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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 15, 2019 | 讬状讝 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Niddah 53

Study Guide Nidda 53 讚祝 谞诇讜讜讛 谞讚讛 谞讙

There is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra regarding a woman who has spotting the size of聽two barley grains and a bit – does one need to be concerned that the blood was seen over a span of three days as one of the spots may have been from twilight (spanning two days) inwhich case she can be considered a zava gedola even though she doesn’t have 3 spots聽the size of a barley grain. Since Rebbi holds like one is a case where she checked and the other in a case where she didn’t check during twilight, the gemara tries to figure out when exactly did she check, according to Rebbi. The explanations lead to contradictions and also another braita leads to a contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra’s opinion and the gemara works to explain these contradictions. These explanations connect with a separate argument between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yossi regarding the exact time that is considered twilight that spans two days. A woman that sees a spot of blood, is she considered impure retoractively from the time she last washed/checked her clothing – regarding herself and sacred tiems that she came in contact with? What is the law regarding a woman who saw a spot and then started bleeding can assume that she starts counting from her spotting? Does it matter if it was within 24 hours or does it need to be on the same day? A woman who starts bleeding on twlight of a day that is ending one time period and going into the next (zava/niddah, pure blood after childbirth/niddah), one’s count becomes all messed up and one needs to be concerned for niddah and zava until one gets back on a regular schedule. Rabbi Yehoshua says that not only these cases, but regular women have problems with their counting.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 讘砖诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讜讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘砖讘讚拽讛

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra and the Rabbis should be decided as follows: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra, who maintains that there is a concern for the possibility that the woman might have seen blood at twilight, appears to be correct in a case where she did not examine. And the statement of the Rabbis, who are not concerned about that possibility, appears to be correct in a case where she did examine.

诪讗讬 讘讚拽讛 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗砖讻讞转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讗祝 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讘讚拽讛

The Gemara asks: What did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mean by: Where she did examine, and what did he mean by: Where she did not examine? Rava says: I found the Sages in the study hall of Rav sitting and saying the following explanation of the baraita: Here we are dealing with a case where the woman examined herself but did not examine her robe. And even with regard to herself, she examined herself only during twilight [bein hashemashot] as defined by Rabbi Yehuda, i.e., the time it takes to walk a half mil before the emergence of the stars. But during twilight as defined by Rabbi Yosei, i.e., the blink of an eye before the emergence of the stars, she did not examine herself.

讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讬诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讬

As the Rabbis hold that during the period of twilight as defined by Rabbi Yosei it is already night, and therefore it does not matter that she did not examine herself then. And as she did examine herself during the period of twilight as defined by Rabbi Yehuda, and she found no blood, there is no concern that she saw during twilight, which would count as two sightings. And Rabbi Yosei conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yosei, in whose name Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra said his ruling, stated that the time that he defines as twilight is considered uncertain, i.e., it is not definitely night or day, and therefore there is a concern that she might have seen blood at that time, which would count as seeing twice.

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讗讬诇诪诇讬 讬讚讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讬驻讛 讗转诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讻砖讬讜 砖诪讗 注诐 住诇讜拽 讬讚讬讛 专讗转讛 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讻砖谞转谞讛 讬讚讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转

Rava continues: And I said to those Sages: Had the woman鈥檚 hands been in her eyes, a euphemism for her private parts, for the entire twilight period, what you say would be fine. But now that this is not the case, perhaps when she removed her hands from examining herself she saw blood. And those Sages said to me: The case about which we said that opinion was where she placed her hands in her eyes for the entire twilight period.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 讻砖诇讗 讘讚拽讛 诪讗讬 诇讗 讘讚拽讛

The Gemara further clarifies the baraita. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra in the name of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that one needs to be concerned for the possibility that the woman saw blood at twilight, which would count as though she saw blood twice, appears to be correct in a case where she did not examine. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Where she did not examine?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘讚拽讛 讘转专讜讬讬讛讜 讞讬讬砖讗 讛讗 讘讚拽讛

If we say that she examined herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the time period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight, this is difficult: If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accepted the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra only in such a case, this indicates, by inference, that Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra himself, whose ruling is more strict than that of the Rabbis, holds that even though she examined herself during the twilight period as defined by both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, she must be concerned. This conclusion is untenable, as she examined herself throughout twilight and there was no blood.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘诇 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讗

Rather, it is obvious that when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi referred to a case where she did not examine herself, he meant that she examined herself neither during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, nor during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. But if she examined herself during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight, then she does not need to be concerned.

讗诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘讬 诇讬诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讻砖讘讚拽讛 诪讗讬 讘讚拽讛

Evidently, the time period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight is considered nighttime according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But if so, say the latter clause: And the statement of the Rabbis appears to be correct in a case where she did examine. What is meant by: Where she did examine?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讛讗 诇讗 讘讚拽讛

If we say that she examined herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight, this is difficult: If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accepted the opinion of the Rabbis only in such a case, this indicates by inference that the Rabbis themselves hold that even though she did not examine herself during the twilight period as defined by both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, nevertheless, we are not concerned. But in such a case, she did not examine herself at twilight at all.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讬谉 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬谉 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘诇 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Rather, it is obvious that she examined herself both during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, and during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. But if she examined herself during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, and she did not examine herself during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight, then we are concerned.

讗诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘讬 住驻拽讗 讛讜讬 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讗讚专讘讬

Evidently, the time period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight is considered to be of uncertain status regarding whether it is day or night according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: If so, one statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi poses a difficulty for another statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the inferences from the two parts of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 observation contradict one another.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讻诇诇 诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖讗祝 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讻诇诇 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra appears correct to the Rabbis in a case where she did not examine herself at all, neither during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, nor during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. As, even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra only in a case where she examined herself during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight but she did not examine herself during the time period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. But in a case where she did not examine herself at all, they concede to him that we are concerned that she might have emitted blood at twilight.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讜讗讛 讻转诐 诇专讗讬讛 诪专讜讘讛 讞讜砖砖转 诇专讗讬讛 诪讜注讟转 讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: In the case of a woman who sees a red stain, if she saw a large stain, covering an area the size of at least three split beans, she must be concerned that she might be a zava. But if she saw a small stain, covering an area of less than the size of three split beans, she does not need to be concerned that she is a zava. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗谞讬 砖诪注转讬 诪诪谞讜 砖讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 讞讜砖砖转 讜诪谉 讛讟注诐 讛讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬 讜诪讛 讗讬诇讜 谞讚讛 砖诇讗 讛驻专讬砖讛 讘讟讛专讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 诇讗 转讛讗 讘讞讝拽转 讟诪讗讛 讜谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 讻砖讘讚拽讛

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: I heard from Rabbi Yosei that with regard to both this one and that one, i.e., whether it is a large or small stain, she must be concerned that she is a zava. And Rabbi Yosei said this halakha to me based on this reasoning: And what would be the case if a menstruating woman did not perform the examination marking the first step in her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day from min岣 time onward? Would she not have a presumptive status of ritual impurity? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi added: And Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement appears to be correct with regard to the case where she examined.

诪讗讬 讘讚拽讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 讘讚拽讛

Once again, the Gemara asks: What is meant by the term: Where she examined? If we say that she examined herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight, this indicates by inference that Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra, who disagrees in the second baraita with this version of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion and rules more leniently, holds that even though she did not examine herself during the twilight period as defined by both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, nevertheless, she does not need to be concerned that she is a zava. But this conclusion is untenable, as she did not examine herself at twilight at all.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讬谉 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬谉 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 住讘专 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讗

Rather, it is obvious that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to a case where she examined herself both during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight and during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. This indicates, by inference, that Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra holds that if she examined herself during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the time period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight, then she does not need to be concerned, as a sighting at that time would not count as two.

讗诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 诇讬诇讬讗 讛讜讗 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗

Evidently, the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight is considered to be nighttime according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra. If so, one statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra poses a difficulty with regard to another statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra, as earlier it was stated that according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra twilight is not definitely night.

讘砖诇诪讗 讘诇讗 专讘讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讗 讚讘讚拽讛 谞诪讬 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 拽砖讬讗

Granted, without the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the apparent contradiction between these statements of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra in the two baraitot is not difficult, as one could explain as follows: There, with regard to the first baraita, it is referring to a case where she examined herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight. By contrast, here it is referring to a case where she examined herself both during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight and during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight. But in light of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one cannot explain in this manner, and therefore the contradiction poses a difficulty.

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 砖诇讬诐 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara answers: This is not a contradiction, as there are two tanna鈥檌m and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra. This tanna holds that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 twilight ends,

讜讛讚专 讞讬讬诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬砖讱 砖讬讬讱 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

and only thereafter the twilight of Rabbi Yosei begins, when there is uncertainty, and there is a concern that perhaps she saw blood at that time. And that tanna of the second baraita holds that the twilight of Rabbi Yosei is subsumed within and occurs at the end of the twilight of Rabbi Yehuda. According to the opinion of this tanna, since she examined herself throughout the twilight of Rabbi Yehuda, she also necessarily examined herself throughout the twilight of Rabbi Yosei and therefore there is no need to be concerned about her status.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讜讗讛 讻转诐 诪讟诪讗讛 注爪诪讛 讜拽讚砖讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

搂 On the topic of a woman seeing a stain, the Sages taught in a baraita: A woman who sees a red stain on her garment renders herself and consecrated items that she touched impure retroactively, from the time when that garment was last laundered. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 诪讟诪讗讛 注爪诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讻转诪讛 讞诪讜专 诪专讗讬讬转讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She does render consecrated items that she touched impure retroactively, but she does not render herself impure with regard to rendering impure objects that she touched since the time the garment was last laundered. The reason is that her stain should not be more stringent than her actual seeing of blood. If she experiences bleeding, she renders impure only objects that she touched during the previous twenty-four-hour period.

讜讛讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讻转诪讛 讞诪讜专 诪专讗讬讬转讛 诇注谞讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we find that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar himself holds that her stain is more stringent than her actual seeing of blood with regard to consecrated items? Her stain renders such items impure retroactively from the time that the garment was laundered, whereas her actually seeing blood renders impure only those items that she touched during the past twenty-four-hour period.

讗诇讗 转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讻转诪讛 讞诪讜专 诪专讗讬讬转讛 诇讻诇 讚讘专

The Gemara answers: Rather, teach the baraita like this: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that she does not even render consecrated items that she touched impure retroactively from the time that the garment was laundered, but only those items that she touched during the past twenty-four-hour period. The reason is that her stain should not be more stringent than her actual seeing of blood with regard to any matter.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讗转讛 讻转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 专讗转讛 讚诐 转讜诇讛 讻转诪讛 讘专讗讬讬转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a woman who saw a red stain on her garment, and afterward saw blood, what is the halakha? She attributes her stain to her seeing blood, i.e., the stain is treated as part of the seeing of blood, which means that she is impure only from when she found the stain, as it assumed that it appeared no earlier. This is the halakha provided that she saw the blood within a twenty-four-hour period of her discovery of the stain. But if more than twenty-four hours passed, she cannot attribute the stain to her sighting. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 诪讚讘专讬 砖讛讜讗 诪转拽谞讛 讜讗谞讬 诪注讜讜转讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She may attribute the stain to the sighting only if she experienced bleeding on the day of discovering the stain. If she experienced bleeding after that day, even if it was within twenty-four hours, she may not attribute the stain to the sighting, which means that she is impure retroactively from when she found the stain, in case it appeared earlier. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar appears to be more correct than mine, as he fixes her situation, i.e., he is lenient, and I ruin her situation, as my ruling is stringent. Since the impurity of a stain applies by rabbinic law, one should follow the more lenient opinion.

诪转拽谞讛 注讜讜转讬 诪注讜讬转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar actually fix her situation? Does he not ruin her situation? If she experiences bleeding the day after she found the stain, but within twenty-four hours of finding the stain, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar she renders items impure retroactively. By contrast, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi she renders objects impure only from when she discovered the stain. Ravina says: Reverse Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement, so that it states: My statement appears to be more correct than that of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as I fix her situation and he ruins her situation.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 砖讛讜讗 诪转拽谉 讛诇讻讜转讬讛 诇讬讚讬 讝讬讘讛

Rav Na岣an says: Actually, do not reverse Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi meant the following: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar鈥檚 opinion appears to be more correct, as he fixes her halakhot with regard to ziva. If she experiences bleeding on the day after discovering the stain, the count of her seven days of menstrual flow begins on that day of her actual sighting, not from when she saw the stain. This is due to the fact that the stain is not attributable to the seeing of the blood. Therefore, if she experiences bleeding on the seventh day after first experiencing bleeding, which is the eighth day after discovering the stain, she is not considered a lesser zava, and she can be purified from her status as a menstruating woman.

讜讗谞讬 诪注讜讜转 讛诇讻讜转讬讛 诇讬讚讬 讝讬讘讛

But I, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, ruin her halakhot with regard to ziva. Since the stain is attributable to the seeing of the blood within twenty-four hours, her counting starts from when she found the stain, and therefore the blood that she sees on the eighth day after discovering the stain is considered ziva. Consequently, she is considered a lesser zava and must observe a clean day for each day she experiences a discharge.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 讻转诪讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讛驻住拽 讟讛专讛 讗讜 诇讗 讗砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Asi: Are stains like the actual sight of blood, in that they require an examination in which she is clean of blood, marking the first step in her transition from impurity to purity before immersion on the night following the seventh day, or not? Rabbi Asi was silent and said nothing to Rabbi Zeira.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 转讜诇讛 讻转诪讛 讘专讗讬讬转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

The Gemara relates that on another occasion Rabbi Zeira found Rabbi Asi sitting and saying that a woman who sees a stain and afterward experiences bleeding attributes her stain to her seeing blood, if she saw the blood within a twenty-four-hour period of when she discovered the stain. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讛讜讗 砖讘讚拽讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讘讚拽讛

Rabbi Asi added that there is a dispute with regard to the details of this halakha. Reish Lakish says: This applies only in a case where she examined herself at the end of the seventh day from the discovery of the stain. This examination indicates that the stain is related to her experiencing bleeding, and therefore the standard halakha of a woman who becomes pure at the end of her seven menstrual days applies to her. By contrast, if she examined herself only at the end of the eighth day, the stain is not attributable to her bleeding. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The stain is attributable to her bleeding under all circumstances, even if she did not examine herself until the eighth day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讻转诪讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讛驻住拽转 讟讛专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜讛讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讘注讗 诪讬谞讱 讜诇讗 讗诪专转 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇诪讗 讗讙讘 砖讬讟驻讱 讗转讬讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讙讘 砖讬讟驻讗讬 讗转讬讗 诇讬

Upon hearing this, Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Does that mean, by inference, that stains require an examination marking the first step in her transition from impurity to purity? Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: Yes, that is the halakha. Rabbi Zeira further said to Rabbi Asi: But on many occasions I asked you about this matter and you did not say anything to me. Perhaps in the course of your studies this halakha came back to you? Rabbi Asi said to him: Yes, in the course of my studies this halakha came back to me.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讜讗讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注砖专 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 转讞诇转 谞讚讛 讜住讜祝 谞讚讛 转讞诇转 讝讬讘讛 讜住讜祝 讝讬讘讛

MISHNA: In the case of a woman who sees an emission of blood during twilight on the eleventh day of the days in which she can assume the status of a zava, as there is uncertainty whether the emission was during the day and it is the flow of a zava or whether it was at night and it is menstrual flow, she observes seven days of impurity like the beginning of the seven days of menstruation and the end of menstruation. If she experienced an emission on the two previous days as well, she observes seven clean days before immersion like the beginning of the flow of ziva and the end of the flow of ziva.

讬讜诐 讗专讘注讬诐 诇讝讻专 讜讬讜诐 砖诪讜谞讬诐 诇谞拽讘讛 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讻讜诇谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讟讜注讜转

Similarly, in the case of a woman who experiences an emission of blood during twilight on the fortieth day after the birth of a male or the eightieth day after the birth of a female, there is uncertainty whether it is considered daytime and therefore part of the final day of the blood of purity, or night that is part of the following day when the blood is impure. With regard to experiencing bleeding during twilight in all those cases, these women are mistaken in their calculation of the days of menstrual flow and the flow of a zava. Consequently, if they experience bleeding for three consecutive days at the beginning or at the end of the eleven days of ziva, they bring the offering of a zava but it is not eaten, as it was brought based on uncertainty.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注讚 砖讗转诐 诪转拽谞讬诐 讗转 讛砖讜讟讜转 讘讗讜 讜转拽谞讜 讗转 讛驻拽讞讜转

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Instead of making provisions to remedy the uncertainties of the misguided, come and remedy the uncertainties of the competent women who know what day they saw the blood but require guidance, due to the multitude of emissions that they experienced.

讙诪壮 转讞诇转 谞讚讛 讜住讜祝 谞讚讛 转讞诇转 谞讚讛 讜住讜祝 讝讬讘讛 讛讬讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a woman experiences bleeding during twilight on the eleventh day of the days on which she can assume the status of a zava, the flow is considered to be the beginning of the seven days of menstruation and the end of menstruation. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the concern is only that this flow might be either the beginning of the seven days of menstruation, if twilight is treated as night, or the end of ziva, if twilight is treated as day.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛专讜讗讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注砖专 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 转讞讬诇转 谞讚讛 讜住讜祝 讝讬讘讛

Rav 岣sda says that this is what the mishna is saying: A woman who sees an emission of blood during twilight on the eleventh day of the days on which she can assume the status of a zava must be concerned both for the possibility that it is the beginning of the seven days of menstruation and for the possibility that it is the end of the flow of ziva. If she had also seen an emission on the two previous days, she observes seven clean days before immersion, due to uncertainty.

讜讘砖讘讬注讬 诇谞讚转讛 住讜祝 谞讚讛 讜转讞诇转 讝讬讘讛

With regard to the continuation of the mishna, which states: The beginning of the flow of ziva and the end of the flow of ziva, this should be understood as follows: And in the case of a woman who experiences an emission of blood during twilight on the seventh day of the seven days of the flow of her menstruation, she must be concerned both for the possibility that it is the end of the seven days of menstruation and for the possibility that it is the beginning of the flow of ziva.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注讚 砖讗转诐 诪转拽谞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讜讟讜转 讻讜壮 讛谞讬

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua said to the Rabbis: Instead of making provisions to remedy the uncertainties of the misguided, come and remedy the uncertainties of the competent women. The Gemara asks: Are these women who experience bleeding during twilight

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 53

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 53

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 讘砖诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讜讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘砖讘讚拽讛

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra and the Rabbis should be decided as follows: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra, who maintains that there is a concern for the possibility that the woman might have seen blood at twilight, appears to be correct in a case where she did not examine. And the statement of the Rabbis, who are not concerned about that possibility, appears to be correct in a case where she did examine.

诪讗讬 讘讚拽讛 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗砖讻讞转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讗祝 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讘讚拽讛

The Gemara asks: What did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mean by: Where she did examine, and what did he mean by: Where she did not examine? Rava says: I found the Sages in the study hall of Rav sitting and saying the following explanation of the baraita: Here we are dealing with a case where the woman examined herself but did not examine her robe. And even with regard to herself, she examined herself only during twilight [bein hashemashot] as defined by Rabbi Yehuda, i.e., the time it takes to walk a half mil before the emergence of the stars. But during twilight as defined by Rabbi Yosei, i.e., the blink of an eye before the emergence of the stars, she did not examine herself.

讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讬诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讬

As the Rabbis hold that during the period of twilight as defined by Rabbi Yosei it is already night, and therefore it does not matter that she did not examine herself then. And as she did examine herself during the period of twilight as defined by Rabbi Yehuda, and she found no blood, there is no concern that she saw during twilight, which would count as two sightings. And Rabbi Yosei conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yosei, in whose name Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra said his ruling, stated that the time that he defines as twilight is considered uncertain, i.e., it is not definitely night or day, and therefore there is a concern that she might have seen blood at that time, which would count as seeing twice.

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讗讬诇诪诇讬 讬讚讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讬驻讛 讗转诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讻砖讬讜 砖诪讗 注诐 住诇讜拽 讬讚讬讛 专讗转讛 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讻砖谞转谞讛 讬讚讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转

Rava continues: And I said to those Sages: Had the woman鈥檚 hands been in her eyes, a euphemism for her private parts, for the entire twilight period, what you say would be fine. But now that this is not the case, perhaps when she removed her hands from examining herself she saw blood. And those Sages said to me: The case about which we said that opinion was where she placed her hands in her eyes for the entire twilight period.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 讻砖诇讗 讘讚拽讛 诪讗讬 诇讗 讘讚拽讛

The Gemara further clarifies the baraita. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra in the name of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that one needs to be concerned for the possibility that the woman saw blood at twilight, which would count as though she saw blood twice, appears to be correct in a case where she did not examine. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Where she did not examine?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘讚拽讛 讘转专讜讬讬讛讜 讞讬讬砖讗 讛讗 讘讚拽讛

If we say that she examined herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the time period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight, this is difficult: If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accepted the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra only in such a case, this indicates, by inference, that Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra himself, whose ruling is more strict than that of the Rabbis, holds that even though she examined herself during the twilight period as defined by both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, she must be concerned. This conclusion is untenable, as she examined herself throughout twilight and there was no blood.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘诇 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讗

Rather, it is obvious that when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi referred to a case where she did not examine herself, he meant that she examined herself neither during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, nor during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. But if she examined herself during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight, then she does not need to be concerned.

讗诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘讬 诇讬诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讻砖讘讚拽讛 诪讗讬 讘讚拽讛

Evidently, the time period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight is considered nighttime according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But if so, say the latter clause: And the statement of the Rabbis appears to be correct in a case where she did examine. What is meant by: Where she did examine?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讛讗 诇讗 讘讚拽讛

If we say that she examined herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight, this is difficult: If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accepted the opinion of the Rabbis only in such a case, this indicates by inference that the Rabbis themselves hold that even though she did not examine herself during the twilight period as defined by both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, nevertheless, we are not concerned. But in such a case, she did not examine herself at twilight at all.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讬谉 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬谉 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘诇 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Rather, it is obvious that she examined herself both during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, and during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. But if she examined herself during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, and she did not examine herself during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight, then we are concerned.

讗诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘讬 住驻拽讗 讛讜讬 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讗讚专讘讬

Evidently, the time period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight is considered to be of uncertain status regarding whether it is day or night according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: If so, one statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi poses a difficulty for another statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the inferences from the two parts of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 observation contradict one another.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讻诇诇 诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖讗祝 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讻诇诇 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra appears correct to the Rabbis in a case where she did not examine herself at all, neither during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, nor during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. As, even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra only in a case where she examined herself during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight but she did not examine herself during the time period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. But in a case where she did not examine herself at all, they concede to him that we are concerned that she might have emitted blood at twilight.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讜讗讛 讻转诐 诇专讗讬讛 诪专讜讘讛 讞讜砖砖转 诇专讗讬讛 诪讜注讟转 讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: In the case of a woman who sees a red stain, if she saw a large stain, covering an area the size of at least three split beans, she must be concerned that she might be a zava. But if she saw a small stain, covering an area of less than the size of three split beans, she does not need to be concerned that she is a zava. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗谞讬 砖诪注转讬 诪诪谞讜 砖讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 讞讜砖砖转 讜诪谉 讛讟注诐 讛讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬 讜诪讛 讗讬诇讜 谞讚讛 砖诇讗 讛驻专讬砖讛 讘讟讛专讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 诇讗 转讛讗 讘讞讝拽转 讟诪讗讛 讜谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 讻砖讘讚拽讛

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: I heard from Rabbi Yosei that with regard to both this one and that one, i.e., whether it is a large or small stain, she must be concerned that she is a zava. And Rabbi Yosei said this halakha to me based on this reasoning: And what would be the case if a menstruating woman did not perform the examination marking the first step in her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day from min岣 time onward? Would she not have a presumptive status of ritual impurity? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi added: And Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement appears to be correct with regard to the case where she examined.

诪讗讬 讘讚拽讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 讘讚拽讛

Once again, the Gemara asks: What is meant by the term: Where she examined? If we say that she examined herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight, this indicates by inference that Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra, who disagrees in the second baraita with this version of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion and rules more leniently, holds that even though she did not examine herself during the twilight period as defined by both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, nevertheless, she does not need to be concerned that she is a zava. But this conclusion is untenable, as she did not examine herself at twilight at all.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讬谉 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬谉 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 住讘专 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讗

Rather, it is obvious that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to a case where she examined herself both during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight and during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. This indicates, by inference, that Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra holds that if she examined herself during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the time period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight, then she does not need to be concerned, as a sighting at that time would not count as two.

讗诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 诇讬诇讬讗 讛讜讗 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗

Evidently, the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight is considered to be nighttime according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra. If so, one statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra poses a difficulty with regard to another statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra, as earlier it was stated that according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra twilight is not definitely night.

讘砖诇诪讗 讘诇讗 专讘讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 讚讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讗 讚讘讚拽讛 谞诪讬 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诇讗 讘讚专讘讬 拽砖讬讗

Granted, without the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the apparent contradiction between these statements of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra in the two baraitot is not difficult, as one could explain as follows: There, with regard to the first baraita, it is referring to a case where she examined herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight. By contrast, here it is referring to a case where she examined herself both during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight and during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight. But in light of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one cannot explain in this manner, and therefore the contradiction poses a difficulty.

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讗讙专讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 砖诇讬诐 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara answers: This is not a contradiction, as there are two tanna鈥檌m and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra. This tanna holds that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 twilight ends,

讜讛讚专 讞讬讬诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬砖讱 砖讬讬讱 讘讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

and only thereafter the twilight of Rabbi Yosei begins, when there is uncertainty, and there is a concern that perhaps she saw blood at that time. And that tanna of the second baraita holds that the twilight of Rabbi Yosei is subsumed within and occurs at the end of the twilight of Rabbi Yehuda. According to the opinion of this tanna, since she examined herself throughout the twilight of Rabbi Yehuda, she also necessarily examined herself throughout the twilight of Rabbi Yosei and therefore there is no need to be concerned about her status.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讜讗讛 讻转诐 诪讟诪讗讛 注爪诪讛 讜拽讚砖讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

搂 On the topic of a woman seeing a stain, the Sages taught in a baraita: A woman who sees a red stain on her garment renders herself and consecrated items that she touched impure retroactively, from the time when that garment was last laundered. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 诪讟诪讗讛 注爪诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讻转诪讛 讞诪讜专 诪专讗讬讬转讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She does render consecrated items that she touched impure retroactively, but she does not render herself impure with regard to rendering impure objects that she touched since the time the garment was last laundered. The reason is that her stain should not be more stringent than her actual seeing of blood. If she experiences bleeding, she renders impure only objects that she touched during the previous twenty-four-hour period.

讜讛讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讻转诪讛 讞诪讜专 诪专讗讬讬转讛 诇注谞讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we find that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar himself holds that her stain is more stringent than her actual seeing of blood with regard to consecrated items? Her stain renders such items impure retroactively from the time that the garment was laundered, whereas her actually seeing blood renders impure only those items that she touched during the past twenty-four-hour period.

讗诇讗 转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讻转诪讛 讞诪讜专 诪专讗讬讬转讛 诇讻诇 讚讘专

The Gemara answers: Rather, teach the baraita like this: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that she does not even render consecrated items that she touched impure retroactively from the time that the garment was laundered, but only those items that she touched during the past twenty-four-hour period. The reason is that her stain should not be more stringent than her actual seeing of blood with regard to any matter.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讗转讛 讻转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 专讗转讛 讚诐 转讜诇讛 讻转诪讛 讘专讗讬讬转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a woman who saw a red stain on her garment, and afterward saw blood, what is the halakha? She attributes her stain to her seeing blood, i.e., the stain is treated as part of the seeing of blood, which means that she is impure only from when she found the stain, as it assumed that it appeared no earlier. This is the halakha provided that she saw the blood within a twenty-four-hour period of her discovery of the stain. But if more than twenty-four hours passed, she cannot attribute the stain to her sighting. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 诪讚讘专讬 砖讛讜讗 诪转拽谞讛 讜讗谞讬 诪注讜讜转讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She may attribute the stain to the sighting only if she experienced bleeding on the day of discovering the stain. If she experienced bleeding after that day, even if it was within twenty-four hours, she may not attribute the stain to the sighting, which means that she is impure retroactively from when she found the stain, in case it appeared earlier. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar appears to be more correct than mine, as he fixes her situation, i.e., he is lenient, and I ruin her situation, as my ruling is stringent. Since the impurity of a stain applies by rabbinic law, one should follow the more lenient opinion.

诪转拽谞讛 注讜讜转讬 诪注讜讬转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar actually fix her situation? Does he not ruin her situation? If she experiences bleeding the day after she found the stain, but within twenty-four hours of finding the stain, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar she renders items impure retroactively. By contrast, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi she renders objects impure only from when she discovered the stain. Ravina says: Reverse Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement, so that it states: My statement appears to be more correct than that of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as I fix her situation and he ruins her situation.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 砖讛讜讗 诪转拽谉 讛诇讻讜转讬讛 诇讬讚讬 讝讬讘讛

Rav Na岣an says: Actually, do not reverse Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi meant the following: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar鈥檚 opinion appears to be more correct, as he fixes her halakhot with regard to ziva. If she experiences bleeding on the day after discovering the stain, the count of her seven days of menstrual flow begins on that day of her actual sighting, not from when she saw the stain. This is due to the fact that the stain is not attributable to the seeing of the blood. Therefore, if she experiences bleeding on the seventh day after first experiencing bleeding, which is the eighth day after discovering the stain, she is not considered a lesser zava, and she can be purified from her status as a menstruating woman.

讜讗谞讬 诪注讜讜转 讛诇讻讜转讬讛 诇讬讚讬 讝讬讘讛

But I, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, ruin her halakhot with regard to ziva. Since the stain is attributable to the seeing of the blood within twenty-four hours, her counting starts from when she found the stain, and therefore the blood that she sees on the eighth day after discovering the stain is considered ziva. Consequently, she is considered a lesser zava and must observe a clean day for each day she experiences a discharge.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 讻转诪讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讛驻住拽 讟讛专讛 讗讜 诇讗 讗砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Asi: Are stains like the actual sight of blood, in that they require an examination in which she is clean of blood, marking the first step in her transition from impurity to purity before immersion on the night following the seventh day, or not? Rabbi Asi was silent and said nothing to Rabbi Zeira.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 转讜诇讛 讻转诪讛 讘专讗讬讬转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

The Gemara relates that on another occasion Rabbi Zeira found Rabbi Asi sitting and saying that a woman who sees a stain and afterward experiences bleeding attributes her stain to her seeing blood, if she saw the blood within a twenty-four-hour period of when she discovered the stain. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讛讜讗 砖讘讚拽讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讘讚拽讛

Rabbi Asi added that there is a dispute with regard to the details of this halakha. Reish Lakish says: This applies only in a case where she examined herself at the end of the seventh day from the discovery of the stain. This examination indicates that the stain is related to her experiencing bleeding, and therefore the standard halakha of a woman who becomes pure at the end of her seven menstrual days applies to her. By contrast, if she examined herself only at the end of the eighth day, the stain is not attributable to her bleeding. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The stain is attributable to her bleeding under all circumstances, even if she did not examine herself until the eighth day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讻转诪讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讛驻住拽转 讟讛专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜讛讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讘注讗 诪讬谞讱 讜诇讗 讗诪专转 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇诪讗 讗讙讘 砖讬讟驻讱 讗转讬讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讙讘 砖讬讟驻讗讬 讗转讬讗 诇讬

Upon hearing this, Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Does that mean, by inference, that stains require an examination marking the first step in her transition from impurity to purity? Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: Yes, that is the halakha. Rabbi Zeira further said to Rabbi Asi: But on many occasions I asked you about this matter and you did not say anything to me. Perhaps in the course of your studies this halakha came back to you? Rabbi Asi said to him: Yes, in the course of my studies this halakha came back to me.

诪转谞讬壮 讛专讜讗讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注砖专 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 转讞诇转 谞讚讛 讜住讜祝 谞讚讛 转讞诇转 讝讬讘讛 讜住讜祝 讝讬讘讛

MISHNA: In the case of a woman who sees an emission of blood during twilight on the eleventh day of the days in which she can assume the status of a zava, as there is uncertainty whether the emission was during the day and it is the flow of a zava or whether it was at night and it is menstrual flow, she observes seven days of impurity like the beginning of the seven days of menstruation and the end of menstruation. If she experienced an emission on the two previous days as well, she observes seven clean days before immersion like the beginning of the flow of ziva and the end of the flow of ziva.

讬讜诐 讗专讘注讬诐 诇讝讻专 讜讬讜诐 砖诪讜谞讬诐 诇谞拽讘讛 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讻讜诇谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讟讜注讜转

Similarly, in the case of a woman who experiences an emission of blood during twilight on the fortieth day after the birth of a male or the eightieth day after the birth of a female, there is uncertainty whether it is considered daytime and therefore part of the final day of the blood of purity, or night that is part of the following day when the blood is impure. With regard to experiencing bleeding during twilight in all those cases, these women are mistaken in their calculation of the days of menstrual flow and the flow of a zava. Consequently, if they experience bleeding for three consecutive days at the beginning or at the end of the eleven days of ziva, they bring the offering of a zava but it is not eaten, as it was brought based on uncertainty.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注讚 砖讗转诐 诪转拽谞讬诐 讗转 讛砖讜讟讜转 讘讗讜 讜转拽谞讜 讗转 讛驻拽讞讜转

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Instead of making provisions to remedy the uncertainties of the misguided, come and remedy the uncertainties of the competent women who know what day they saw the blood but require guidance, due to the multitude of emissions that they experienced.

讙诪壮 转讞诇转 谞讚讛 讜住讜祝 谞讚讛 转讞诇转 谞讚讛 讜住讜祝 讝讬讘讛 讛讬讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a woman experiences bleeding during twilight on the eleventh day of the days on which she can assume the status of a zava, the flow is considered to be the beginning of the seven days of menstruation and the end of menstruation. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the concern is only that this flow might be either the beginning of the seven days of menstruation, if twilight is treated as night, or the end of ziva, if twilight is treated as day.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛专讜讗讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注砖专 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 转讞讬诇转 谞讚讛 讜住讜祝 讝讬讘讛

Rav 岣sda says that this is what the mishna is saying: A woman who sees an emission of blood during twilight on the eleventh day of the days on which she can assume the status of a zava must be concerned both for the possibility that it is the beginning of the seven days of menstruation and for the possibility that it is the end of the flow of ziva. If she had also seen an emission on the two previous days, she observes seven clean days before immersion, due to uncertainty.

讜讘砖讘讬注讬 诇谞讚转讛 住讜祝 谞讚讛 讜转讞诇转 讝讬讘讛

With regard to the continuation of the mishna, which states: The beginning of the flow of ziva and the end of the flow of ziva, this should be understood as follows: And in the case of a woman who experiences an emission of blood during twilight on the seventh day of the seven days of the flow of her menstruation, she must be concerned both for the possibility that it is the end of the seven days of menstruation and for the possibility that it is the beginning of the flow of ziva.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注讚 砖讗转诐 诪转拽谞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讜讟讜转 讻讜壮 讛谞讬

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua said to the Rabbis: Instead of making provisions to remedy the uncertainties of the misguided, come and remedy the uncertainties of the competent women. The Gemara asks: Are these women who experience bleeding during twilight

Scroll To Top