Niddah 63

אם הקפיד עליו אין אי לא לא

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.

איזהו רוק תפל תנא כל שלא טעם כלום מבערב סבר רב פפא קמיה דרבא למימר כמאן דאמר לא טעם מידי באורתא אמר ליה רבא מי קתני בערב מבערב קתני לאפוקי היכא דקדים ואכיל

§ 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.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן איזהו רוק תפל כל שעבר עליו חצות לילה ובשינה למימרא דבשינה תליא מילתא והתנן ישן כל היום אין זה רוק תפל ניעור כל הלילה הרי זה רוק תפל התם במתנמנם

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.

היכי דמי מתנמנם אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר דקרו ליה ועני ולא ידע לאהדורי סברא וכי מדכרו ליה מדכר

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.

תנא השכים ושנה פרקו אין זה רוק תפל ועד כמה אמר רב יהודה בר שילא אמר רב אשי אמר רבי אלעזר כל שיצא רוב דבורו של שלש שעות

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.

מי גריסין לעיסת גריסין של פול וכו׳ לימא מסייע ליה לריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש רוק תפל צריך שיהא עם כל אחד ואחד דלמא הבלא דפומא מעלי

§ 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.

מתניתין דלא כרבי יהודה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר מי גריסין רותח ועובר שיתן לתוכו מלח

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.

מאי משמע דהאי עובר לישנא דאקדומי הוא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דאמר קרא וירץ אחימעץ דרך הככר ויעבר את הכושי אביי אמר מהכא והוא עבר לפניהם ואיבעית אימא מהכא ויעבר מלכם לפניהם וה׳ בראשם

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).

מי רגלים שהחמיצו תנא כמה חימוצן שלשה ימים

§ 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.

אמר רבי יוחנן כל שיעורי חכמים בכתמים צריך שיעור לשיעורן דילד או דזקן דאיש או דאשה מכוסים או מגולים בימות החמה או בימות הגשמים

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?

וצריך לכסכס שלש פעמים בעי רבי ירמיה אמטויי ואתויי חד או דלמא אמטויי ואתויי תרתי מאי תיקו

§ 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.

העבירן שלא כסדרן תנו רבנן הקדים שניים לראשונים תני חדא שניים עלו לו ראשונים לא עלו לו ותניא אידך ראשונים עלו לו שניים לא עלו לו

§ 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.

אמר אביי אידי ואידי שניים עלו לו ולא ראשונים ומאי ראשונים ראשונים לכסדרן ושניים להעברתן

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.

מתני׳ כל אשה שיש לה וסת דיה שעתה ואלו הן הוסתות מפהקת ומעטשת וחוששת בפי כריסה ובשפולי מעיה ושופעת וכמין צמרמורות אוחזין אותה וכן כיוצא בהן וכל שקבעה לה שלשה פעמים הרי זה וסת

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.

גמ׳ תנינא חדא זימנא כל אשה שיש לה וסת דיה שעתה התם בוסתות דיומי הכא בוסתות דגופא

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.

כדקתני אלו הן וסתות היתה מפהקת מעטשת וחוששת בפי כריסה ובשפולי מעיה ושופעת

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.

שופעת הא שפעה ואזלא אמר עולא בריה דרב עלאי

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:

בשופעת דם טמא מתוך דם טהור

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.

וכמין צמרמורות וכו׳ וכן כיוצא בהן לאתויי מאי אמר רבה בר עולא לאתויי אשה שראשה כבד עליה ואבריה כבדים עליה ורותתת וגוסה

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.

אמר רב הונא בר חייא אמר שמואל הרי אמרו לימים שנים לוסתות אחת למה שלא מנו חכמים שלשה

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.

למה שלא מנו חכמים לאתויי מאי אמר רב יוסף לאתויי ראשה כבד עליה ואבריה כבדין עליה ורותתת וגוסה אמר ליה אביי מאי קא משמע לן מתניתין היא דהא פרשה רבה בר עולא אלא אמר אביי לאתויי אכלה שום וראתה ואכלה בצלים וראתה כססה פלפלים וראתה

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.

אמר רב יוסף לא שמיע לי הא שמעתא

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.

אמר ליה אביי את אמריתה ניהלן ואהא אמריתה ניהלן היתה למודה להיות רואה יום חמשה עשר ושינתה ליום עשרים זה וזה אסורין שלש פעמים ליום עשרים הותר יום חמשה עשר וקבעה לה יום עשרים שאין אשה קובעת לה וסת עד שתקבענה שלש פעמים

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.

ואמרת לן עלה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל זו דברי רבן גמליאל בר רבי שאמר משום רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אבל חכמים אומרים ראתה אינה צריכה לא לשנות ולא לשלש

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.

ואמרינן לך לשנות אמרת לן לשלש מיבעיא ואמרת לן לשנות בוסתות לשלש בימים

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.

ונימא זו דברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הא קא משמע לן שמואל דרבן גמליאל ברבי כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל סבירא ליה

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.

מתני׳ היתה למודה להיות רואה בתחלת הוסתות כל הטהרות שעשתה בתוך הוסתות טמאות בסוף הוסתות כל הטהרות שעשתה בתוך הוסתות טהורות

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.

רבי יוסי אומר אף ימים ושעות וסתות היתה למודה להיות רואה עם הנץ החמה אינה אסורה אלא עם הנץ החמה רבי יהודה אומר כל היום שלה

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.

גמ׳ תנא כיצד אמר רבי יוסי ימים ושעות וסתות היתה למודה להיות רואה מיום עשרים ליום עשרים ומשש שעות לשש שעות הגיע יום עשרים ולא ראתה אסורה לשמש כל שש שעות ראשונות דברי רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי מתיר עד שש שעות וחוששת בשש שעות

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.

עברו שש שעות ולא ראתה אסורה לשמש כל היום כולו דברי רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי מתיר מן המנחה ולמעלה

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.

היתה למודה והתניא רבי יהודה אומר כל הלילה שלה

§ 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.

לא קשיא הא דרגילה לראות בתחלת יממא והא דרגילה לראות בסוף ליליא

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.

תני חדא רבי יהודה אוסרה לפני וסתה ומתירה לאחר וסתה ותניא אידך אוסרה לאחר וסתה ומתירה לפני וסתה

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.

ולא קשיא הא דרגילה למחזי בסוף ליליא הא דרגילה למחזי בתחלת יממא

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.

אמר רבא הלכה כרבי יהודה ומי אמר רבא הכי והתניא והזרתם את בני ישראל מטומאתם מכאן אמר רבי ירמיה אזהרה לבני ישראל שיפרשו מנשותיהן סמוך לוסתן

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.

וכמה אמר רבא עונה מאי לאו עונה אחריתי לא אותה עונה

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.

ותרתי למה לי צריכא דאי אשמועינן הא הוה אמינא הני מילי לטהרות אבל לבעלה לא קא משמע לן

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.

ואי מההיא הוה אמינא סמוך לוסתה עונה אחריתי קא משמע לן אותה עונה

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.

מתני׳ היתה למודה להיות רואה יום חמשה עשר ושינתה להיות רואה ליום עשרים זה וזה אסורין שינתה פעמים ליום עשרים זה וזה אסורין

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.

שינתה שלש פעמים ליום עשרים הותר חמשה עשר וקבעה לה יום עשרים שאין אשה קובעת לה וסת עד שתקבענה שלש פעמים ואינה מטהרת מן הוסת עד שתעקר ממנה שלש פעמים

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.