Since there is a way to interpret it as a leniency, i.e., that all agree that blood discovered at the fixed time of menstruation renders items impure only from that point onward, and it can also be interpreted in a manner that leads to a stringency, i.e., everyone agrees that blood discovered not at her fixed time for menstruation causes retroactive impurity, and furthermore the Rabbis hold that this is the halakha even when blood is discovered at her fixed time of menstruation, we interpret it the way that leads to a stringency.

קתני שאם תראה שלא בשעת וסתה מטמאה מעת לעת טעמא דאשה שיש לה וסת הוא דפליגי רבנן בין כתמה לראייתה

§ It is taught in the baraita: If a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle finds a blood stain, her blood stain is retroactively impure. The reason is that if she sees a flow of menstrual blood not at the fixed time of her menstrual cycle, it renders her ritually impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that she is a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle; therefore, the Rabbis distinguish between her blood stain, which causes retroactive impurity like a sighting not at her fixed time, and her sighting of her menstrual flow at its fixed time, which does not cause retroactive impurity.

הא שאר נשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן כראייתן

It can be inferred from here that in the case of those other women, e.g., a pregnant or elderly woman, with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient and their menstrual flow never causes retroactive impurity, the same halakha applies to their blood stains as to their sighting of their menstrual flow, i.e., the stains do not cause retroactive impurity.

מני רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס היא דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס כל הנשים כתמן טמא למפרע ונשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן כראייתן חוץ מתינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות שאפילו סדינין שלה מלוכלכין בדם אין חוששין לה

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita taught? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus: The halakha with regard to all women is that their blood stains are impure retroactively. But any women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, their blood stains share the same ruling as their sighting of their menstrual flow, i.e., they do not cause retroactive impurity. This is the halakha except for the case of a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived. With regard to her, even if her sheets are soiled with blood one need not be concerned for it, i.e., her blood stains do not cause any impurity at all, even from that point onward.

ומי אית ליה לרבי חנינא כתם כלל והתניא כל הנשים כתמן טמא ונשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן טמא רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר נשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן אין להן כתם מאי לאו אין להן כתם כלל לא אין להן כתם למפרע אבל יש להן כתם מכאן ולהבא

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus hold that a blood stain causes ritual impurity at all? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The halakha with regard to all women is that their blood stains are impure. And similarly, women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, their blood stains are also impure. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: The halakha of women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, is that they do not have the ritual impurity of a blood stain. What, is it not correct to say that this means they have no impurity caused by a blood stain at all? The Gemara answers: No, it means that they do not have impurity caused by a blood stain retroactively, but they do have the impurity caused by a blood stain from here onward.

מכלל דתנא קמא סבר אפילו למפרע אין רבי מאיר היא דמחמיר גבי כתמים דתניא כל הנשים כתמן טמא למפרע ונשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן טמא למפרע דברי רבי מאיר

The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus holds that a blood stain imparts ritual impurity from that point onward, does this not indicate that the first tanna holds that it causes ritual impurity even retroactively? The Gemara answers: Yes, the ruling of the first tanna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is stringent with regard to blood stains. As it is taught in a baraita: The halakha with regard to all women is that their blood stains are impure retroactively. And similarly, women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, their blood stains are also impure retroactively. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר נשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן כראייתן ותינוקת שהגיע זמנה לראות יש לה כתם ושלא הגיע זמנה לראות אין לה כתם ואימתי הגיע זמנה לראות משהגיעו ימי הנעורים

The baraita continues: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: The halakha of women with regard to whom the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, is that their blood stains share the same ruling as their sighting of their menstrual flow, i.e., they cause ritual impurity from that point onward. And in the case of a young girl, if her time to see the flow of menstrual blood has arrived, then she has impurity status when she finds a blood stain. But if her time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not yet arrived, she does not have impurity status when she finds a blood stain. The Gemara asks: And when does a young girl arrive at her time to see the flow of menstrual blood? The Gemara answers: When the days of her young womanhood have arrived.

והמשמשת בעדים כו׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל עד שלפני תשמיש אינו ממעט כפקידה

§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths, with which she ascertains whether the menstrual flow began, since the halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination, it reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period and reduces the time from examination to examination. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The examination cloth with which she examined herself before intercourse does not reduce the time from a twenty-four-hour period like a regular examination.

מאי טעמא אמר רב קטינא מתוך שמהומה לביתה וכי מהומה לביתה מאי הוי מתוך שמהומה לביתה אינה מכנסת לחורין ולסדקין

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Shmuel? Rav Ketina says: Since she is excited [shemehuma] and hurried for intercourse with her husband, it is not considered a proper examination. The Gemara asks: And even if she is excited for intercourse with her husband, what of it? Why does that invalidate her examination? The Gemara answers: Since she is excited and hurried for intercourse with her husband, she does not insert the examination cloth into her recesses and folds.

תנן המשמשת בעדים הרי זו כפקידה מאי לאו חד לפני תשמיש וחד לאחר תשמיש לא אידי ואידי לאחר תשמיש ואחד לו ואחד לה כדתנן דרך בנות ישראל משמשות בשני עדים אחד לו ואחד לה

The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna: And a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths, the halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination. The mishna refers to examination cloths in the plural. What, is it not speaking of one cloth used before intercourse and one cloth used after intercourse? The Gemara answers: No, this cloth and that cloth are both used after intercourse; and the reason why the mishna uses the plural is that one cloth is for his use and one is for her use. As we learned in a mishna (14a): It is the custom of Jewish women to engage in intercourse with their husbands with two examination cloths, one for his use and one for her use.

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא חד לפני תשמיש וחד לאחר תשמיש איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא מתוך שמהומה לביתה לא בדקה שפיר קא משמע לן הרי זו כפקידה אלא אי אמרת אידי ואידי לאחר תשמיש פשיטא

The Gemara asks: What is this? Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to one cloth used before intercourse and one used after intercourse, it was necessary for the mishna to mention both examinations, as it might enter your mind to say that since she is excited and hurried for intercourse with her husband, she did not examine herself properly. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that her examination with a cloth before intercourse is considered as a halakhically valid examination. But if you say that this cloth and that cloth are his and her cloths used after intercourse, isn’t it obvious that they are treated as halakhic examinations? Why is this ruling necessary?

מהו דתימא שמא תראה טפת דם כחרדל ותחפנה שכבת זרע קא משמע לן

The Gemara answers: The halakha that the examinations performed after intercourse count as valid examinations is necessary, lest you say that perhaps she might see a drop of blood corresponding to the size of a mustard seed and a drop of semen covered it. In other words, it is possible that she discharged a tiny amount of menstrual blood that went undetected, as it was covered by a drop of semen. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that one does not need to be concerned for this possibility.

ואיבעית אימא שתי בדיקות אצרכוה רבנן חד לפני תשמיש וחד לאחר תשמיש וכי קתני הרי זו כפקידה אלאחר תשמיש והא המשמשת קתני תני ומשמשת

And if you wish, say instead: The mishna is referring only to her examinations, but the reason the mishna mentions two examinations is not to give them the status of valid examinations, but to teach that they are both obligatory. As the Sages required her to perform two examinations: One before intercourse and one after intercourse. And when the mishna teaches: The halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination, it is referring specifically to the examination performed after intercourse. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the mishna teaches: A woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths. This formulation indicates that the examination is voluntary and is not mandated by the Sages. The Gemara explains that one should emend the text of the mishna so that it teaches: And a woman must engage in intercourse while using examination cloths.

ממעטת על יד מעת לעת השתא מעת לעת ממעטת

§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths, as the halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination, it reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period, and reduces the time from examination to examination. The Gemara asks: Now that the mishna teaches that this examination reduces time from a twenty-four-hour period,

מפקידה לפקידה מיבעיא

is it necessary to teach that an examination reduces the time from examination to examination, which is less than twenty-four hours?

מהו דתימא מעת לעת חשו בה רבנן לפסידא דטהרות אבל מפקידה לפקידה לא קא משמע לן

The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary, lest you say that with regard to the significant passage of a twenty-four-hour period the Sages are concerned for the possible loss of ritually pure items, but with regard to the smaller period from examination to examination, the Sages are not concerned for the loss of pure items, and therefore the use of an examination cloth should not reduce the time of possible impurity between that and her next examination. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it does reduce this time.

כיצד דיה שעתה וכו׳ למה לי למיתני היתה יושבת במטה ועסקה בטהרות ליתני היתה עסוקה בטהרות ופרשה וראתה

§ The mishna teaches with regard to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle: Her time is sufficient, how so? If the woman was sitting in a bed and engaged in handling ritually pure items, and she left the bed and saw blood, she is impure and those items are pure. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach: If the woman was sitting in a bed and engaged in handling pure items? Let the mishna teach the same ruling without mentioning the bed: If she was engaged in handling pure items and she left and saw blood. The detail that she was sitting in a bed is apparently superfluous.

הא קא משמע לן טעמא דדיה שעתה הא מעת לעת מטה נמי מטמיא מסייע ליה לזעירי דאמר זעירי מעת לעת שבנדה עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים

The Gemara answers: This detail teaches us that the reason why the bed is not rendered impure is that her time is sufficient and there is no retroactive impurity. It can be inferred that in a case where she is impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, her bed is also rendered impure. This supports the opinion of Ze’eiri, as Ze’eiri said: The level of impurity of the retroactive twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman renders impure a bed upon which she lies and a chair upon which she sits, to the extent that they transmit impurity to a person who comes in contact with them, to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing.

מכדי האי מטה דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל הוא וכל דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל ספקו טהור תרגמה זעירי כשחברותיה נושאות אותה במטה דהויא ליה יד חברותיה

This Gemara raises a difficulty: Now, this bed upon which she sat is an entity that lacks consciousness in order for it to be asked, and the principle with regard to any entity that lacks consciousness in order for it to be asked is that the item with uncertain status is deemed pure. The Gemara explains: Ze’eiri interpreted his ruling as applying specifically to a case where her friends are carrying her in the bed, where the bed is considered as the extended hand of her friends. In other words, it is part of an entity that has consciousness in order for it to be asked, and therefore the item with uncertain status is deemed impure.

והשתא דאמר רבי יוחנן ספק טומאה הבאה בידי אדם נשאלין עליה אפילו בכלי מונח על גבי קרקע כמי שיש בו דעת לישאל אף על פי שאין חברותיה נושאות אותה במטה

The Gemara provides another answer: And now that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In a case of uncertain ritual impurity that comes about by the hand of a person, i.e., through his involvement, the owner of the vessel must consult a Sage about it, i.e., it is considered an entity that has consciousness in order for it to be asked, as in such a case even with regard to a vessel that is placed upon the ground, which is certainly incapable of providing an answer if asked, its halakhic status is like that of an item that has consciousness in order for it to be asked. With this statement in mind, one can explain that according to Ze’eiri a menstruating woman transmits impurity to a bed even though her friends are not carrying her in the bed. Rather, as the bed’s ritual impurity was caused by the hand of a person, it has the halakhic status of an item that has consciousness in order for it to be asked.

גופא אמר רבי יוחנן ספק טומאה הבאה בידי אדם נשאלים עליה אפילו בכלי המונח על גבי קרקע כמי שיש בו דעת לישאל

§ The Gemara discusses the matter of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement itself. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In a case of uncertain ritual impurity that comes about by the hand of man, its owner must consult a Sage about it, i.e., it is ritually impure, as in such a case even with regard to a vessel that is placed upon the ground, its halakhic status is like that of an item that has consciousness in order for it to be asked.

מיתיבי היה מתעטף בטליתו וטהרות וטומאות בצדו וטהרות וטומאות למעלה מראשו ספק נגע ספק לא נגע טהור ואם אי אפשר אלא אם כן נגע טמא

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 4:1): If a man who contracted ritual impurity was wrapping himself in his cloak and there were pure items beside him; or if he was pure and there were impure items beside him as he was wrapping his cloak; or if there were pure items and impure items above his head at the time and there is uncertainty whether he touched the impure items with his cloak and then touched the pure items with his cloak, and uncertainty whether it did not touch them, the halakha is that the pure items remain pure. But if it is impossible for him to have wrapped himself unless his cloak had touched the impure items in the process, then those previously pure items become impure.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אומרים לו שנה ושונה אמרו לו אין שונים בטהרות

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that we say to him: Repeat your action. And he repeats the action of wrapping himself with his cloak, and it can then be determined whether or not the cloak and the other items came in contact with each other. The Rabbis said to him: We do not rely on repeated actions with regard to the determination of ritually pure items. Since the second action may not exactly mimic the first, it cannot be relied upon to determine ritual purity status.

אמאי הא ספק טומאה הבאה בידי אדם הוא

The Gemara explains the objection: But according to the Rabbis, why is the halakha that the items in question remain pure? Isn’t this a case of uncertain ritual impurity that comes about by the hand of man, which, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, is considered as having consciousness in order for it to be asked? If so, these items should be ritually impure.

בר מיניה דההיא דתני רב הושעיא ברשות היחיד ספקו טמא ברשות הרבים טהור

The Gemara answers: Except for that one, i.e., do not raise a difficulty from that baraita, since it is referring to a specific case. As Rav Hoshaya teaches with regard to an item whose purity status is uncertain: When it is in the private domain, the item with uncertain status is deemed impure; when it is in the public domain, it is deemed pure. The baraita is referring to an item located in the public domain. Consequently, even if it is considered as having consciousness in order to be asked, nevertheless it is pure, as its uncertainty occurred in the public domain.

גופא אמר זעירי מעת לעת שבנדה עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים

§ The Gemara analyzes the matter of Ze’eiri’s ruling itself. Ze’eiri says: The level of impurity assumed during the retroactive twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman renders a bed upon which she lies and a chair upon which she sits impure to the extent that they transmit impurity to a person who comes in contact with them to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing.

איני והא כי אתא אבימי מבי חוזאי אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה מעת לעת שבנדה משכבה ומושבה כמגעה מאי לאו מה מגעה לא מטמא אדם אף משכבה לא מטמא אדם

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Avimi came from Bei Ḥozai, he came and brought the following baraita with him: The level of impurity during the retroactive twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman renders her bed upon which she lies and her chair upon which she sits impure like the impurity level caused by her touch. The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not correct to say that this means that just as an item rendered impure by her touch does not render another person impure, so too, her bed does not render another person impure?

אמר רבא ותסברא קל וחומר הוא ומה כלי חרס המוקף צמיד פתיל הניצול באוהל המת אינו ניצול במעת לעת שבנדה משכבות ומושבות שאינן ניצולין באהל המת אינו דין שאין ניצולין במעת לעת שבנדה

Rava says: And how can you understand it in that manner? There is an a fortiori inference here: And if an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover, which is spared from impurity when it is in a tent that has a corpse in it, is nevertheless not spared from impurity if the woman moved it during the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman and is impure as though she moved it after she experienced bleeding; so too, with regard to beds and chairs, which are not spared from impurity in a tent that has a corpse in it, is it not logical that they are also not spared from impurity when used during the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman and are impure as though she used them after she experienced bleeding?

והא אבימי מבי חוזאי מתניתא קאמר אימא משכבה ומושבה

The Gemara asks: But Avimi from Bei Ḥozai cited a baraita that apparently does not accept Rava’s a fortiori inference. The Gemara answers: One can say that the baraita does not mean that her bed and chair are rendered impure with the light level of impurity caused by her touch, but rather: Her bed upon which she lies and her chair upon which she sits