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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 30, 2019 | 讘壮 讘讟讘转 转砖状驻

  • 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 68

Can one shampoo during the day before going to the mikveh or does it need to be at night just before going to the mikveh? What about shampooing on Friday afternoon for Saturday night tevila? Rava ruled and was corrected adn he stood up and admited his mistake. If a woman checks on the seventh day of niddah in the morning and is clean adn a few days later is not, from when is she presumed to be impure? What if the reverse happened? Since these in between days in question are in her zava days, can one learn from this mishna details about zava days – like can one establish a regular cycle for zava days? One needs to checks during seven clean days each day but what if one only checked the first and seventh? There is a 3-way tannaitic debate regarding this. There is a debate among emoraim regarding what happens if one checked only on the first day?


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

转住讙讬 讗讬讬转讬 诇诪讞专 讜讬讚注 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗诪专 讚讜讚讬 讞住专转 讟砖讟拽讬 讞住专转 注讘讚讬 讞住专转

Rather, it is sufficient if you come back again tomorrow and speak with me then about this matter. And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k knew what she was saying to him. She was alluding to the fact that she had not washed her hair while it was still daylight, and therefore she could not immerse that evening. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to her: Are you lacking kettles [dudei] to heat water to wash your hair? Are you lacking buckets [tashtekei] to bring the water to wash your hair? Are you lacking servants, who can help you prepare to wash your hair? It can be inferred from this story that Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k holds that it is permitted for a woman to wash her hair and immerse on the same night.

讚专砖 专讘讗 讗砖讛 讞讜驻驻转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讟讜讘诇转 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 讘讗讙专转讬讛 讗砖讛 诇讗 转讞讜祝 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜转讟讘讜诇 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转

Rava taught: A woman may wash her hair on the eve of Shabbat and immerse at the conclusion of Shabbat. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But didn鈥檛 Ravin send the following halakha in his letter: A woman may not wash her hair on the eve of Shabbat and immerse at the conclusion of Shabbat? Instead, she should wash her hair after the conclusion of Shabbat immediately before she immerses.

讜转诪讛 注诇 注爪诪讱 讛讬讗讱 讞讜驻驻转 讘讬讜诐 讜讟讜讘诇转 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 转讻祝 诇讞驻讬驻讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讜诇讬讻讗

And furthermore, you should be astounded with yourself: How did the Sages deem it permitted for a woman on a weekday to wash her hair during the day and immerse at night? Don鈥檛 we require that her immersion must be immediately after washing her hair? And if she washes her hair during the day, this requirement will not be fulfilled. The Sages reluctantly permitted a woman to wash her hair during the day, and they permitted this only due to the concern that she might not wash her hair properly if she would wait until night. Consequently, with regard to an immersion on the conclusion of Shabbat, she should avoid washing her hair a day or more in advance.

讛讚专 讗讜拽讬 专讘讗 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 讜讚专砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专转讬 诇驻谞讬讻诐 讟注讜转 讛谉 讘讬讚讬 讘专诐 讻讱 讗诪专讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗砖讛 诇讗 转讞讜祝 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜转讟讘讜诇 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讜转诪讛 注诇 注爪诪讱 讛讬讗讱 讞讜驻驻转 讘讬讜诐 讜讟讜讘诇转 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 住诪讜讱 诇讞驻讬驻讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讜诇讬讻讗

As a result of Rav Pappa鈥檚 comments, Rava then appointed an interpreter before him to publicize his retraction, and he taught: The statement I said to you was a mistake of mine. But in fact this is what the Sages said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: A woman may not wash her hair on the eve of Shabbat and immerse after the conclusion of Shabbat. And furthermore you should be astounded with yourself. How can a woman wash her hair during the day and immerse at night? Don鈥檛 we require: Her immersion must be immediately after washing her hair? And if she washes her hair on the eve of Shabbat, this principle will not be fulfilled.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讗砖讛 讞讜驻驻转 讘讬讜诐 讜讟讜讘诇转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗砖讛 诇讗 转讞讜祝 讗诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 (讗诇讗) 拽砖讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that a woman may wash her hair during the day and immerse at night. And the halakha is that a woman may wash her hair only at night. The Gemara comments: This is difficult, as one halakha contradicts the other halakha.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗驻砖专 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专

The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This ruling that she may wash her hair during the day is referring to a case where it is possible, e.g., when she immerses on a weeknight and can wash her hair shortly beforehand during the daytime. That ruling that she is permitted to wash her hair only at night is referring to a case where it is not possible, e.g., when her time for immersion is after the conclusion of Shabbat. Since she may not wash her hair on the eve of Shabbat for an immersion after the conclusion of Shabbat, she must wash her hair at night, after Shabbat has ended, immediately before she immerses.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讚讛 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 砖讞专讬转 讜诪爪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖讛 讜诇讗讞专 讬诪讬诐 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专讛

MISHNA: In the case of a menstruating woman who examined herself on the seventh day of menstruation in the morning and found that she is ritually pure and eligible to immerse in a ritual bath that evening, but during twilight of the seventh day she did not perform an examination that marks the transition between the days when she has a flow of blood and the days when she no longer has a flow of blood but immersed despite not having performed the examination, and after several days she examined herself and found that she is ritually impure, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual purity from the time of her immersion until her examination, and all ritually pure items that she handled in the interim remain pure.

讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讘讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 砖讞专讬转 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖讛 讜诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟诪讗讛

If she examined herself on the seventh day of menstruation in the morning and found that she is ritually impure, i.e., her menstrual flow continued, and during twilight of the seventh day she did not perform an examination to confirm the transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity but immersed nonetheless, and after several days she examined herself and found that she is ritually pure, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual impurity from the time of her immersion until her examination, and all ritually pure items that she handled in the interim are impure. Since she found blood during her last examination in her days of menstruation, the concern is that the flow of blood continued during the days that followed, and therefore her immersion on the eve of the eighth day was ineffective.

讜诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

In a case where there was no blood found during the examination on the seventh morning and she did not examine herself during twilight, and several days later she discovered blood, where the mishna says that a woman鈥檚 presumptive status is one of ritual purity, that is the halakha only for the days following immersion. But she transmits ritual impurity to the ritually pure items that she handled before the examination in which she found blood for a twenty-four-hour period and from examination to examination, in accordance with the halakha of a woman who experiences bleeding (see 2a). And if she has a fixed menstrual cycle, on the day that she examined herself and found blood, her time is sufficient, i.e., it is assumed that the bleeding began then, and she does not transmit impurity retroactively.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 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 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟诪讗讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬诐 诇谞讚转讛 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖讛 讜诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专讛

And Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to any woman who did not perform the examination marking her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day from min岣 time onward, even if she performed an examination and found no blood that morning, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual impurity. And the Rabbis say: Even if on the second day of her menstruation she performed the examination and found that she is ritually pure, and she did not perform the examination marking her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day during twilight, and after several days she examined herself and found that she is ritually impure, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual purity from the time of her immersion until her examination.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讝讘讛 讜讚讗讬 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讝讘讛 住驻拽

GEMARA: The Gemara cites a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to a case where a woman did not perform an examination indicating her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity, and three days passed in which it is possible that she received the status of a zava, and then she found that she was ritually impure. It was stated that Rav says: This woman is a definite greater zava. And Levi says: She is an uncertain greater zava.

讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专讛 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: To which clause of the mishna does this dispute apply? If we say that Rav and Levi are referring to the first clause, i.e., a woman who examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself to be ritually pure, but she did not examine herself at twilight, and several days later she examined herself and found herself to be impure, this cannot be correct, as the mishna teaches: The presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual purity. She is not a zava at all.

讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗 讘砖诇诪讗 住驻拽 讝讘讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讝讘讛 讜讚讗讬 谞诪讬 讛专讬 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛

Rather, say that they are referring to the latter clause of the mishna, when she examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself to be ritually impure. If so, granted Levi鈥檚 opinion is reasonable, as we say that this woman is an uncertain greater zava. But how can one explain Rav鈥檚 opinion that she is even a definite greater zava? After all, she examined herself and found that she is ritually pure. If so, how can she be a definite zava?

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讜诇讜讬 砖诪注转讗 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讛 讗讬转诪专 谞讚讛 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 砖讞专讬转 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖讛 讜诇讗讞专 讬诪讬诐 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 专讘 讗诪专 讝讘讛 讜讚讗讬 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讝讘讛 住驻拽

Rather, when the dispute of Rav and Levi was stated, it was stated as a distinct halakha unrelated to the mishna, as follows: With regard to a menstruating woman who examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was ritually impure, and at twilight of the seventh day she did not perform an examination to confirm her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity, and after several days she examined herself and found that she is ritually impure, Rav says: This woman is a definite greater zava. And Levi says: She is an uncertain greater zava.

专讘 讗诪专 讝讘讛 讜讚讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪爪讗转 讟诪讗讛 讜注讻砖讬讜 谞诪爪讗转 讟诪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讚讗讬 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 住驻拽 讝讘讛 讗讬诪专 驻住拽讛 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬

The Gemara explains their opinions. Rav says: This woman is a definite greater zava, since from the outset she found herself to be ritually impure, and now she found herself to also be ritually impure. Consequently, she is definitely impure. And Levi says: This woman is an uncertain greater zava, as one can say that perhaps she stopped experiencing bleeding in between the morning of her seventh day of menstruation when she first found herself to be impure and several days later, on the second occasion that she found herself to be impure.

讜讻谉 转谞讗 诇讜讬 讘诪转谞讬转讗 讗讞专 讛讬诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘讬谉 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讛专讬 讝讜 住驻拽 讝讘讛

And Levi taught similarly in a baraita: If a woman examined herself on the seventh day of menstruation and found herself to be impure, and she did not perform the examination to confirm her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity, and after several days she examined herself, whether she examined herself and found herself to be ritually pure or whether she examined herself and found herself to be ritually impure, she is an uncertain greater zava.

讜诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 诇讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛

搂 The mishna teaches: But she transmits ritual impurity to the ritually pure items that she handled before the examination in which she found blood for a twenty-four-hour period. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava, as Rava said, with regard to the statement in the mishna on 38b that a woman has a presumptive status of ritual purity during the eleven days of potential ziva: This serves to say that a woman does not transmit ritual impurity for a twenty-four-hour period before experiencing bleeding during her days of ziva.

讜诇讗讜 讗讜转讘讬谞讬讛 诇专讘讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 谞诪讬 诪讛讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the Gemara already cite a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava one time, on 39a? The Gemara explains that this is what we are saying: Let us say that there is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava from this mishna as well.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讗专讬砖 驻专拽讬谉 拽讗讬 讗专讗转讛 讜注讜讚讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

The Gemara responds that Rava could have said to you that when the mishna teaches: She transmits ritual impurity for a twenty-four-hour period, it is referring to the beginning of our chapter. Specifically, it is speaking of the mishna on 64b, which discusses the case of a young woman who saw menstrual blood before marriage while she was still in her father鈥檚 house. According to Beit Hillel she may engage in intercourse only the first night, during which the blood is considered the blood from the torn hymen rather than the blood of menstruation. This mishna is teaching that from that point onward, when she experiences bleeding she renders items impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, like other women.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪驻住拽讬 诇讛讜 讬诪讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讻转讞诇转 谞讚转讛 讚诪讬讗 讜诇讗 转讟诪讗 诪注转 诇注转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that this ruling is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that since her cycle of menstruation and ziva is interrupted by days when any blood she discharges is considered to be ritually pure, she now reverts back as though it is considered like the beginning of her days of menstruation, and she does not transmit ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. Therefore, this mishna teaches us that she does transmit impurity retroactively.

讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 谞讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And if she has a fixed menstrual cycle on the day that she examined herself and found blood, her time is sufficient and she does not transmit impurity retroactively. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna bar 岣yya, with regard to the ruling he says that Shmuel says? As Rav Huna bar 岣yya says that Shmuel says, with regard to the mishna on 38b that teaches that a woman has a presumptive status of ritual purity during the eleven days of potential ziva: This serves to say that a woman does not establish a fixed menstrual cycle during her days of ziva.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 转诇转讗 讝讬诪谞讬 诇诪讬注拽专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诪讬讛 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讚诪讬讛 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

The Gemara answers that Rav Huna bar 岣yya could have said to you: When we say that a woman does not establish a fixed menstrual cycle during her days of ziva, we meant this only as a leniency, that she does not require three times to uproot any such cycle. Rather, she uproots it after one time when she does not experience bleeding in accordance with that cycle. As we say that her menstrual blood is removed during her days of ziva, and she is unlikely to discharge menstrual blood during that time. And since her blood is removed, if she established a fixed menstrual cycle it is sufficient for her to be deemed impure from the hour that she saw the menstrual flow. There is no decree of retroactive impurity on items that she previously touched due to the concern that the blood flow might have started earlier.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇诪诇讬 讬讚讬讛 诪讜谞讞讜转 讘注讬谞讬讛 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讬驻讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to any woman who did not perform the examination indicating her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day from min岣 time onward, even if she performed an examination and found no blood that morning, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual impurity. It is taught in a baraita that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: If the halakha had been that a woman who will immerse must keep her hands placed in her eyes, a euphemism for her vagina, for the entire twilight period, what you say is fine. It would be reasonable to assume that since she did not examine herself at the end of the day she has a presumptive status of ritual impurity.

注讻砖讬讜 讗讬诪专 注诐 住诇讜拽 讬讚讬讛 专讗转讛 诪讛 诇讬 讛驻专讬砖讛 讘讟讛专讛 讘砖讘讬注讬 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 讛驻专讬砖讛 讘讟讛专讛 讘专讗砖讜谉

But now that you say that it is insufficient to examine herself in the morning, what is your reasoning? Evidently, you say that when she removed her hand from examining herself perhaps she saw blood and is impure. If so, what difference is it to me if she performed the examination indicating her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day from min岣 time onward, and what difference is it to me if she performed the examination indicating her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the first day of her counting?

讘专讗砖讜谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专

The Gemara asks: Why do the Rabbis mention an examination on the first day of her counting? Is there one who said that if a woman examines herself only on the first day that is sufficient?

讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖讗诇转讬 讗转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬诐 讘讚专讱 谞讚讛 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 砖讞专讬转 讜诪爪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖讛 讜诇讗讞专 讛讬诪讬诐 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讛讜

The Gemara answers: Yes, there is such an opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I asked Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon the following question when they were walking on the road: With regard to a menstruating woman who examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself to be ritually pure, but at twilight she did not perform the examination indicating her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity, and after several days she examined herself and found herself to be ritually impure, what is the halakha?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 砖砖讬 讞诪讬砖讬 专讘讬注讬 砖诇讬砖讬 砖谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon said to him: She has a presumptive status of ritual purity up until the moment that she discovered that she was impure. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi asked them additional questions: If she examined herself on the sixth day, or the fifth day, or the fourth day, or the third day, or even the second day, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon said to him: The halakha is no different. In all of these cases she has a presumptive status of ritual purity until she discovers that she is impure.

讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 砖讗诇转讬 讜讟注讬转讬 砖诇讗 砖讗诇转讬 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚驻住拽 驻住拽 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚驻住拽 驻住拽

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi comments: I did not ask about a woman who examined herself on the first day, and I erred in that I did not ask them. If I would have asked them they would have told me that even if she examined herself only on the first day, she still has a presumptive status of ritual purity. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi explains his reasoning: Is that to say that on all of these other days she was not standing with a presumptive status of ritual impurity? And nevertheless, once she performed the examination and her blood is found to have stopped, it is considered to have stopped, and she now has the presumptive status of a woman whose bleeding has stopped. If so, on the first day too, once she performed the examination and her blood is found to have stopped, it is considered to have stopped, and she now has a presumptive status of a woman whose bleeding has stopped.

讜诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 住讘专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讞讝拽 诪注讬谉 驻转讜讞

The Gemara asks: And initially, what did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold? Why didn鈥檛 he ask them about a woman who examined herself only on the first day? The Gemara answers that he held that since she has a presumptive status that her spring, i.e., her uterus, is open, as she had just begun experiencing bleeding, an examination conducted on that day is ineffective. In any event, this baraita teaches that there is an opinion that even if a woman examined herself only on the first day, she has a presumptive status of ritual purity.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 砖讘讚拽讜 注爪诪谉 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 讜砖讗专 讬诪讬诐 砖讘讬谞转讬讬诐 诇讗 讘讚拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 讘诇讘讚

MISHNA: With regard to a zav and a zava, who are required to count and examine themselves on each of seven clean days before purification in a ritual bath, who examined themselves on the first day and found themselves ritually pure, i.e., with no blood, and they examined themselves on the seventh day and found themselves ritually pure, and on the rest of the intervening days they did not examine themselves, Rabbi Eliezer says: The presumptive status of the zav and the zava is one of ritual purity. Rabbi Yehoshua says: In that case, the zav and the zava have counted only the first day and the seventh day, two of the seven clean days, and they must count another five days to complete the tally. Rabbi Akiva says: The zav and the zava have counted only the seventh day, and they must count another six days to complete the tally.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讚讘专讬讱 讗转讛 诪讜谞讛 讘住讬专讜讙讬谉 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讗讞专 转讟讛专 讗讞专 讗讞专 诇讻讜诇谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛谉

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: According to your statement, that the first day is included in her count of seven, you are counting at intervals, i.e., with days in-between that do not count, and the Torah states: 鈥淏ut if she be purified of her ziva, then she shall count to herself seven days, and after that she shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 15:28). This teaches that the purification of a zava must be after the seven days, i.e., after all of the days, which must be consecutive so that there are no days of impurity separating between the seven clean days.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讗转讛 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 讘讝讘 砖专讗讛 拽专讬 讜讘谞讝讬专 砖讛讬诇讱 住讻讻讜转 讜驻专注讜转 砖诪讜谞讛 讘住讬专讜讙讬谉 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜

Rabbi Yehoshua says: And you too, do you not concede with regard to a zav who experienced a seminal emission during his count of seven clean days, and with regard to a nazirite who walked under overhanging boughs and protrusions that have items whose status of impurity is uncertain beneath them, that they count at intervals, as both are impure for one day before resuming their counting? And yet the Torah states with regard to a nazirite who definitely contracted ritual impurity from a corpse: 鈥淏ut the former days shall be void, because his consecration was defiled鈥 (Numbers 6:12). This indicates that even in cases where the Torah says that one must count consecutively, it is permitted to count with intervals in between countings.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 诇讟诪讗讛 讘讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 砖讗讬谞讛 住讜转专转 讗诇讗 讬讜诪讛 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讝讘 讘讘注诇 拽专讬 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝

And how would Rabbi Eliezer respond to Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 claim? He would say: Granted, there in the cases of the zav and the nazirite, the Merciful One states: 鈥淭his is the law of him that has an issue, and of him from whom an emission of semen goes out, so that he is thereby impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:32). This teaches that when a zav experiences a seminal emission it overturns the counting of only that one day. And if one would claim that the Sages should issue a decree due to the concern that one might confuse the halakha of one who had an emission of ziva during the seven clean days with a zav who had a seminal emission during the seven clean days, that is not a concern. The reason is that an emission of a ziva will not be confused with the case of one who experienced a seminal emission.

谞讝讬专 砖讛讬诇讱 注诇 讙讘讬 住讻讻讜转 讜驻专注讜转 谞诪讬 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讛诇 诪注诇讬讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝讜专 讜专讘谞谉 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝

Similarly, Rabbi Eliezer would say that in the case of a nazirite who walked under overhanging boughs and protrusions that have items whose status of impurity is uncertain beneath them, there is also no need to overturn all the previous days of counting, as by Torah law we require a full-fledged tent over a corpse, and it was the Sages who decreed that one who walks under overhanging boughs and protrusions is ritually impure. And a halakha that applies by rabbinic law will not be confused with a halakha that is mandated by Torah law.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讞讝讗讬 讘住驻拽 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘讜讚讗讬

But here, in the case of a zava who counts only the first and seventh day, if we are concerned that as she did not count the five intermediate days perhaps she saw blood during those days, and since what occurred on those days is uncertain, only the first day counts for her, then one might come to confuse this situation with a case where she is certain that she saw blood during the intermediate days. One might mistakenly think that even if she definitely experiences bleeding during the intermediate days she can still count the first day as one of her seven clean days before immersing.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讚讘专讬 讻讜诇谉 讗讘诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears more correct than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, and the statement of Rabbi Akiva appears more correct than the statement of all of them. But nevertheless, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 砖讘讚拽讜 注爪诪谉 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬讜诐 砖诪讬谞讬 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 讜砖讗专 讛讬诪讬诐 诇讗 讘讚拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a zav and a zava who examined themselves on the first day of their seven clean days and found themselves to be pure, and they examined themselves again on the eighth day and found themselves to be pure, but they did not examine themselves on the remainder of the days,

  • 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 68

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 68

转住讙讬 讗讬讬转讬 诇诪讞专 讜讬讚注 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗诪专 讚讜讚讬 讞住专转 讟砖讟拽讬 讞住专转 注讘讚讬 讞住专转

Rather, it is sufficient if you come back again tomorrow and speak with me then about this matter. And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k knew what she was saying to him. She was alluding to the fact that she had not washed her hair while it was still daylight, and therefore she could not immerse that evening. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to her: Are you lacking kettles [dudei] to heat water to wash your hair? Are you lacking buckets [tashtekei] to bring the water to wash your hair? Are you lacking servants, who can help you prepare to wash your hair? It can be inferred from this story that Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k holds that it is permitted for a woman to wash her hair and immerse on the same night.

讚专砖 专讘讗 讗砖讛 讞讜驻驻转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讟讜讘诇转 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 讘讗讙专转讬讛 讗砖讛 诇讗 转讞讜祝 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜转讟讘讜诇 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转

Rava taught: A woman may wash her hair on the eve of Shabbat and immerse at the conclusion of Shabbat. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But didn鈥檛 Ravin send the following halakha in his letter: A woman may not wash her hair on the eve of Shabbat and immerse at the conclusion of Shabbat? Instead, she should wash her hair after the conclusion of Shabbat immediately before she immerses.

讜转诪讛 注诇 注爪诪讱 讛讬讗讱 讞讜驻驻转 讘讬讜诐 讜讟讜讘诇转 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 转讻祝 诇讞驻讬驻讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讜诇讬讻讗

And furthermore, you should be astounded with yourself: How did the Sages deem it permitted for a woman on a weekday to wash her hair during the day and immerse at night? Don鈥檛 we require that her immersion must be immediately after washing her hair? And if she washes her hair during the day, this requirement will not be fulfilled. The Sages reluctantly permitted a woman to wash her hair during the day, and they permitted this only due to the concern that she might not wash her hair properly if she would wait until night. Consequently, with regard to an immersion on the conclusion of Shabbat, she should avoid washing her hair a day or more in advance.

讛讚专 讗讜拽讬 专讘讗 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 讜讚专砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专转讬 诇驻谞讬讻诐 讟注讜转 讛谉 讘讬讚讬 讘专诐 讻讱 讗诪专讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗砖讛 诇讗 转讞讜祝 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜转讟讘讜诇 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讜转诪讛 注诇 注爪诪讱 讛讬讗讱 讞讜驻驻转 讘讬讜诐 讜讟讜讘诇转 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 住诪讜讱 诇讞驻讬驻讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讜诇讬讻讗

As a result of Rav Pappa鈥檚 comments, Rava then appointed an interpreter before him to publicize his retraction, and he taught: The statement I said to you was a mistake of mine. But in fact this is what the Sages said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: A woman may not wash her hair on the eve of Shabbat and immerse after the conclusion of Shabbat. And furthermore you should be astounded with yourself. How can a woman wash her hair during the day and immerse at night? Don鈥檛 we require: Her immersion must be immediately after washing her hair? And if she washes her hair on the eve of Shabbat, this principle will not be fulfilled.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讗砖讛 讞讜驻驻转 讘讬讜诐 讜讟讜讘诇转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗砖讛 诇讗 转讞讜祝 讗诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 (讗诇讗) 拽砖讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that a woman may wash her hair during the day and immerse at night. And the halakha is that a woman may wash her hair only at night. The Gemara comments: This is difficult, as one halakha contradicts the other halakha.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗驻砖专 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专

The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This ruling that she may wash her hair during the day is referring to a case where it is possible, e.g., when she immerses on a weeknight and can wash her hair shortly beforehand during the daytime. That ruling that she is permitted to wash her hair only at night is referring to a case where it is not possible, e.g., when her time for immersion is after the conclusion of Shabbat. Since she may not wash her hair on the eve of Shabbat for an immersion after the conclusion of Shabbat, she must wash her hair at night, after Shabbat has ended, immediately before she immerses.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讚讛 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 砖讞专讬转 讜诪爪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖讛 讜诇讗讞专 讬诪讬诐 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专讛

MISHNA: In the case of a menstruating woman who examined herself on the seventh day of menstruation in the morning and found that she is ritually pure and eligible to immerse in a ritual bath that evening, but during twilight of the seventh day she did not perform an examination that marks the transition between the days when she has a flow of blood and the days when she no longer has a flow of blood but immersed despite not having performed the examination, and after several days she examined herself and found that she is ritually impure, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual purity from the time of her immersion until her examination, and all ritually pure items that she handled in the interim remain pure.

讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讘讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 砖讞专讬转 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖讛 讜诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟诪讗讛

If she examined herself on the seventh day of menstruation in the morning and found that she is ritually impure, i.e., her menstrual flow continued, and during twilight of the seventh day she did not perform an examination to confirm the transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity but immersed nonetheless, and after several days she examined herself and found that she is ritually pure, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual impurity from the time of her immersion until her examination, and all ritually pure items that she handled in the interim are impure. Since she found blood during her last examination in her days of menstruation, the concern is that the flow of blood continued during the days that followed, and therefore her immersion on the eve of the eighth day was ineffective.

讜诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

In a case where there was no blood found during the examination on the seventh morning and she did not examine herself during twilight, and several days later she discovered blood, where the mishna says that a woman鈥檚 presumptive status is one of ritual purity, that is the halakha only for the days following immersion. But she transmits ritual impurity to the ritually pure items that she handled before the examination in which she found blood for a twenty-four-hour period and from examination to examination, in accordance with the halakha of a woman who experiences bleeding (see 2a). And if she has a fixed menstrual cycle, on the day that she examined herself and found blood, her time is sufficient, i.e., it is assumed that the bleeding began then, and she does not transmit impurity retroactively.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 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 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟诪讗讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬诐 诇谞讚转讛 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖讛 讜诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专讛

And Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to any woman who did not perform the examination marking her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day from min岣 time onward, even if she performed an examination and found no blood that morning, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual impurity. And the Rabbis say: Even if on the second day of her menstruation she performed the examination and found that she is ritually pure, and she did not perform the examination marking her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day during twilight, and after several days she examined herself and found that she is ritually impure, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual purity from the time of her immersion until her examination.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讝讘讛 讜讚讗讬 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讝讘讛 住驻拽

GEMARA: The Gemara cites a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to a case where a woman did not perform an examination indicating her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity, and three days passed in which it is possible that she received the status of a zava, and then she found that she was ritually impure. It was stated that Rav says: This woman is a definite greater zava. And Levi says: She is an uncertain greater zava.

讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专讛 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: To which clause of the mishna does this dispute apply? If we say that Rav and Levi are referring to the first clause, i.e., a woman who examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself to be ritually pure, but she did not examine herself at twilight, and several days later she examined herself and found herself to be impure, this cannot be correct, as the mishna teaches: The presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual purity. She is not a zava at all.

讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗 讘砖诇诪讗 住驻拽 讝讘讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讝讘讛 讜讚讗讬 谞诪讬 讛专讬 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛

Rather, say that they are referring to the latter clause of the mishna, when she examined herself on the morning of the seventh day and found herself to be ritually impure. If so, granted Levi鈥檚 opinion is reasonable, as we say that this woman is an uncertain greater zava. But how can one explain Rav鈥檚 opinion that she is even a definite greater zava? After all, she examined herself and found that she is ritually pure. If so, how can she be a definite zava?

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讜诇讜讬 砖诪注转讗 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讛 讗讬转诪专 谞讚讛 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 砖讞专讬转 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖讛 讜诇讗讞专 讬诪讬诐 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 专讘 讗诪专 讝讘讛 讜讚讗讬 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讝讘讛 住驻拽

Rather, when the dispute of Rav and Levi was stated, it was stated as a distinct halakha unrelated to the mishna, as follows: With regard to a menstruating woman who examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was ritually impure, and at twilight of the seventh day she did not perform an examination to confirm her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity, and after several days she examined herself and found that she is ritually impure, Rav says: This woman is a definite greater zava. And Levi says: She is an uncertain greater zava.

专讘 讗诪专 讝讘讛 讜讚讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪爪讗转 讟诪讗讛 讜注讻砖讬讜 谞诪爪讗转 讟诪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讚讗讬 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 住驻拽 讝讘讛 讗讬诪专 驻住拽讛 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬

The Gemara explains their opinions. Rav says: This woman is a definite greater zava, since from the outset she found herself to be ritually impure, and now she found herself to also be ritually impure. Consequently, she is definitely impure. And Levi says: This woman is an uncertain greater zava, as one can say that perhaps she stopped experiencing bleeding in between the morning of her seventh day of menstruation when she first found herself to be impure and several days later, on the second occasion that she found herself to be impure.

讜讻谉 转谞讗 诇讜讬 讘诪转谞讬转讗 讗讞专 讛讬诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘讬谉 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讛专讬 讝讜 住驻拽 讝讘讛

And Levi taught similarly in a baraita: If a woman examined herself on the seventh day of menstruation and found herself to be impure, and she did not perform the examination to confirm her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity, and after several days she examined herself, whether she examined herself and found herself to be ritually pure or whether she examined herself and found herself to be ritually impure, she is an uncertain greater zava.

讜诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 诇讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛

搂 The mishna teaches: But she transmits ritual impurity to the ritually pure items that she handled before the examination in which she found blood for a twenty-four-hour period. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava, as Rava said, with regard to the statement in the mishna on 38b that a woman has a presumptive status of ritual purity during the eleven days of potential ziva: This serves to say that a woman does not transmit ritual impurity for a twenty-four-hour period before experiencing bleeding during her days of ziva.

讜诇讗讜 讗讜转讘讬谞讬讛 诇专讘讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 谞诪讬 诪讛讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the Gemara already cite a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava one time, on 39a? The Gemara explains that this is what we are saying: Let us say that there is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava from this mishna as well.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讗专讬砖 驻专拽讬谉 拽讗讬 讗专讗转讛 讜注讜讚讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

The Gemara responds that Rava could have said to you that when the mishna teaches: She transmits ritual impurity for a twenty-four-hour period, it is referring to the beginning of our chapter. Specifically, it is speaking of the mishna on 64b, which discusses the case of a young woman who saw menstrual blood before marriage while she was still in her father鈥檚 house. According to Beit Hillel she may engage in intercourse only the first night, during which the blood is considered the blood from the torn hymen rather than the blood of menstruation. This mishna is teaching that from that point onward, when she experiences bleeding she renders items impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, like other women.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪驻住拽讬 诇讛讜 讬诪讬诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讻转讞诇转 谞讚转讛 讚诪讬讗 讜诇讗 转讟诪讗 诪注转 诇注转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that this ruling is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that since her cycle of menstruation and ziva is interrupted by days when any blood she discharges is considered to be ritually pure, she now reverts back as though it is considered like the beginning of her days of menstruation, and she does not transmit ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. Therefore, this mishna teaches us that she does transmit impurity retroactively.

讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 谞讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And if she has a fixed menstrual cycle on the day that she examined herself and found blood, her time is sufficient and she does not transmit impurity retroactively. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna bar 岣yya, with regard to the ruling he says that Shmuel says? As Rav Huna bar 岣yya says that Shmuel says, with regard to the mishna on 38b that teaches that a woman has a presumptive status of ritual purity during the eleven days of potential ziva: This serves to say that a woman does not establish a fixed menstrual cycle during her days of ziva.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 拽讜讘注转 诇讛 讜住转 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘转讛 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 转诇转讗 讝讬诪谞讬 诇诪讬注拽专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诪讬讛 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讚诪讬讛 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

The Gemara answers that Rav Huna bar 岣yya could have said to you: When we say that a woman does not establish a fixed menstrual cycle during her days of ziva, we meant this only as a leniency, that she does not require three times to uproot any such cycle. Rather, she uproots it after one time when she does not experience bleeding in accordance with that cycle. As we say that her menstrual blood is removed during her days of ziva, and she is unlikely to discharge menstrual blood during that time. And since her blood is removed, if she established a fixed menstrual cycle it is sufficient for her to be deemed impure from the hour that she saw the menstrual flow. There is no decree of retroactive impurity on items that she previously touched due to the concern that the blood flow might have started earlier.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇诪诇讬 讬讚讬讛 诪讜谞讞讜转 讘注讬谞讬讛 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讬驻讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to any woman who did not perform the examination indicating her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day from min岣 time onward, even if she performed an examination and found no blood that morning, the presumptive status of that woman is one of ritual impurity. It is taught in a baraita that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: If the halakha had been that a woman who will immerse must keep her hands placed in her eyes, a euphemism for her vagina, for the entire twilight period, what you say is fine. It would be reasonable to assume that since she did not examine herself at the end of the day she has a presumptive status of ritual impurity.

注讻砖讬讜 讗讬诪专 注诐 住诇讜拽 讬讚讬讛 专讗转讛 诪讛 诇讬 讛驻专讬砖讛 讘讟讛专讛 讘砖讘讬注讬 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 讛驻专讬砖讛 讘讟讛专讛 讘专讗砖讜谉

But now that you say that it is insufficient to examine herself in the morning, what is your reasoning? Evidently, you say that when she removed her hand from examining herself perhaps she saw blood and is impure. If so, what difference is it to me if she performed the examination indicating her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day from min岣 time onward, and what difference is it to me if she performed the examination indicating her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the first day of her counting?

讘专讗砖讜谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专

The Gemara asks: Why do the Rabbis mention an examination on the first day of her counting? Is there one who said that if a woman examines herself only on the first day that is sufficient?

讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖讗诇转讬 讗转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬诐 讘讚专讱 谞讚讛 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 砖讞专讬转 讜诪爪讗讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖讛 讜诇讗讞专 讛讬诪讬诐 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讛讜

The Gemara answers: Yes, there is such an opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I asked Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon the following question when they were walking on the road: With regard to a menstruating woman who examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself to be ritually pure, but at twilight she did not perform the examination indicating her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity, and after several days she examined herself and found herself to be ritually impure, what is the halakha?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 砖砖讬 讞诪讬砖讬 专讘讬注讬 砖诇讬砖讬 砖谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon said to him: She has a presumptive status of ritual purity up until the moment that she discovered that she was impure. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi asked them additional questions: If she examined herself on the sixth day, or the fifth day, or the fourth day, or the third day, or even the second day, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon said to him: The halakha is no different. In all of these cases she has a presumptive status of ritual purity until she discovers that she is impure.

讘专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 砖讗诇转讬 讜讟注讬转讬 砖诇讗 砖讗诇转讬 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗讜 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚驻住拽 驻住拽 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚驻住拽 驻住拽

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi comments: I did not ask about a woman who examined herself on the first day, and I erred in that I did not ask them. If I would have asked them they would have told me that even if she examined herself only on the first day, she still has a presumptive status of ritual purity. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi explains his reasoning: Is that to say that on all of these other days she was not standing with a presumptive status of ritual impurity? And nevertheless, once she performed the examination and her blood is found to have stopped, it is considered to have stopped, and she now has the presumptive status of a woman whose bleeding has stopped. If so, on the first day too, once she performed the examination and her blood is found to have stopped, it is considered to have stopped, and she now has a presumptive status of a woman whose bleeding has stopped.

讜诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 住讘专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讞讝拽 诪注讬谉 驻转讜讞

The Gemara asks: And initially, what did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold? Why didn鈥檛 he ask them about a woman who examined herself only on the first day? The Gemara answers that he held that since she has a presumptive status that her spring, i.e., her uterus, is open, as she had just begun experiencing bleeding, an examination conducted on that day is ineffective. In any event, this baraita teaches that there is an opinion that even if a woman examined herself only on the first day, she has a presumptive status of ritual purity.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 砖讘讚拽讜 注爪诪谉 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 讜砖讗专 讬诪讬诐 砖讘讬谞转讬讬诐 诇讗 讘讚拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讞讝拽转 讟讛专讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 砖讘讬注讬 讘诇讘讚

MISHNA: With regard to a zav and a zava, who are required to count and examine themselves on each of seven clean days before purification in a ritual bath, who examined themselves on the first day and found themselves ritually pure, i.e., with no blood, and they examined themselves on the seventh day and found themselves ritually pure, and on the rest of the intervening days they did not examine themselves, Rabbi Eliezer says: The presumptive status of the zav and the zava is one of ritual purity. Rabbi Yehoshua says: In that case, the zav and the zava have counted only the first day and the seventh day, two of the seven clean days, and they must count another five days to complete the tally. Rabbi Akiva says: The zav and the zava have counted only the seventh day, and they must count another six days to complete the tally.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讚讘专讬讱 讗转讛 诪讜谞讛 讘住讬专讜讙讬谉 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讗讞专 转讟讛专 讗讞专 讗讞专 诇讻讜诇谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛谉

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: According to your statement, that the first day is included in her count of seven, you are counting at intervals, i.e., with days in-between that do not count, and the Torah states: 鈥淏ut if she be purified of her ziva, then she shall count to herself seven days, and after that she shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 15:28). This teaches that the purification of a zava must be after the seven days, i.e., after all of the days, which must be consecutive so that there are no days of impurity separating between the seven clean days.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讗转讛 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 讘讝讘 砖专讗讛 拽专讬 讜讘谞讝讬专 砖讛讬诇讱 住讻讻讜转 讜驻专注讜转 砖诪讜谞讛 讘住讬专讜讙讬谉 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讜讛讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖谞讬诐 讬驻诇讜

Rabbi Yehoshua says: And you too, do you not concede with regard to a zav who experienced a seminal emission during his count of seven clean days, and with regard to a nazirite who walked under overhanging boughs and protrusions that have items whose status of impurity is uncertain beneath them, that they count at intervals, as both are impure for one day before resuming their counting? And yet the Torah states with regard to a nazirite who definitely contracted ritual impurity from a corpse: 鈥淏ut the former days shall be void, because his consecration was defiled鈥 (Numbers 6:12). This indicates that even in cases where the Torah says that one must count consecutively, it is permitted to count with intervals in between countings.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 诇讟诪讗讛 讘讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 砖讗讬谞讛 住讜转专转 讗诇讗 讬讜诪讛 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讝讘 讘讘注诇 拽专讬 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝

And how would Rabbi Eliezer respond to Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 claim? He would say: Granted, there in the cases of the zav and the nazirite, the Merciful One states: 鈥淭his is the law of him that has an issue, and of him from whom an emission of semen goes out, so that he is thereby impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:32). This teaches that when a zav experiences a seminal emission it overturns the counting of only that one day. And if one would claim that the Sages should issue a decree due to the concern that one might confuse the halakha of one who had an emission of ziva during the seven clean days with a zav who had a seminal emission during the seven clean days, that is not a concern. The reason is that an emission of a ziva will not be confused with the case of one who experienced a seminal emission.

谞讝讬专 砖讛讬诇讱 注诇 讙讘讬 住讻讻讜转 讜驻专注讜转 谞诪讬 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讛诇 诪注诇讬讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝讜专 讜专讘谞谉 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝

Similarly, Rabbi Eliezer would say that in the case of a nazirite who walked under overhanging boughs and protrusions that have items whose status of impurity is uncertain beneath them, there is also no need to overturn all the previous days of counting, as by Torah law we require a full-fledged tent over a corpse, and it was the Sages who decreed that one who walks under overhanging boughs and protrusions is ritually impure. And a halakha that applies by rabbinic law will not be confused with a halakha that is mandated by Torah law.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讞讝讗讬 讘住驻拽 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讘讜讚讗讬

But here, in the case of a zava who counts only the first and seventh day, if we are concerned that as she did not count the five intermediate days perhaps she saw blood during those days, and since what occurred on those days is uncertain, only the first day counts for her, then one might come to confuse this situation with a case where she is certain that she saw blood during the intermediate days. One might mistakenly think that even if she definitely experiences bleeding during the intermediate days she can still count the first day as one of her seven clean days before immersing.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讚讘专讬 讻讜诇谉 讗讘诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears more correct than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, and the statement of Rabbi Akiva appears more correct than the statement of all of them. But nevertheless, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 砖讘讚拽讜 注爪诪谉 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬讜诐 砖诪讬谞讬 讜诪爪讗讜 讟讛讜专 讜砖讗专 讛讬诪讬诐 诇讗 讘讚拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a zav and a zava who examined themselves on the first day of their seven clean days and found themselves to be pure, and they examined themselves again on the eighth day and found themselves to be pure, but they did not examine themselves on the remainder of the days,

Scroll To Top