The gemara continues to discuss what is the saliva mentioned in the mishna, what is urine that fermented? Does it matter what type of urine (whose, how it was left, etc.)? The mishna talks about the laws of a woman that has physical symptoms that are indicators that her period is coming. Is there a difference between establishing a cycle based on that rather than based on days? Can one establish that she regularly sees for a particular hour? If so, does she need to separate from her husband for only the specific time she regularly sees or for the whole 12 hour period? Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi disagree regarding this issue. Does one need to separate the 12 hour period before she is expecting to get her period? A woman who has a regular cycle, how many time are needed to not see blood at that time in order to uproot that regular cycle?
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Niddah 63
אִם הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא.
if he is particular that he does not want the liquid there, then yes, it renders the garment impure, but if not, then the liquid does not render the garment impure.
אֵיזֶהוּ רוֹק תָּפֵל. תָּנָא: כָּל שֶׁלֹּא טָעַם כְּלוּם מִבָּעֶרֶב. סְבַר רַב פָּפָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא לְמֵימַר, כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא טְעַם מִידֵּי בְּאוּרְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִי קָתָנֵי ״בָּעֶרֶב״? ״מִבָּעֶרֶב״ קָתָנֵי, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הֵיכָא דְּקָדֵים וְאָכֵיל.
§ The mishna teaches: What is tasteless saliva? A tanna taught in a baraita: What is the definition of tasteless saliva? Any saliva where the person had not tasted anything since the evening. Rav Pappa, who was sitting before Rava, thought to say: This is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that he did not eat anything all night long. Rava said to him: Is it taught: One who had not tasted anything in the evening, which would indicate that it is referring only to one who did not eat since nightfall? No, the baraita teaches: Where the person had not tasted anything since the evening, which means even if he ate after nightfall, but did not eat for the rest of the night. This serves to exclude a case where he arose early in the morning and ate, as in such a case it is no longer tasteless saliva.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵיזֶהוּ רוֹק תָּפֵל? כֹּל שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה וּבְשֵׁינָה. לְמֵימְרָא דִּבְשֵׁינָה תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא? וְהָתְנַן: יָשַׁן כׇּל הַיּוֹם — אֵין זֶה רוֹק תָּפֵל, נֵיעוֹר כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה — הֲרֵי זֶה רוֹק תָּפֵל! הָתָם בְּמִתְנַמְנֵם.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is tasteless saliva? Any saliva where the person did not eat any food and he passed the middle of the night and he was in a state of sleep. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the matter depends on whether or not he had sleep? But didn’t we learn in a baraita: Even if he slept the entire day, that is not tasteless saliva; but if he was awake the entire night, that is tasteless saliva? This indicates that sleep is not a critical factor in producing tasteless saliva. The Gemara resolves this apparent contradiction by explaining that there, in the latter clause of the baraita, it is referring to a case where he was awake all night and did not sleep properly, but was dozing off and on.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִתְנַמְנֵם? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: נִים וְלָא נִים, תִּיר וְלָא תִּיר, דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ — וְעָנֵי, וְלָא יָדַע לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי סְבָרָא, וְכִי מַדְכְּרוּ לֵיהּ — מִדְּכַר.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of dozing? Rav Ashi said: It is referring to a situation in which one is asleep and yet not fully asleep, and awake and yet not fully awake. If someone calls him he answers, and he is in a mental state in which he does not know how to provide an answer that requires logical reasoning, but when people remind him about something when he is in that state that has happened previously he remembers it.
תָּנָא: הִשְׁכִּים וְשָׁנָה פִּרְקוֹ — אֵין זֶה רוֹק תָּפֵל. וְעַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר שֵׁילָא, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כֹּל שֶׁיָּצָא רוֹב דִּבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁעוֹת.
A tanna taught in a baraita: If one rose early in the morning and learned aloud his chapter of the Torah, that saliva in his mouth is not tasteless saliva, as speech weakens the strength of the saliva. And how much learning and talk removes the strength of the saliva? Rav Yehuda bar Sheila says that Rav Ashi says that Rabbi Elazar says: Any case where he uttered most of his normal amount of speech that he usually says in three hours.
מֵי גְרִיסִין — לְעִיסַּת גְּרִיסִין שֶׁל פּוֹל וְכוּ׳. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רוֹק תָּפֵל צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא עִם כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד? דִּלְמָא הַבְלָא דְפוּמָּא מְעַלֵּי.
§ The mishna teaches: Liquid from split beans is created through the chewing of split beans that divided naturally, not by human hand, which are then applied to the stain. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this ruling supports the opinion of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said: Tasteless saliva must be mixed with each and every one of the other six substances in order to remove the blood stain. The Gemara answers that this is no proof, as perhaps it is not due to the saliva, but rather the heat of his mouth is what helps the split beans remove the stain.
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מֵי גְרִיסִין רוֹתֵחַ, וְעוֹבֵר שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ מֶלַח.
The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The liquid from split beans is effective in removing blood stains only when it is boiling, and before [over] one puts salt into the pot.
מַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי ״עוֹבֵר״ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאַקְדּוֹמֵי הוּא? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וַיָּרׇץ אֲחִימַעַץ דֶּרֶךְ הַכִּכָּר וַיַּעֲבוֹר אֶת הַכּוּשִׁי״. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: מֵהָכָא ״וְהוּא עָבַר לִפְנֵיהֶם״, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״וַיַּעֲבוֹר מַלְכָּם לִפְנֵיהֶם וַה׳ בְּרֹאשָׁם״.
The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that the word over is a formulation of priority? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the verse states: “And Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain, and overran [vayya’avor] the Cushite” (II Samuel 18:23), i.e., Ahimaaz overtook the Cushite. Abaye said: It is derived from here: “And he passed [avar] before them” (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, say instead that the proof is from here: “And their king passed [vayya’avor] before them and the Lord at their head” (Micah 2:13).
מֵי רַגְלַיִם שֶׁהֶחְמִיצוּ. תָּנָא: כַּמָּה חִימּוּצָן? — שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים.
§ The mishna teaches: The urine that is an effective detergent is specifically urine that fermented. A tanna taught in a baraita: For how long must it be fermented? For three days.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל שִׁיעוּרֵי חֲכָמִים בִּכְתָמִים — צָרִיךְ שִׁיעוּר לְשִׁיעוּרָן. דְּיֶלֶד אוֹ דְזָקֵן, דְּאִישׁ אוֹ דְאִשָּׁה, מְכוּסִּים אוֹ מְגוּלִּים, בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה אוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים.
On the topic of the urine used to remove a blood stain, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All the measures of the Sages with regard to blood stains require a measure for their measure. There are many types of urine, each of which has different properties, and it is unclear which is to be used. Is it urine of a young person or of an old person? Is it urine of a man or of a woman? Is it urine that has been kept covered or uncovered? Is it urine from the summer or from the rainy season?
וְצָרִיךְ לְכַסְכֵּס שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אַמְטוֹיֵי וְאֵתוֹיֵי חַד, אוֹ דִלְמָא אַמְטוֹיֵי וְאֵתוֹיֵי תַּרְתֵּי? מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
§ The mishna teaches: And one must rub each and every one of the substances three times. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma with regard to this rubbing: Is the going and coming of the hand over the surface of the rubbed item considered one rubbing, or perhaps the going and coming are considered two actions and two distinct rubbings? What is the correct count? The Gemara states: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
הֶעֱבִירָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הִקְדִּים שְׁנִיִּים לָרִאשׁוֹנִים, תָּנֵי חֲדָא: שְׁנִיִּים עָלוּ לוֹ, רִאשׁוֹנִים לֹא עָלוּ לוֹ. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: רִאשׁוֹנִים עָלוּ לוֹ, שְׁנִיִּים לֹא עָלוּ לוֹ.
§ The mishna further teaches: If one applied them in a manner that is not in their prescribed order, or if one applied all seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing. The Sages taught two baraitot with regard to this matter. If one applied the substances from the second half of the list, i.e., natron, borit, Cimolian earth, and potash, before the substances from the first half of the list, i.e., tasteless saliva, liquid from split beans, and urine, it is taught in one baraita: The second set count for him, but the first do not count for him. And it is taught in another baraita: The first count for him, but the second do not count for him.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִידִי וְאִידִי שְׁנִיִּים עָלוּ לוֹ, וְלֹא רִאשׁוֹנִים, וּמַאי ״רִאשׁוֹנִים״? רִאשׁוֹנִים לִכְסִדְרָן, וּשְׁנִיִּים לְהַעֲבָרָתָן.
Abaye said that there is no dispute between these two baraitot: Both this baraita and that baraita agree that the substances that he applied second count for him, and not the substances that he applied first. And what does the second baraita mean when it uses the term: First? It means the first according to the order of the mishna, which were the second in their application.
מַתְנִי’ כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַוְּסָתוֹת: מְפַהֶקֶת, וּמְעַטֶּשֶׁת, וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת בְּפִי כְרֵיסָהּ, וּבְשִׁפּוּלֵי מֵעֶיהָ, וְשׁוֹפַעַת, וּכְמִין צְמַרְמוֹרוֹת אוֹחֲזִין אוֹתָהּ, וְכֵן כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְכֹל שֶׁקָּבְעָה לָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים — הֲרֵי זֶה וֶסֶת.
MISHNA: For any woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle that is not time dependent, but is dependent on a physical sensation, her time is sufficient, i.e., she does not transmit ritual impurity retroactively, for twenty-four hours or until the last time she examined herself (see 2a). And these are the fixed menstrual cycles based on sensation: When a woman menstruates after she yawns [mefaheket], or after she sneezes, or after she senses pain near her stomach or in her lower abdomen, or after she secretes a discharge, or after a type of feverish shuddering [tzemarmorot] overtakes her. And likewise the same applies with regard to any sensation of the like. And in the case of any woman who establishes a pattern for herself by experiencing such a sensation three times before the onset of menstruation, that is a fixed menstrual cycle.
גְּמָ’ תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ! הָתָם — בִּוְסָתוֹת דְּיוֹמֵי, הָכָא — בִּוְסָתוֹת דְּגוּפָא.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that for any woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, her time is sufficient. The Gemara objects: We already learned that her time is sufficient on another occasion (2a): For any 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 moment that she transmits ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to a fixed menstrual cycle of a certain number of days; here, it is referring to a fixed menstrual cycle based on a physical sensation.
כִּדְקָתָנֵי: אֵלּוּ הֵן וְסָתוֹת — הָיְתָה מְפַהֶקֶת, מְעַטֶּשֶׁת, וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת בְּפִי כְרֵיסָהּ, וּבְשִׁפּוּלֵי מֵעֶיהָ, וְשׁוֹפַעַת.
As it teaches in the continuation of the mishna: These are the fixed menstrual cycles based on sensation: When a woman menstruates after she yawns, or after she sneezes, or after she senses pain near her stomach or in her lower abdomen, or after she secretes a discharge. All of these are physical sensations.
שׁוֹפַעַת? הָא שָׁפְעָה וְאָזְלָא! אָמַר עוּלָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב עִלַּאי:
The mishna includes the case where she secretes a discharge as one of the physical sensations. The Gemara understands this as referring to a continuous discharge of blood, and therefore asks: But during menstruation she is continuously discharging blood; how can this be a signal of the onset of menstruation? Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, said:
בְּשׁוֹפַעַת דָּם טָמֵא מִתּוֹךְ דָּם טָהוֹר.
The mishna is referring to a case where she discharges ritually impure blood in the midst of discharging ritually pure blood. For example, if she normally first discharges blood that is not red, and it therefore does not render her impure, and then she experiences a discharge of red blood.
וּכְמִין צְמַרְמוֹרוֹת וְכוּ׳. ״וְכֵן כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: לְאֵתוֹיֵי אִשָּׁה שֶׁרֹאשָׁהּ כָּבֵד עָלֶיהָ, וְאֵבָרֶיהָ כְּבֵדִים עָלֶיהָ, וְרוֹתֶתֶת, וְגוֹסָה.
The mishna teaches: Or a type of feverish shuddering overtakes her, and likewise the same applies with regard to any sensation of the like. The Gemara asks: What is added by this last phrase? Rabba bar Ulla said: It serves to include a woman whose head is heavy upon her or her limbs are heavy upon her, or she trembles or belches constantly.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ לְיָמִים — שְׁנַיִם, לִוְסָתוֹת — אַחַת, לְמַה שֶּׁלֹּא מָנוּ חֲכָמִים — שְׁלֹשָׁה.
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says that Shmuel says: The Sages said, with regard to establishing a set period of days, that two days are sufficient, i.e., if a woman experiences bleeding twice on the same date of the month or after the same interval, she has a fixed menstrual cycle. By contrast, with regard to a fixed menstrual cycle based on a physical sensation, it is sufficient if she experiences bleeding even once. But for those sensations which the Sages did not include in the mishna, she has a fixed cycle only if she experiences bleeding three times accompanied by one of those symptoms.
לְמַה שֶּׁלֹּא מָנוּ חֲכָמִים. לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לְאֵתוֹיֵי רֹאשָׁהּ כָּבֵד עָלֶיהָ, וְאֵבָרֶיהָ כְּבֵדִין עָלֶיהָ, וְרוֹתֶתֶת, וְגוֹסָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? מַתְנִיתִין הִיא! דְּהָא פָּרְשַׁהּ רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא. אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְאֵתוֹיֵי אָכְלָה שׁוּם וְרָאֲתָה, וְאָכְלָה בְּצָלִים וְרָאֲתָה, כָּסְסָה פִּלְפְּלִים וְרָאֲתָה.
The Gemara asks: When Shmuel said: For those which the Sages did not include, what did he intend to add? Rav Yosef says: This serves to add the case mentioned above, i.e., her head is heavy upon her, or her limbs are heavy upon her, or she trembles or belches constantly. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is that addition teaching us? In effect, it is already taught in the mishna, as Rabba bar Ulla explained above that the additional phrase: The same applies with regard to any sensation of the like, serves to include those sensations. Rather, Abaye said: Shmuel’s phrase serves to add a case where she ate garlic and saw menstrual blood, or ate onions and saw menstrual blood, or chewed pepper and saw menstrual blood, i.e., these triggers can give rise to a fixed cycle, but only after three occurrences.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא.
Rav Yosef said: I did not hear this tradition concerning the opinion of Shmuel, that with regard to days a cycle is fixed if she experiences bleeding twice, whereas for physical sensations a cycle is fixed after one occurrence. Rav Yosef had fallen ill and forgotten his studies and was therefore unable to remember that such a ruling had been issued.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַתְּ אַמְרִיתַהּ נִיהֲלַן, וְאַהָא אַמְרִיתַהּ נִיהֲלַן — הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וְזֶה אֲסוּרִין. שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — הוּתַּר יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְקָבְעָה לָהּ יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים, שֶׁאֵין אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת עַד שֶׁתִּקְבָּעֶנָּה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים.
His student, Abaye, said to him: You yourself told us this halakha, and it was with regard to this following matter that you told this halakha to us, taught in the mishna below: If a woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood on the fifteenth day and she deviated from the norm to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day, then on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. If she deviated from the norm to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day three times, it becomes permitted for her to engage in intercourse on the fifteenth day, and she has established the twentieth day for herself as the day of her fixed menstrual cycle, as a woman establishes a fixed menstrual cycle only after she establishes it three times.
וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּר רַבִּי, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: רָאֲתָה — אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לֹא לִשְׁנוֹת וְלֹא לְשַׁלֵּשׁ.
Abaye continues: And you, Rav Yosef, said to us with regard to this mishna that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is the statement of Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said it in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. But the Rabbis say: If she saw a discharge of blood even once, she has a fixed cycle and does not need to repeat and experience bleeding a second time or to repeat a third time.
וְאָמְרִינַן לָךְ: לִשְׁנוֹת אָמְרַתְּ לַן, לְשַׁלֵּשׁ מִיבַּעְיָא? וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן: לִשְׁנוֹת — בִּוְסָתוֹת, לְשַׁלֵּשׁ — בְּיָמִים.
And we said to you: Since you said to us that she does not need to repeat a second time, is it necessary for you to mention that she does not need to repeat a third time? And you said to us that when you said that she does not need to repeat a second time, this is referring to a fixed menstrual cycle based on a physical sensation, whereas when you said she does not need to repeat a third time, that is referring to a fixed cycle of days.
וְנֵימָא: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרַבִּי כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: But why did Shmuel have to explain that the mishna is the statement of Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Let him say simply that this mishna is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who always requires repetition three times to establish a presumptive status. The Gemara answers that this is what Shmuel teaches us: That Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
מַתְנִי’ הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה בִּתְחִלַּת הַוְּסָתוֹת — כׇּל הַטְּהָרוֹת שֶׁעָשְׂתָה בְּתוֹךְ הַוְּסָתוֹת טְמֵאוֹת. בְּסוֹף הַוְּסָתוֹת — כׇּל הַטְּהָרוֹת שֶׁעָשְׂתָה בְּתוֹךְ הַוְּסָתוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת.
MISHNA: If a woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood at the beginning of the sensation that accompanies her fixed cycle, even if on one occasion she happened to experience bleeding only at the end of the sensation, all the ritually pure items that she handled within the duration of that sensation that accompanies her fixed cycle are ritually impure. If the woman was accustomed to experience bleeding at the end of the sensation that accompanies her fixed cycle, all the ritually pure items that she handled within the duration of that sensation that accompanies her fixed cycle are pure.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף יָמִים וְשָׁעוֹת וְסָתוֹת. הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה עִם הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה — אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא עִם הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַיּוֹם שֶׁלָּהּ.
Rabbi Yosei says: Even specific days and specific hours determine a fixed menstrual cycle: If a woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood on a certain day of the month at sunrise, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse with her husband only at sunrise; but during the night before and the following day, it is permitted for her to engage in intercourse. Rabbi Yehuda says: Once sunrise passed and she did not menstruate, the entire day is hers and she may engage in intercourse, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; but contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, intercourse the night before is prohibited.
גְּמָ’ תָּנָא: כֵּיצַד אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי יָמִים וְשָׁעוֹת וְסָתוֹת? הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה מִיּוֹם עֶשְׂרִים לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים, וּמִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת לְשֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת. הִגִּיעַ יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא רָאֲתָה — אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ כׇּל שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת רִאשׁוֹנוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר עַד שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת, וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת בְּשֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת.
GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita: In what case did Rabbi Yosei say that specific days and hours determine a fixed menstrual cycle? For example, if a woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day and again on the twentieth day, and in the sixth hour of the day and again in the sixth hour of the day the next time; if the twentieth day arrives a third time and she does not see a flow of blood, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse for the entirety of the first six hours of the day; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei deems it permitted for her to engage in intercourse until the sixth hour of the day, and says that she must be concerned only during the sixth hour.
עָבְרוּ שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת, וְלֹא רָאֲתָה — אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר מִן הַמִּנְחָה וּלְמַעְלָה.
The baraita continues: If the sixth hour passed and she did not see a flow of blood, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse for the entirety of the day; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yosei deems it permitted for her to engage in intercourse from minḥa time onward, i.e., from the beginning of the seventh hour.
הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה. וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה שֶׁלָּהּ!
§ The mishna teaches with regard to a woman who was accustomed to see the flow of blood on a certain day of the month at sunrise, that Rabbi Yehuda says: Once sunrise passed and she did not menstruate, the entire day is hers and she may engage in intercourse, but intercourse is prohibited the night before. The Gemara objects: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The entire night is hers? This indicates that she may engage in intercourse during the night.
לָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא דִּרְגִילָה לִרְאוֹת בִּתְחִלַּת יְמָמָא, וְהָא דִּרְגִילָה לִרְאוֹת בְּסוֹף לֵילְיָא.
The Gemara explains that it is not difficult. Here, when it is permitted for her to engage in intercourse the entire night, it is referring to a case where she is accustomed to see a flow of blood at the beginning of the day, i.e., immediately after sunrise. And there, in the mishna, which deems it prohibited for her to engage in intercourse all night, it is referring to a case where she is accustomed to see a flow of blood at the end of the night, i.e., just before sunrise.
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסְרָהּ לִפְנֵי וִסְתָּהּ, וּמַתִּירָהּ לְאַחַר וִסְתָּהּ. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אוֹסְרָהּ לְאַחַר וִסְתָּהּ, וּמַתִּירָהּ לִפְנֵי וִסְתָּהּ.
The Gemara cites further baraitot that deal with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. It is taught in one baraita: Rabbi Yehuda deems it prohibited for her to engage in intercourse before the time of her fixed cycle, but deems it permitted for her to do so after the time of her fixed cycle if she did not experience bleeding then. And it is taught in another baraita: Rabbi Yehuda deems it prohibited for her to engage in intercourse after the time of her fixed cycle but deems it permitted for her to do so before the time of her fixed cycle.
וְלָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא דִּרְגִילָה לְמִחְזֵי בְּסוֹף לֵילְיָא, הָא דִּרְגִילָה לְמִחְזֵי בִּתְחִלַּת יְמָמָא.
The Gemara resolves this apparent contradiction: And this is not difficult; here, the baraita that rules that it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse before the time of her fixed cycle is referring to a case where she is accustomed to see a flow of blood at the end of the night. By contrast, there, the baraita that states that it is prohibited for her to do so after the time of her fixed cycle is referring to a case where she is accustomed to see a flow of blood at the beginning of the day.
אָמַר רָבָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּמִי אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְהִזַּרְתֶּם אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִטּוּמְאָתָם״ — מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אַזְהָרָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיִּפְרְשׁוּ מִנְּשׁוֹתֵיהֶן סָמוּךְ לְוִסְתָּן.
Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: And did Rava actually say this? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a menstruating woman: “You shall separate the children of Israel from their impurity” (Leviticus 15:31). From here, Rabbi Yirmeya said that there is a warning to the children of Israel that they should separate from their wives close to the time of their menstrual cycles.
וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רָבָא: עוֹנָה. מַאי לַָאו עוֹנָה אַחֲרִיתִי? לָא, אוֹתָהּ עוֹנָה.
And how close? Rava says: One twelve-hour period, i.e., either from sunrise to sunset, or from sunset to sunrise. The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not referring to an additional twelve-hour period, i.e., the prohibition applies to the time of her expected period itself, either day or night, as well as the previous twelve hours? This is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems it prohibited for her to engage in intercourse only for the twelve hours of the expected time of her period. The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to that same twelve-hour period.
וְתַרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן הָא — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי לִטְהָרוֹת, אֲבָל לְבַעְלָהּ — לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: And why do I need two statements of Rava, i.e., both that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and that a woman must separate for only one twelve-hour period? The Gemara answers that both are necessary, because if Rava had taught us only this, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna, I would say that this statement applies only to the handling of pure items, but with regard to engaging in intercourse with her husband, it does not apply, and with regard to intercourse, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Therefore, Rava teaches us that even with regard to intercourse, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
וְאִי מֵהַהִיא — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא ״סָמוּךְ לְוִסְתָּהּ״ עוֹנָה אַחֲרִיתִי. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן אוֹתָהּ עוֹנָה.
And by contrast, if Rava had taught us only that statement, that she must wait a twelve-hour period, I would say that she must separate close to the fixed time of her cycle for an additional twelve-hour period, as suggested above. Therefore, Rava teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, which indicates that she separates for only that single twelve-hour period.
מַתְנִי’ הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְשִׁינְּתָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין. שִׁינְּתָה פַּעֲמַיִם לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין.
MISHNA: If the woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood on the fifteenth day and she deviated from the norm to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day, then on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. If she deviated from the norm twice, then on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is likewise prohibited for her to engage in intercourse.
שִׁינְּתָה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — הוּתַּר חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְקָבְעָה לָהּ יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים, שֶׁאֵין אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת עַד שֶׁתִּקְבָּעֶנָּה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים, וְאֵינָהּ מִטַּהֶרֶת מִן הַוֶּסֶת עַד שֶׁתֵּעָקֵר מִמֶּנָּה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים.
If she deviated from the norm to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day three times, it becomes permitted for her to engage in intercourse on the fifteenth, and she has established the twentieth day for herself as the day of her fixed menstrual cycle, as a woman establishes a fixed menstrual cycle only after she establishes it three times. And a woman is purified from the existing fixed menstrual cycle, in the sense that intercourse is permitted on that day, only when she has been displaced from that day three times.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy in Early Rabbinic Law, Part 2 of 3: The Law of Niddah
Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Niddah, Prakim Bet and Gimel
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
Ontario, Canada
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
Niddah 63
אִם הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא.
if he is particular that he does not want the liquid there, then yes, it renders the garment impure, but if not, then the liquid does not render the garment impure.
אֵיזֶהוּ רוֹק תָּפֵל. תָּנָא: כָּל שֶׁלֹּא טָעַם כְּלוּם מִבָּעֶרֶב. סְבַר רַב פָּפָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא לְמֵימַר, כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא טְעַם מִידֵּי בְּאוּרְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִי קָתָנֵי ״בָּעֶרֶב״? ״מִבָּעֶרֶב״ קָתָנֵי, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הֵיכָא דְּקָדֵים וְאָכֵיל.
§ The mishna teaches: What is tasteless saliva? A tanna taught in a baraita: What is the definition of tasteless saliva? Any saliva where the person had not tasted anything since the evening. Rav Pappa, who was sitting before Rava, thought to say: This is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that he did not eat anything all night long. Rava said to him: Is it taught: One who had not tasted anything in the evening, which would indicate that it is referring only to one who did not eat since nightfall? No, the baraita teaches: Where the person had not tasted anything since the evening, which means even if he ate after nightfall, but did not eat for the rest of the night. This serves to exclude a case where he arose early in the morning and ate, as in such a case it is no longer tasteless saliva.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵיזֶהוּ רוֹק תָּפֵל? כֹּל שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה וּבְשֵׁינָה. לְמֵימְרָא דִּבְשֵׁינָה תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא? וְהָתְנַן: יָשַׁן כׇּל הַיּוֹם — אֵין זֶה רוֹק תָּפֵל, נֵיעוֹר כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה — הֲרֵי זֶה רוֹק תָּפֵל! הָתָם בְּמִתְנַמְנֵם.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is tasteless saliva? Any saliva where the person did not eat any food and he passed the middle of the night and he was in a state of sleep. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the matter depends on whether or not he had sleep? But didn’t we learn in a baraita: Even if he slept the entire day, that is not tasteless saliva; but if he was awake the entire night, that is tasteless saliva? This indicates that sleep is not a critical factor in producing tasteless saliva. The Gemara resolves this apparent contradiction by explaining that there, in the latter clause of the baraita, it is referring to a case where he was awake all night and did not sleep properly, but was dozing off and on.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִתְנַמְנֵם? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: נִים וְלָא נִים, תִּיר וְלָא תִּיר, דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ — וְעָנֵי, וְלָא יָדַע לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי סְבָרָא, וְכִי מַדְכְּרוּ לֵיהּ — מִדְּכַר.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of dozing? Rav Ashi said: It is referring to a situation in which one is asleep and yet not fully asleep, and awake and yet not fully awake. If someone calls him he answers, and he is in a mental state in which he does not know how to provide an answer that requires logical reasoning, but when people remind him about something when he is in that state that has happened previously he remembers it.
תָּנָא: הִשְׁכִּים וְשָׁנָה פִּרְקוֹ — אֵין זֶה רוֹק תָּפֵל. וְעַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר שֵׁילָא, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כֹּל שֶׁיָּצָא רוֹב דִּבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁעוֹת.
A tanna taught in a baraita: If one rose early in the morning and learned aloud his chapter of the Torah, that saliva in his mouth is not tasteless saliva, as speech weakens the strength of the saliva. And how much learning and talk removes the strength of the saliva? Rav Yehuda bar Sheila says that Rav Ashi says that Rabbi Elazar says: Any case where he uttered most of his normal amount of speech that he usually says in three hours.
מֵי גְרִיסִין — לְעִיסַּת גְּרִיסִין שֶׁל פּוֹל וְכוּ׳. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רוֹק תָּפֵל צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא עִם כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד? דִּלְמָא הַבְלָא דְפוּמָּא מְעַלֵּי.
§ The mishna teaches: Liquid from split beans is created through the chewing of split beans that divided naturally, not by human hand, which are then applied to the stain. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this ruling supports the opinion of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said: Tasteless saliva must be mixed with each and every one of the other six substances in order to remove the blood stain. The Gemara answers that this is no proof, as perhaps it is not due to the saliva, but rather the heat of his mouth is what helps the split beans remove the stain.
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מֵי גְרִיסִין רוֹתֵחַ, וְעוֹבֵר שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ מֶלַח.
The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The liquid from split beans is effective in removing blood stains only when it is boiling, and before [over] one puts salt into the pot.
מַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי ״עוֹבֵר״ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאַקְדּוֹמֵי הוּא? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וַיָּרׇץ אֲחִימַעַץ דֶּרֶךְ הַכִּכָּר וַיַּעֲבוֹר אֶת הַכּוּשִׁי״. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: מֵהָכָא ״וְהוּא עָבַר לִפְנֵיהֶם״, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״וַיַּעֲבוֹר מַלְכָּם לִפְנֵיהֶם וַה׳ בְּרֹאשָׁם״.
The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that the word over is a formulation of priority? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the verse states: “And Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain, and overran [vayya’avor] the Cushite” (II Samuel 18:23), i.e., Ahimaaz overtook the Cushite. Abaye said: It is derived from here: “And he passed [avar] before them” (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, say instead that the proof is from here: “And their king passed [vayya’avor] before them and the Lord at their head” (Micah 2:13).
מֵי רַגְלַיִם שֶׁהֶחְמִיצוּ. תָּנָא: כַּמָּה חִימּוּצָן? — שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים.
§ The mishna teaches: The urine that is an effective detergent is specifically urine that fermented. A tanna taught in a baraita: For how long must it be fermented? For three days.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל שִׁיעוּרֵי חֲכָמִים בִּכְתָמִים — צָרִיךְ שִׁיעוּר לְשִׁיעוּרָן. דְּיֶלֶד אוֹ דְזָקֵן, דְּאִישׁ אוֹ דְאִשָּׁה, מְכוּסִּים אוֹ מְגוּלִּים, בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה אוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים.
On the topic of the urine used to remove a blood stain, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All the measures of the Sages with regard to blood stains require a measure for their measure. There are many types of urine, each of which has different properties, and it is unclear which is to be used. Is it urine of a young person or of an old person? Is it urine of a man or of a woman? Is it urine that has been kept covered or uncovered? Is it urine from the summer or from the rainy season?
וְצָרִיךְ לְכַסְכֵּס שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אַמְטוֹיֵי וְאֵתוֹיֵי חַד, אוֹ דִלְמָא אַמְטוֹיֵי וְאֵתוֹיֵי תַּרְתֵּי? מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
§ The mishna teaches: And one must rub each and every one of the substances three times. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma with regard to this rubbing: Is the going and coming of the hand over the surface of the rubbed item considered one rubbing, or perhaps the going and coming are considered two actions and two distinct rubbings? What is the correct count? The Gemara states: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
הֶעֱבִירָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הִקְדִּים שְׁנִיִּים לָרִאשׁוֹנִים, תָּנֵי חֲדָא: שְׁנִיִּים עָלוּ לוֹ, רִאשׁוֹנִים לֹא עָלוּ לוֹ. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: רִאשׁוֹנִים עָלוּ לוֹ, שְׁנִיִּים לֹא עָלוּ לוֹ.
§ The mishna further teaches: If one applied them in a manner that is not in their prescribed order, or if one applied all seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing. The Sages taught two baraitot with regard to this matter. If one applied the substances from the second half of the list, i.e., natron, borit, Cimolian earth, and potash, before the substances from the first half of the list, i.e., tasteless saliva, liquid from split beans, and urine, it is taught in one baraita: The second set count for him, but the first do not count for him. And it is taught in another baraita: The first count for him, but the second do not count for him.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִידִי וְאִידִי שְׁנִיִּים עָלוּ לוֹ, וְלֹא רִאשׁוֹנִים, וּמַאי ״רִאשׁוֹנִים״? רִאשׁוֹנִים לִכְסִדְרָן, וּשְׁנִיִּים לְהַעֲבָרָתָן.
Abaye said that there is no dispute between these two baraitot: Both this baraita and that baraita agree that the substances that he applied second count for him, and not the substances that he applied first. And what does the second baraita mean when it uses the term: First? It means the first according to the order of the mishna, which were the second in their application.
מַתְנִי’ כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַוְּסָתוֹת: מְפַהֶקֶת, וּמְעַטֶּשֶׁת, וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת בְּפִי כְרֵיסָהּ, וּבְשִׁפּוּלֵי מֵעֶיהָ, וְשׁוֹפַעַת, וּכְמִין צְמַרְמוֹרוֹת אוֹחֲזִין אוֹתָהּ, וְכֵן כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְכֹל שֶׁקָּבְעָה לָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים — הֲרֵי זֶה וֶסֶת.
MISHNA: For any woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle that is not time dependent, but is dependent on a physical sensation, her time is sufficient, i.e., she does not transmit ritual impurity retroactively, for twenty-four hours or until the last time she examined herself (see 2a). And these are the fixed menstrual cycles based on sensation: When a woman menstruates after she yawns [mefaheket], or after she sneezes, or after she senses pain near her stomach or in her lower abdomen, or after she secretes a discharge, or after a type of feverish shuddering [tzemarmorot] overtakes her. And likewise the same applies with regard to any sensation of the like. And in the case of any woman who establishes a pattern for herself by experiencing such a sensation three times before the onset of menstruation, that is a fixed menstrual cycle.
גְּמָ’ תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ! הָתָם — בִּוְסָתוֹת דְּיוֹמֵי, הָכָא — בִּוְסָתוֹת דְּגוּפָא.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that for any woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, her time is sufficient. The Gemara objects: We already learned that her time is sufficient on another occasion (2a): For any 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 moment that she transmits ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to a fixed menstrual cycle of a certain number of days; here, it is referring to a fixed menstrual cycle based on a physical sensation.
כִּדְקָתָנֵי: אֵלּוּ הֵן וְסָתוֹת — הָיְתָה מְפַהֶקֶת, מְעַטֶּשֶׁת, וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת בְּפִי כְרֵיסָהּ, וּבְשִׁפּוּלֵי מֵעֶיהָ, וְשׁוֹפַעַת.
As it teaches in the continuation of the mishna: These are the fixed menstrual cycles based on sensation: When a woman menstruates after she yawns, or after she sneezes, or after she senses pain near her stomach or in her lower abdomen, or after she secretes a discharge. All of these are physical sensations.
שׁוֹפַעַת? הָא שָׁפְעָה וְאָזְלָא! אָמַר עוּלָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב עִלַּאי:
The mishna includes the case where she secretes a discharge as one of the physical sensations. The Gemara understands this as referring to a continuous discharge of blood, and therefore asks: But during menstruation she is continuously discharging blood; how can this be a signal of the onset of menstruation? Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, said:
בְּשׁוֹפַעַת דָּם טָמֵא מִתּוֹךְ דָּם טָהוֹר.
The mishna is referring to a case where she discharges ritually impure blood in the midst of discharging ritually pure blood. For example, if she normally first discharges blood that is not red, and it therefore does not render her impure, and then she experiences a discharge of red blood.
וּכְמִין צְמַרְמוֹרוֹת וְכוּ׳. ״וְכֵן כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: לְאֵתוֹיֵי אִשָּׁה שֶׁרֹאשָׁהּ כָּבֵד עָלֶיהָ, וְאֵבָרֶיהָ כְּבֵדִים עָלֶיהָ, וְרוֹתֶתֶת, וְגוֹסָה.
The mishna teaches: Or a type of feverish shuddering overtakes her, and likewise the same applies with regard to any sensation of the like. The Gemara asks: What is added by this last phrase? Rabba bar Ulla said: It serves to include a woman whose head is heavy upon her or her limbs are heavy upon her, or she trembles or belches constantly.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ לְיָמִים — שְׁנַיִם, לִוְסָתוֹת — אַחַת, לְמַה שֶּׁלֹּא מָנוּ חֲכָמִים — שְׁלֹשָׁה.
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says that Shmuel says: The Sages said, with regard to establishing a set period of days, that two days are sufficient, i.e., if a woman experiences bleeding twice on the same date of the month or after the same interval, she has a fixed menstrual cycle. By contrast, with regard to a fixed menstrual cycle based on a physical sensation, it is sufficient if she experiences bleeding even once. But for those sensations which the Sages did not include in the mishna, she has a fixed cycle only if she experiences bleeding three times accompanied by one of those symptoms.
לְמַה שֶּׁלֹּא מָנוּ חֲכָמִים. לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לְאֵתוֹיֵי רֹאשָׁהּ כָּבֵד עָלֶיהָ, וְאֵבָרֶיהָ כְּבֵדִין עָלֶיהָ, וְרוֹתֶתֶת, וְגוֹסָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? מַתְנִיתִין הִיא! דְּהָא פָּרְשַׁהּ רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא. אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְאֵתוֹיֵי אָכְלָה שׁוּם וְרָאֲתָה, וְאָכְלָה בְּצָלִים וְרָאֲתָה, כָּסְסָה פִּלְפְּלִים וְרָאֲתָה.
The Gemara asks: When Shmuel said: For those which the Sages did not include, what did he intend to add? Rav Yosef says: This serves to add the case mentioned above, i.e., her head is heavy upon her, or her limbs are heavy upon her, or she trembles or belches constantly. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is that addition teaching us? In effect, it is already taught in the mishna, as Rabba bar Ulla explained above that the additional phrase: The same applies with regard to any sensation of the like, serves to include those sensations. Rather, Abaye said: Shmuel’s phrase serves to add a case where she ate garlic and saw menstrual blood, or ate onions and saw menstrual blood, or chewed pepper and saw menstrual blood, i.e., these triggers can give rise to a fixed cycle, but only after three occurrences.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא.
Rav Yosef said: I did not hear this tradition concerning the opinion of Shmuel, that with regard to days a cycle is fixed if she experiences bleeding twice, whereas for physical sensations a cycle is fixed after one occurrence. Rav Yosef had fallen ill and forgotten his studies and was therefore unable to remember that such a ruling had been issued.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַתְּ אַמְרִיתַהּ נִיהֲלַן, וְאַהָא אַמְרִיתַהּ נִיהֲלַן — הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וְזֶה אֲסוּרִין. שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — הוּתַּר יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְקָבְעָה לָהּ יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים, שֶׁאֵין אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת עַד שֶׁתִּקְבָּעֶנָּה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים.
His student, Abaye, said to him: You yourself told us this halakha, and it was with regard to this following matter that you told this halakha to us, taught in the mishna below: If a woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood on the fifteenth day and she deviated from the norm to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day, then on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. If she deviated from the norm to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day three times, it becomes permitted for her to engage in intercourse on the fifteenth day, and she has established the twentieth day for herself as the day of her fixed menstrual cycle, as a woman establishes a fixed menstrual cycle only after she establishes it three times.
וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּר רַבִּי, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: רָאֲתָה — אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לֹא לִשְׁנוֹת וְלֹא לְשַׁלֵּשׁ.
Abaye continues: And you, Rav Yosef, said to us with regard to this mishna that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is the statement of Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said it in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. But the Rabbis say: If she saw a discharge of blood even once, she has a fixed cycle and does not need to repeat and experience bleeding a second time or to repeat a third time.
וְאָמְרִינַן לָךְ: לִשְׁנוֹת אָמְרַתְּ לַן, לְשַׁלֵּשׁ מִיבַּעְיָא? וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן: לִשְׁנוֹת — בִּוְסָתוֹת, לְשַׁלֵּשׁ — בְּיָמִים.
And we said to you: Since you said to us that she does not need to repeat a second time, is it necessary for you to mention that she does not need to repeat a third time? And you said to us that when you said that she does not need to repeat a second time, this is referring to a fixed menstrual cycle based on a physical sensation, whereas when you said she does not need to repeat a third time, that is referring to a fixed cycle of days.
וְנֵימָא: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרַבִּי כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: But why did Shmuel have to explain that the mishna is the statement of Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Let him say simply that this mishna is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who always requires repetition three times to establish a presumptive status. The Gemara answers that this is what Shmuel teaches us: That Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
מַתְנִי’ הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה בִּתְחִלַּת הַוְּסָתוֹת — כׇּל הַטְּהָרוֹת שֶׁעָשְׂתָה בְּתוֹךְ הַוְּסָתוֹת טְמֵאוֹת. בְּסוֹף הַוְּסָתוֹת — כׇּל הַטְּהָרוֹת שֶׁעָשְׂתָה בְּתוֹךְ הַוְּסָתוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת.
MISHNA: If a woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood at the beginning of the sensation that accompanies her fixed cycle, even if on one occasion she happened to experience bleeding only at the end of the sensation, all the ritually pure items that she handled within the duration of that sensation that accompanies her fixed cycle are ritually impure. If the woman was accustomed to experience bleeding at the end of the sensation that accompanies her fixed cycle, all the ritually pure items that she handled within the duration of that sensation that accompanies her fixed cycle are pure.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף יָמִים וְשָׁעוֹת וְסָתוֹת. הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה עִם הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה — אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא עִם הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַיּוֹם שֶׁלָּהּ.
Rabbi Yosei says: Even specific days and specific hours determine a fixed menstrual cycle: If a woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood on a certain day of the month at sunrise, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse with her husband only at sunrise; but during the night before and the following day, it is permitted for her to engage in intercourse. Rabbi Yehuda says: Once sunrise passed and she did not menstruate, the entire day is hers and she may engage in intercourse, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; but contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, intercourse the night before is prohibited.
גְּמָ’ תָּנָא: כֵּיצַד אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי יָמִים וְשָׁעוֹת וְסָתוֹת? הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה מִיּוֹם עֶשְׂרִים לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים, וּמִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת לְשֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת. הִגִּיעַ יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא רָאֲתָה — אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ כׇּל שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת רִאשׁוֹנוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר עַד שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת, וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת בְּשֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת.
GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita: In what case did Rabbi Yosei say that specific days and hours determine a fixed menstrual cycle? For example, if a woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day and again on the twentieth day, and in the sixth hour of the day and again in the sixth hour of the day the next time; if the twentieth day arrives a third time and she does not see a flow of blood, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse for the entirety of the first six hours of the day; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei deems it permitted for her to engage in intercourse until the sixth hour of the day, and says that she must be concerned only during the sixth hour.
עָבְרוּ שֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת, וְלֹא רָאֲתָה — אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר מִן הַמִּנְחָה וּלְמַעְלָה.
The baraita continues: If the sixth hour passed and she did not see a flow of blood, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse for the entirety of the day; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yosei deems it permitted for her to engage in intercourse from minḥa time onward, i.e., from the beginning of the seventh hour.
הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה. וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה שֶׁלָּהּ!
§ The mishna teaches with regard to a woman who was accustomed to see the flow of blood on a certain day of the month at sunrise, that Rabbi Yehuda says: Once sunrise passed and she did not menstruate, the entire day is hers and she may engage in intercourse, but intercourse is prohibited the night before. The Gemara objects: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The entire night is hers? This indicates that she may engage in intercourse during the night.
לָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא דִּרְגִילָה לִרְאוֹת בִּתְחִלַּת יְמָמָא, וְהָא דִּרְגִילָה לִרְאוֹת בְּסוֹף לֵילְיָא.
The Gemara explains that it is not difficult. Here, when it is permitted for her to engage in intercourse the entire night, it is referring to a case where she is accustomed to see a flow of blood at the beginning of the day, i.e., immediately after sunrise. And there, in the mishna, which deems it prohibited for her to engage in intercourse all night, it is referring to a case where she is accustomed to see a flow of blood at the end of the night, i.e., just before sunrise.
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסְרָהּ לִפְנֵי וִסְתָּהּ, וּמַתִּירָהּ לְאַחַר וִסְתָּהּ. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אוֹסְרָהּ לְאַחַר וִסְתָּהּ, וּמַתִּירָהּ לִפְנֵי וִסְתָּהּ.
The Gemara cites further baraitot that deal with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. It is taught in one baraita: Rabbi Yehuda deems it prohibited for her to engage in intercourse before the time of her fixed cycle, but deems it permitted for her to do so after the time of her fixed cycle if she did not experience bleeding then. And it is taught in another baraita: Rabbi Yehuda deems it prohibited for her to engage in intercourse after the time of her fixed cycle but deems it permitted for her to do so before the time of her fixed cycle.
וְלָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא דִּרְגִילָה לְמִחְזֵי בְּסוֹף לֵילְיָא, הָא דִּרְגִילָה לְמִחְזֵי בִּתְחִלַּת יְמָמָא.
The Gemara resolves this apparent contradiction: And this is not difficult; here, the baraita that rules that it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse before the time of her fixed cycle is referring to a case where she is accustomed to see a flow of blood at the end of the night. By contrast, there, the baraita that states that it is prohibited for her to do so after the time of her fixed cycle is referring to a case where she is accustomed to see a flow of blood at the beginning of the day.
אָמַר רָבָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּמִי אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְהִזַּרְתֶּם אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִטּוּמְאָתָם״ — מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אַזְהָרָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיִּפְרְשׁוּ מִנְּשׁוֹתֵיהֶן סָמוּךְ לְוִסְתָּן.
Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: And did Rava actually say this? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a menstruating woman: “You shall separate the children of Israel from their impurity” (Leviticus 15:31). From here, Rabbi Yirmeya said that there is a warning to the children of Israel that they should separate from their wives close to the time of their menstrual cycles.
וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רָבָא: עוֹנָה. מַאי לַָאו עוֹנָה אַחֲרִיתִי? לָא, אוֹתָהּ עוֹנָה.
And how close? Rava says: One twelve-hour period, i.e., either from sunrise to sunset, or from sunset to sunrise. The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not referring to an additional twelve-hour period, i.e., the prohibition applies to the time of her expected period itself, either day or night, as well as the previous twelve hours? This is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems it prohibited for her to engage in intercourse only for the twelve hours of the expected time of her period. The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to that same twelve-hour period.
וְתַרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן הָא — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי לִטְהָרוֹת, אֲבָל לְבַעְלָהּ — לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: And why do I need two statements of Rava, i.e., both that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and that a woman must separate for only one twelve-hour period? The Gemara answers that both are necessary, because if Rava had taught us only this, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna, I would say that this statement applies only to the handling of pure items, but with regard to engaging in intercourse with her husband, it does not apply, and with regard to intercourse, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Therefore, Rava teaches us that even with regard to intercourse, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
וְאִי מֵהַהִיא — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא ״סָמוּךְ לְוִסְתָּהּ״ עוֹנָה אַחֲרִיתִי. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן אוֹתָהּ עוֹנָה.
And by contrast, if Rava had taught us only that statement, that she must wait a twelve-hour period, I would say that she must separate close to the fixed time of her cycle for an additional twelve-hour period, as suggested above. Therefore, Rava teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, which indicates that she separates for only that single twelve-hour period.
מַתְנִי’ הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְשִׁינְּתָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין. שִׁינְּתָה פַּעֲמַיִם לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין.
MISHNA: If the woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood on the fifteenth day and she deviated from the norm to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day, then on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. If she deviated from the norm twice, then on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is likewise prohibited for her to engage in intercourse.
שִׁינְּתָה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — הוּתַּר חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְקָבְעָה לָהּ יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים, שֶׁאֵין אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת עַד שֶׁתִּקְבָּעֶנָּה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים, וְאֵינָהּ מִטַּהֶרֶת מִן הַוֶּסֶת עַד שֶׁתֵּעָקֵר מִמֶּנָּה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים.
If she deviated from the norm to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day three times, it becomes permitted for her to engage in intercourse on the fifteenth, and she has established the twentieth day for herself as the day of her fixed menstrual cycle, as a woman establishes a fixed menstrual cycle only after she establishes it three times. And a woman is purified from the existing fixed menstrual cycle, in the sense that intercourse is permitted on that day, only when she has been displaced from that day three times.
