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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 1, 2019 | 讙壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖状驻

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

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

Niddah 9

When is a woman considered pregnant to determine that she is considered as one who doesn’t bleed and we don’t retroactively invalidate her pure items she had dealt with before she saw blood? Are bodily signs of pregnancy taken into consideration? When is a woman considered “nursing” who is assumed not to have a regular period? Does it depend on whether or not she is nursing or is it up to 24 months after childbirth, regardless of whether one is nursing? When is a woman considered “old”? The gemara brings various subjective definitions, relating to how they are perceived in the eyes of others. What happens to an older woman who stops and then starts bleeding again somewhat regularly? What about a young girl who starts bleeding – at what point is she considered to have a regular cycle and her pure items are retroactively deemed impure? Who does the law differ for a young girl who is of the age where girls generally start menstruating from a girl who is not of the age? What happens if they start seeing regularly and then stop?


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

拽讜砖讬 住诪讜讱 诇诇讬讚讛 专讞诪谞讗 讟讛专讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 讛谞讞 诪注转 诇注转 讚专讘谞谉

as with regard to blood emitted while experiencing labor pain close to the time of a proper birth, the Merciful One deems it pure, and it should not be treated as the blood of a zava. Rav Pappi says: The miscarriage is not considered a proper birth and therefore her blood is considered the blood of a zava. And leave aside the first baraita and do not raise a contradiction from it, as the halakha that a woman who sees menstrual blood is retroactively impure for a twenty-four-hour period, which is the topic under discussion in that baraita, applies by rabbinic law, and they did not impose this stringency in the case of a woman who miscarries.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讗砖讛 讻讘讚 注诇讬讛 讜讗讘专讬讛 讻讘讚讬谉 注诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 专讗砖讛 讜讗讘专讬讛 讻讘讚讬谉 注诇讬讛

Rav Pappa says: That reason for the halakha that a pregnant woman is not retroactively impure when she experiences bleeding is only because her head and limbs feel heavy to her. Her physical state is compromised, which also causes her regular menstrual cycle to cease. Here, too, in the case of a pregnancy that precedes a miscarriage, even if it is not considered a proper birth, her head and limbs felt heavy to her during her pregnancy, and therefore it can be assumed that she did not experience a prior menstrual flow.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专讗转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讞讝讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛 诪讟诪讬讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚住诪讜讱 诇讛 讞讝讗讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗

With regard to the mishna鈥檚 ruling that the time of a pregnant woman is sufficient, Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: If she saw blood and only afterward her fetus became known to all who see her, what is the halakha? One can claim that since at the time when she saw the blood her fetus was not yet known, therefore she becomes impure; or perhaps, since she saw blood in close proximity to the time that her fetus became known, she does not become impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讗砖讛 讻讘讚 注诇讬讛 讜讗讘专讬讛 讻讘讚讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讞讝讗讬 讗讬谉 专讗砖讛 讻讘讚 注诇讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讘专讬讛 讻讘讚讬谉 注诇讬讛

Rabbi Zeira said to him: That reason for the halakha that a pregnant woman鈥檚 time is sufficient is only because her head and limbs feel heavy to her. In this case, where she was yet unaware of her pregnancy at the time when she saw her menstrual flow, neither her head nor her limbs felt heavy to her. Therefore she is impure retroactively, like any other woman.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讙讬注 注转 讜住转讛 讘讬诪讬 注讘讜专讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 诪讛讜 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讚诪讬讛 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛

A certain elder asked Rabbi Yo岣nan: If the time of a woman鈥檚 fixed menstrual cycle arrived during her pregnancy and she did not perform an examination, what is the halakha? I raise this dilemma only according to the opinion of the one who said that the obligation for a woman to perform a self-examination during her fixed menstrual cycle applies by Torah law. What is the halakha? According to that opinion, one can claim that since the obligation of an examination during one鈥檚 fixed menstrual cycle is by Torah law, she is required to perform an examination even during her pregnancy. Or perhaps, since her blood has stopped, as a pregnant woman generally does not experience a flow of menstrual blood, she is not required to perform an examination.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讘诪讞讘讗 讜讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖讞专讚讛 诪住诇拽转 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞专讚讛 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讞专讚讛 讜讛讙讬注 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟诪讗讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: You learned the answer to your dilemma from a mishna (39a): Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding from danger, and the time of her fixed menstrual cycle came and she did not examine herself, nevertheless she is ritually pure, as it may be assumed that she did not experience bleeding because fear dispels the flow of menstrual blood. Rabbi Yo岣nan explains the proof: The reason she is pure is that there is fear, from which it may be inferred that in a case where there is no fear and the time of her fixed menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she would be impure.

讗诇诪讗 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讞专讚讛 讚诪讬讛 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 讜诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讛 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 讜诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan concludes: Evidently, from the fact that Rabbi Meir rules that a woman is impure if the time of her period passed without a proper examination, he maintains that the obligation for a woman to perform an examination at the time of her fixed menstrual cycle applies by Torah law. And, nevertheless, since there is fear, her blood has stopped and she is not required to perform an examination. Here, too, in the case of a pregnant woman, her blood has stopped and therefore she is not required to perform an examination.

诪谞讬拽讛 注讚 砖转讙诪讜诇 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬拽讛 砖诪转 讘谞讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 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 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪谞讬拽转讜 讜讛讜诇讻转 讗专讘注 讗讜 讞诪砖 砖谞讬诐 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

搂 The mishna teaches: The time of a nursing woman is sufficient until she weans her child from nursing. The Sages taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 2:1): With regard to a nursing woman whose child dies within twenty-four months of his birth, she is like all other women with regard to her impurity status after seeing menstrual blood, and therefore she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination. Therefore, if a woman continued to nurse her child for four or five years, her time is sufficient and she does not retroactively transmit impurity for the entire four or five years. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讻诇 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讞讚砖 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪谞讬拽转讜 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon all say: With regard to nursing women, their time is sufficient for an entire twenty-four months. Therefore, if she nursed him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

讻砖转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诐 谞注讻专 讜谞注砖讛 讞诇讘 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘专讬讛 诪转驻专拽讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞驻砖讛 讞讜讝专转 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讞讚砖

The Gemara discusses the reasoning of each opinion: When you analyze the matter you will find that one must say that according to the statement of Rabbi Meir the case is that menstrual blood spoils and becomes milk. Therefore, it follows that this status continues for as long as she is nursing. By contrast, according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, her limbs become dislocated and her spirit, i.e., her full strength and her regular menstrual cycle, does not return to her until twenty-four months have passed.

诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the statement of Rabbi Meir: Therefore, if a woman continued to nurse her child for four or five years, her time is sufficient? Since his reasoning is that the menstrual blood of a nursing woman spoils and becomes milk, it is obvious that this applies as long as she continues to nurse him. The Gemara answers: This statement is indeed extraneous. It merely serves to form a parallel between the statement of Rabbi Meir and that of the other Sages. In other words, it was appended due to the statement: Therefore, if she was nursing him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, which is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讜诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转专转讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara further asks: And why do I need the statement: Therefore, if she was nursing him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, which is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? The Gemara explains that this clause is necessary, lest you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that there are two reasons that a pregnant woman鈥檚 time is sufficient, both because her blood spoils and because her limbs become dislocated. Therefore, the additional clause teaches us that Rabbi Yosei maintains that the reason is only that her limbs become dislocated, and consequently she transmits retroactive impurity after twenty-four months.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讚诐 谞注讻专 讜谞注砖讛 讞诇讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讘专讬讛 诪转驻专拽讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞驻砖讛 讞讜讝专转 注诇讬讛 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讞讚砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讻转讬讘 诪讬 讬转谉 讟讛讜专 诪讟诪讗 诇讗 讗讞讚

That explanation is also taught in a baraita: Menstrual blood spoils and becomes milk; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: Her limbs become dislocated and her spirit does not return to her until twenty-four months have passed. The Gemara analyzes their respective reasons. Rabbi Ilai says: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? It is based upon a verse, as it is written: 鈥淲ho can bring a pure thing out of an impure? Is it not the One?鈥 (Job 14:4). In other words, is it not true that the One, i.e., God, can bring a pure thing, such as milk, out of an impure thing, such as menstrual blood?

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讗讚诐 讛谞讜爪专 诪诪谞讜 讟讛讜专

The Gemara asks: And the other Sages, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, how do they interpret this verse? Rabbi Yo岣nan says that according to those Sages this verse is referring to semen, which is impure, and yet the person that is formed from it is pure.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诇讜 诪讬 讛谞讚讛 砖讛诪讝讛 讜诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 讟讛讜专 讜谞讜讙注 讟诪讗 讜诪讝讛 讟讛讜专 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜诪讝讛 诪讬 讛谞讚讛 讬讻讘住 讘讙讚讬讜 诪讗讬 诪讝讛 谞讜讙注

And Rabbi Elazar says: Those Sages maintain that this verse is referring to the water of sprinkling, i.e., the purification water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer. As the individual who sprinkles the water and the one upon whom the water is sprinkled are both pure, and yet one who touches the purification water is rendered impure. The Gemara asks: Is the one who sprinkles the water actually pure? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗e who sprinkles the water of sprinkling will wash his clothes, and he who touches the water of sprinkling will be impure until evening鈥 (Numbers 19:21)? The Gemara responds: What is the meaning of the term: 鈥淗e who sprinkles鈥? It means: He who touches.

讜讛讻转讬讘 诪讝讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 谞讜讙注 讜注讜讚 诪讝讛 讘注讬 讻讘讜住 谞讜讙注 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讘讜住 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪讝讛 谞讜砖讗

The Gemara asks: But it is written: 鈥淗e who sprinkles,鈥 and it is written in the same verse: 鈥淎nd he who touches.鈥 How can these two terms be referring to the same individual? And furthermore, that verse states that one who sprinkles requires the washing of his clothes, indicating a severe level of impurity, whereas one who touches does not require the washing of his clothes. Evidently, the phrase 鈥渉e who sprinkles鈥 is not referring to one who touches. Rather, the Gemara explains: What is the meaning of: 鈥淗e who sprinkles鈥? This is referring to one who carries the purification waters.

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 谞讜砖讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚注讚 讚讚专讬 讻砖讬注讜专 讛讝讗讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讝讗讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: But if so, let the Torah write explicitly: One who carries. Why does it state 鈥渉e who sprinkles鈥 when it is referring to carrying? The Gemara answers: The use of the term sprinkling in reference to carrying teaches us that one becomes impure only by carrying the measure required for sprinkling. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that sprinkling requires a minimum measure of water. But according to the one who said that sprinkling does not require a minimum measure of water, what can be said? According to this opinion, there is apparently no concept of a measure required for sprinkling.

讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗讙讘讗 讚讙讘专讗 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讗 讘注讬谞讗 砖讬注讜专 讻讚转谞谉 讻诪讛 讬讛讬讜 讘诪讬诐 讜讬讛讗 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 讛讝讗讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讟讘讜诇 专讗砖讬 讙讘注讜诇讬谉 讜讬讝讛

The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who said that sprinkling does not require a minimum measure of water, that statement applies only to the measure of purification water that must be sprinkled onto the back, i.e., onto the body, of the impure man. In this regard, any amount will suffice. But with regard to the vessel into which one dips the hyssop in order to sprinkle the water, it requires a certain measure of water. As we learned in a mishna (Para 12:5): How much water must be in the vessel so that it will be enough for sprinkling? It must be enough to dip the tops of the stems of the hyssop branch, used in the rite of purification, into the water and sprinkle it.

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 砖诇诪讛 讗诪专转讬 讗讞讻诪讛 讜讛讬讗 专讞讜拽讛 诪诪谞讬

The Gemara concludes the discussion of the purification waters with the following observation: And that is the meaning of that which King Solomon said: 鈥淚 said I would become wise, but it eludes me鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:23). According to tradition, even Solomon in his great wisdom could not understand the contradictory nature of the sprinkling of purification water, as it renders an impure person pure, and a pure person impure.

讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讝拽谞讛 讻诇 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 [住诪讜讱 诇讝拽谞转讛] 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 住诪讜讱 诇讝拽谞转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 砖讞讘专讜转讬讛 讗讜诪专讜转 注诇讬讛 讝拽谞讛 讛讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

搂 The mishna teaches: Who is the woman characterized as an elderly woman in this context? It is any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed at a stage of her life close to her old age, during which she saw no menstrual blood. The Gemara asks: What is considered close to old age? Rav Yehuda says: Any woman about whom her friends say that she is an elderly woman. And Rabbi Shimon says:

讻诇 砖拽讜专讬谉 诇讛 讗诪讗 讗诪讗 讜讗讬谞讛 讘讜砖讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讞讚 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 诪拽驻讚转 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 讘讜砖讛 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽驻讚转

It is any woman who is old enough that people call her: Mother [Imma], Mother, and she is not embarrassed. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k disagree with regard to this matter. One says that the definition is any woman who does not take offense about being called: Mother, Mother. And the other one says that it is any woman who is not embarrassed by this. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between their definitions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where a woman is embarrassed but she does not take offense when called: Mother.

讜讻诪讛 注讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 注讜谞讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 注砖专讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 拽讞砖讬讘 讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讬诪讬 讟讛专讛 讜诪专 诇讗 讞砖讬讘 讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: And how long is a typical menstrual cycle? Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: The average menstrual cycle is thirty days long. And Rava says that Rav 岣sda says: It is twenty days. The Gemara notes: And they do not disagree. One Sage, Rav Yehuda Nesia, counts all the days of her cycle, including the days of impurity and days of purity. And the other Sage, Rav 岣sda, does not count the days of impurity, i.e., the seven days of impurity of a menstruating woman and the three days of the sighting of ziva.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讝拽谞讛 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜注讜讚 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜注讜讚 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 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

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an elderly woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed and then she saw a discharge of menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. And if a further three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed for her and she subsequently saw a discharge of menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. And if yet a further three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed for her and then she saw a discharge of menstrual blood, after this third time she is now like all normal women, and she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

讜诇讗 (诪讬讘注讬讗) 砖讻讜讜谞讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬讞转讛 (讜讗驻讬诇讜) 讜讛讜转讬专讛

The baraita continues: And it is not necessary to teach this halakha in a case where she experienced the three sightings in even intervals of ninety days, as in such a case it is obvious that she assumes the status of a normal woman who transmits impurity retroactively. Rather, even if she had intervals where she decreased, i.e., experienced bleeding at intervals smaller than that, or even if she increased and experienced bleeding at greater intervals, she still assumes the status of a woman who transmits impurity retroactively.

讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬讞转讛 讜诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讻讜讜谞讛 讗讚专讘讛 讻讬 讻讜讜谞讛 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转讛 讜讚讬讛 砖注转讛

The Gemara infers: The wording of the baraita: Even if she had intervals where she decreased, indicates that it is not necessary to teach the halakha in the case of a woman who experienced bleeding at even intervals. This is puzzling, as on the contrary, if she experienced bleeding at even intervals she thereby fixes her menstrual cycle as being every thirty days, and according to Rabbi Dosa (4b) the halakha is that her time is sufficient.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讜诇讗 砖驻讬讞转讛 讜讛讜转讬专讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜讜谞讛

And if you would say that this is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Dosa, as they say that a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, then the baraita should have been written in the opposite fashion: Let it say: And the halakha that an elderly woman who sees menstrual blood at intervals returns to the status of normal women and transmits impurity retroactively applies not only to a case where she had intervals where she decreased or increased, i.e., she experienced bleeding less or more than ninety days apart, but this halakha applies even if she experienced bleeding at even intervals.

转谞讬 诇讗 砖驻讬讞转讛 讜讛讜转讬专讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜讜谞讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜诇讗 砖讻讜讜谞讛 讗诇讗 砖驻讬讞转讛 讜讛讜转讬专讛 讗讘诇 讻讜讜谞讛 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转 讜讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: Teach in the baraita in accordance with this altered version: And the halakha applies not only to a case where she had intervals where she decreased or increased, but this is the halakha even if she experienced bleeding at even intervals. And if you wish say instead that this is what the baraita is saying: The halakha that an elderly woman is retroactively impure does not apply to a case when she saw menstrual blood at even intervals. Rather, it applies only if she decreased or increased, i.e., she experienced bleeding at intervals less or more than ninety days apart. But if she saw blood at even intervals, she thereby fixes a set menstrual cycle of ninety days and her time is sufficient. The Gemara adds: And if so, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗砖讛 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讞讻诪讬诐 诪注砖讛 讘专讬讘讛 讗讞转 讘讛讬转诇讜 砖讛驻住讬拽讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles passed during which she saw no menstrual blood, if she experiences bleeding, her time is sufficient. Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if she then saw blood her time is sufficient. Rabbi Eliezer cites a proof for his opinion. It is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain girl in the village of Hitlo who stopped menstruating for three typical menstrual cycles, after which she experienced menstruation. And the matter came before the Sages, and they said that her time is sufficient and she does not transmit impurity retroactively.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 砖注转 讛讚讞拽 专讗讬讛 诪讗讬 砖注转 讛讚讞拽 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖谞讬 讘爪讜专转 讛讜讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讟讛专讜转 讗驻讬砖 诇注讘讬讚讗 讜讞砖讜 专讘谞谉 诇讛驻住讚 讚讟讛专讜转

The other Sages said to Rabbi Eliezer: Decisions rendered in exigent circumstances are no proof. The Gemara asks: What were the exigent circumstances? Some say that it was during the years of famine, and some say that the girl had handled many ritually pure items and the Sages were concerned for the loss of those pure items if they were ruled retroactively impure.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讜注砖讛 专讘讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讗诪专 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽 诪讗讬 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi acted by ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. After he remembered that Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him on this matter and that he had apparently ruled incorrectly, he nevertheless said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: After he remembered? If we say that this means after he remembered that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, if so, how could he act in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer even in exigent circumstances, since the halakha has been decided against him?

讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇讗 讻诪专 讜诇讗 讻诪专 讜诪讗讬 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讚诇讗讜 讬讞讬讚 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬诐 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽

Rather, one must say that the halakha had not been stated on this matter, neither in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, nor in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, the Rabbis. And what is the meaning of: After he remembered? After Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that it was not a lone authority who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, but it was several Sages who disagreed with him, and there is a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many over the opinion of an individual, he nevertheless said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讜专讗转讛 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 砖谞讬讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 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

The Gemara continues the discussion of a woman who fails to experience menstruation for three typical menstrual cycles. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a young girl, less than twelve years old, whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived and she saw menstrual blood, after the first time her time is sufficient. After the second time, again her time is sufficient. After the third time, she is like all normal adult women, and therefore she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-fourhour period or from examination to examination.

注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜注讜讚 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜注讜讚 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 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

The baraita continues: If she then passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, and then she saw menstrual blood, she returns to the status of a young girl and her time is sufficient. And if it further happens that she again passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, and then she saw menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. And if she passed three further cycles without experiencing bleeding, and she subsequently saw menstrual blood, she is like all normal adult women. She is considered a woman who experiences regular menstruation at long intervals with breaks of ninety days. And therefore she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

讜讻砖讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 砖谞讬讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

The baraita concludes: And with regard to a girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has arrived, i.e., she has reached the age of twelve, when she sees menstrual blood for the first time, her time is sufficient. After the second time, she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination. If three menstrual cycles then passed without her experiencing bleeding, and afterward she saw menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that any woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating.

讗诪专 诪专 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

The Master said in the baraita: If the young girl who had started menstruating passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding and then saw menstrual blood, she returns to the status of a young girl and her time is sufficient.

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Niddah 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 9

拽讜砖讬 住诪讜讱 诇诇讬讚讛 专讞诪谞讗 讟讛专讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 讛谞讞 诪注转 诇注转 讚专讘谞谉

as with regard to blood emitted while experiencing labor pain close to the time of a proper birth, the Merciful One deems it pure, and it should not be treated as the blood of a zava. Rav Pappi says: The miscarriage is not considered a proper birth and therefore her blood is considered the blood of a zava. And leave aside the first baraita and do not raise a contradiction from it, as the halakha that a woman who sees menstrual blood is retroactively impure for a twenty-four-hour period, which is the topic under discussion in that baraita, applies by rabbinic law, and they did not impose this stringency in the case of a woman who miscarries.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讗砖讛 讻讘讚 注诇讬讛 讜讗讘专讬讛 讻讘讚讬谉 注诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 专讗砖讛 讜讗讘专讬讛 讻讘讚讬谉 注诇讬讛

Rav Pappa says: That reason for the halakha that a pregnant woman is not retroactively impure when she experiences bleeding is only because her head and limbs feel heavy to her. Her physical state is compromised, which also causes her regular menstrual cycle to cease. Here, too, in the case of a pregnancy that precedes a miscarriage, even if it is not considered a proper birth, her head and limbs felt heavy to her during her pregnancy, and therefore it can be assumed that she did not experience a prior menstrual flow.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专讗转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讞讝讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讻专 注讜讘专讛 诪讟诪讬讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚住诪讜讱 诇讛 讞讝讗讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗

With regard to the mishna鈥檚 ruling that the time of a pregnant woman is sufficient, Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: If she saw blood and only afterward her fetus became known to all who see her, what is the halakha? One can claim that since at the time when she saw the blood her fetus was not yet known, therefore she becomes impure; or perhaps, since she saw blood in close proximity to the time that her fetus became known, she does not become impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讗砖讛 讻讘讚 注诇讬讛 讜讗讘专讬讛 讻讘讚讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讞讝讗讬 讗讬谉 专讗砖讛 讻讘讚 注诇讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讘专讬讛 讻讘讚讬谉 注诇讬讛

Rabbi Zeira said to him: That reason for the halakha that a pregnant woman鈥檚 time is sufficient is only because her head and limbs feel heavy to her. In this case, where she was yet unaware of her pregnancy at the time when she saw her menstrual flow, neither her head nor her limbs felt heavy to her. Therefore she is impure retroactively, like any other woman.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讙讬注 注转 讜住转讛 讘讬诪讬 注讘讜专讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 诪讛讜 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讚诪讬讛 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛

A certain elder asked Rabbi Yo岣nan: If the time of a woman鈥檚 fixed menstrual cycle arrived during her pregnancy and she did not perform an examination, what is the halakha? I raise this dilemma only according to the opinion of the one who said that the obligation for a woman to perform a self-examination during her fixed menstrual cycle applies by Torah law. What is the halakha? According to that opinion, one can claim that since the obligation of an examination during one鈥檚 fixed menstrual cycle is by Torah law, she is required to perform an examination even during her pregnancy. Or perhaps, since her blood has stopped, as a pregnant woman generally does not experience a flow of menstrual blood, she is not required to perform an examination.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讘诪讞讘讗 讜讛讙讬注 砖注转 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖讞专讚讛 诪住诇拽转 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞专讚讛 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讞专讚讛 讜讛讙讬注 讜住转讛 讜诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讟诪讗讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: You learned the answer to your dilemma from a mishna (39a): Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding from danger, and the time of her fixed menstrual cycle came and she did not examine herself, nevertheless she is ritually pure, as it may be assumed that she did not experience bleeding because fear dispels the flow of menstrual blood. Rabbi Yo岣nan explains the proof: The reason she is pure is that there is fear, from which it may be inferred that in a case where there is no fear and the time of her fixed menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she would be impure.

讗诇诪讗 讜住转讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讞专讚讛 讚诪讬讛 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 讜诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讛 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 讜诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan concludes: Evidently, from the fact that Rabbi Meir rules that a woman is impure if the time of her period passed without a proper examination, he maintains that the obligation for a woman to perform an examination at the time of her fixed menstrual cycle applies by Torah law. And, nevertheless, since there is fear, her blood has stopped and she is not required to perform an examination. Here, too, in the case of a pregnant woman, her blood has stopped and therefore she is not required to perform an examination.

诪谞讬拽讛 注讚 砖转讙诪讜诇 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬拽讛 砖诪转 讘谞讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 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 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪谞讬拽转讜 讜讛讜诇讻转 讗专讘注 讗讜 讞诪砖 砖谞讬诐 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

搂 The mishna teaches: The time of a nursing woman is sufficient until she weans her child from nursing. The Sages taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 2:1): With regard to a nursing woman whose child dies within twenty-four months of his birth, she is like all other women with regard to her impurity status after seeing menstrual blood, and therefore she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination. Therefore, if a woman continued to nurse her child for four or five years, her time is sufficient and she does not retroactively transmit impurity for the entire four or five years. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讚讬讬谉 砖注转谉 讻诇 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讞讚砖 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪谞讬拽转讜 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon all say: With regard to nursing women, their time is sufficient for an entire twenty-four months. Therefore, if she nursed him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

讻砖转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诐 谞注讻专 讜谞注砖讛 讞诇讘 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘专讬讛 诪转驻专拽讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞驻砖讛 讞讜讝专转 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讞讚砖

The Gemara discusses the reasoning of each opinion: When you analyze the matter you will find that one must say that according to the statement of Rabbi Meir the case is that menstrual blood spoils and becomes milk. Therefore, it follows that this status continues for as long as she is nursing. By contrast, according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, her limbs become dislocated and her spirit, i.e., her full strength and her regular menstrual cycle, does not return to her until twenty-four months have passed.

诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the statement of Rabbi Meir: Therefore, if a woman continued to nurse her child for four or five years, her time is sufficient? Since his reasoning is that the menstrual blood of a nursing woman spoils and becomes milk, it is obvious that this applies as long as she continues to nurse him. The Gemara answers: This statement is indeed extraneous. It merely serves to form a parallel between the statement of Rabbi Meir and that of the other Sages. In other words, it was appended due to the statement: Therefore, if she was nursing him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, which is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讜诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转专转讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara further asks: And why do I need the statement: Therefore, if she was nursing him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, which is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? The Gemara explains that this clause is necessary, lest you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that there are two reasons that a pregnant woman鈥檚 time is sufficient, both because her blood spoils and because her limbs become dislocated. Therefore, the additional clause teaches us that Rabbi Yosei maintains that the reason is only that her limbs become dislocated, and consequently she transmits retroactive impurity after twenty-four months.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讚诐 谞注讻专 讜谞注砖讛 讞诇讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讘专讬讛 诪转驻专拽讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞驻砖讛 讞讜讝专转 注诇讬讛 注讚 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讞讚砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讻转讬讘 诪讬 讬转谉 讟讛讜专 诪讟诪讗 诇讗 讗讞讚

That explanation is also taught in a baraita: Menstrual blood spoils and becomes milk; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: Her limbs become dislocated and her spirit does not return to her until twenty-four months have passed. The Gemara analyzes their respective reasons. Rabbi Ilai says: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? It is based upon a verse, as it is written: 鈥淲ho can bring a pure thing out of an impure? Is it not the One?鈥 (Job 14:4). In other words, is it not true that the One, i.e., God, can bring a pure thing, such as milk, out of an impure thing, such as menstrual blood?

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讗讚诐 讛谞讜爪专 诪诪谞讜 讟讛讜专

The Gemara asks: And the other Sages, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, how do they interpret this verse? Rabbi Yo岣nan says that according to those Sages this verse is referring to semen, which is impure, and yet the person that is formed from it is pure.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诇讜 诪讬 讛谞讚讛 砖讛诪讝讛 讜诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 讟讛讜专 讜谞讜讙注 讟诪讗 讜诪讝讛 讟讛讜专 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜诪讝讛 诪讬 讛谞讚讛 讬讻讘住 讘讙讚讬讜 诪讗讬 诪讝讛 谞讜讙注

And Rabbi Elazar says: Those Sages maintain that this verse is referring to the water of sprinkling, i.e., the purification water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer. As the individual who sprinkles the water and the one upon whom the water is sprinkled are both pure, and yet one who touches the purification water is rendered impure. The Gemara asks: Is the one who sprinkles the water actually pure? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗e who sprinkles the water of sprinkling will wash his clothes, and he who touches the water of sprinkling will be impure until evening鈥 (Numbers 19:21)? The Gemara responds: What is the meaning of the term: 鈥淗e who sprinkles鈥? It means: He who touches.

讜讛讻转讬讘 诪讝讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 谞讜讙注 讜注讜讚 诪讝讛 讘注讬 讻讘讜住 谞讜讙注 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讘讜住 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪讝讛 谞讜砖讗

The Gemara asks: But it is written: 鈥淗e who sprinkles,鈥 and it is written in the same verse: 鈥淎nd he who touches.鈥 How can these two terms be referring to the same individual? And furthermore, that verse states that one who sprinkles requires the washing of his clothes, indicating a severe level of impurity, whereas one who touches does not require the washing of his clothes. Evidently, the phrase 鈥渉e who sprinkles鈥 is not referring to one who touches. Rather, the Gemara explains: What is the meaning of: 鈥淗e who sprinkles鈥? This is referring to one who carries the purification waters.

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 谞讜砖讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚注讚 讚讚专讬 讻砖讬注讜专 讛讝讗讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讝讗讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: But if so, let the Torah write explicitly: One who carries. Why does it state 鈥渉e who sprinkles鈥 when it is referring to carrying? The Gemara answers: The use of the term sprinkling in reference to carrying teaches us that one becomes impure only by carrying the measure required for sprinkling. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that sprinkling requires a minimum measure of water. But according to the one who said that sprinkling does not require a minimum measure of water, what can be said? According to this opinion, there is apparently no concept of a measure required for sprinkling.

讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗讙讘讗 讚讙讘专讗 讗讘诇 讘诪谞讗 讘注讬谞讗 砖讬注讜专 讻讚转谞谉 讻诪讛 讬讛讬讜 讘诪讬诐 讜讬讛讗 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 讛讝讗讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讟讘讜诇 专讗砖讬 讙讘注讜诇讬谉 讜讬讝讛

The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who said that sprinkling does not require a minimum measure of water, that statement applies only to the measure of purification water that must be sprinkled onto the back, i.e., onto the body, of the impure man. In this regard, any amount will suffice. But with regard to the vessel into which one dips the hyssop in order to sprinkle the water, it requires a certain measure of water. As we learned in a mishna (Para 12:5): How much water must be in the vessel so that it will be enough for sprinkling? It must be enough to dip the tops of the stems of the hyssop branch, used in the rite of purification, into the water and sprinkle it.

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 砖诇诪讛 讗诪专转讬 讗讞讻诪讛 讜讛讬讗 专讞讜拽讛 诪诪谞讬

The Gemara concludes the discussion of the purification waters with the following observation: And that is the meaning of that which King Solomon said: 鈥淚 said I would become wise, but it eludes me鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:23). According to tradition, even Solomon in his great wisdom could not understand the contradictory nature of the sprinkling of purification water, as it renders an impure person pure, and a pure person impure.

讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讝拽谞讛 讻诇 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 [住诪讜讱 诇讝拽谞转讛] 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 住诪讜讱 诇讝拽谞转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 砖讞讘专讜转讬讛 讗讜诪专讜转 注诇讬讛 讝拽谞讛 讛讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

搂 The mishna teaches: Who is the woman characterized as an elderly woman in this context? It is any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed at a stage of her life close to her old age, during which she saw no menstrual blood. The Gemara asks: What is considered close to old age? Rav Yehuda says: Any woman about whom her friends say that she is an elderly woman. And Rabbi Shimon says:

讻诇 砖拽讜专讬谉 诇讛 讗诪讗 讗诪讗 讜讗讬谞讛 讘讜砖讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讞讚 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 诪拽驻讚转 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 讘讜砖讛 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽驻讚转

It is any woman who is old enough that people call her: Mother [Imma], Mother, and she is not embarrassed. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k disagree with regard to this matter. One says that the definition is any woman who does not take offense about being called: Mother, Mother. And the other one says that it is any woman who is not embarrassed by this. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between their definitions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where a woman is embarrassed but she does not take offense when called: Mother.

讜讻诪讛 注讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 注讜谞讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 注砖专讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 拽讞砖讬讘 讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讬诪讬 讟讛专讛 讜诪专 诇讗 讞砖讬讘 讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: And how long is a typical menstrual cycle? Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: The average menstrual cycle is thirty days long. And Rava says that Rav 岣sda says: It is twenty days. The Gemara notes: And they do not disagree. One Sage, Rav Yehuda Nesia, counts all the days of her cycle, including the days of impurity and days of purity. And the other Sage, Rav 岣sda, does not count the days of impurity, i.e., the seven days of impurity of a menstruating woman and the three days of the sighting of ziva.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讝拽谞讛 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜注讜讚 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜注讜讚 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 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

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an elderly woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed and then she saw a discharge of menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. And if a further three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed for her and she subsequently saw a discharge of menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. And if yet a further three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed for her and then she saw a discharge of menstrual blood, after this third time she is now like all normal women, and she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

讜诇讗 (诪讬讘注讬讗) 砖讻讜讜谞讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬讞转讛 (讜讗驻讬诇讜) 讜讛讜转讬专讛

The baraita continues: And it is not necessary to teach this halakha in a case where she experienced the three sightings in even intervals of ninety days, as in such a case it is obvious that she assumes the status of a normal woman who transmits impurity retroactively. Rather, even if she had intervals where she decreased, i.e., experienced bleeding at intervals smaller than that, or even if she increased and experienced bleeding at greater intervals, she still assumes the status of a woman who transmits impurity retroactively.

讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬讞转讛 讜诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讻讜讜谞讛 讗讚专讘讛 讻讬 讻讜讜谞讛 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转讛 讜讚讬讛 砖注转讛

The Gemara infers: The wording of the baraita: Even if she had intervals where she decreased, indicates that it is not necessary to teach the halakha in the case of a woman who experienced bleeding at even intervals. This is puzzling, as on the contrary, if she experienced bleeding at even intervals she thereby fixes her menstrual cycle as being every thirty days, and according to Rabbi Dosa (4b) the halakha is that her time is sufficient.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 讜住转 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讜诇讗 砖驻讬讞转讛 讜讛讜转讬专讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜讜谞讛

And if you would say that this is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Dosa, as they say that a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, then the baraita should have been written in the opposite fashion: Let it say: And the halakha that an elderly woman who sees menstrual blood at intervals returns to the status of normal women and transmits impurity retroactively applies not only to a case where she had intervals where she decreased or increased, i.e., she experienced bleeding less or more than ninety days apart, but this halakha applies even if she experienced bleeding at even intervals.

转谞讬 诇讗 砖驻讬讞转讛 讜讛讜转讬专讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜讜谞讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜诇讗 砖讻讜讜谞讛 讗诇讗 砖驻讬讞转讛 讜讛讜转讬专讛 讗讘诇 讻讜讜谞讛 拽讘注讛 诇讛 讜住转 讜讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: Teach in the baraita in accordance with this altered version: And the halakha applies not only to a case where she had intervals where she decreased or increased, but this is the halakha even if she experienced bleeding at even intervals. And if you wish say instead that this is what the baraita is saying: The halakha that an elderly woman is retroactively impure does not apply to a case when she saw menstrual blood at even intervals. Rather, it applies only if she decreased or increased, i.e., she experienced bleeding at intervals less or more than ninety days apart. But if she saw blood at even intervals, she thereby fixes a set menstrual cycle of ninety days and her time is sufficient. The Gemara adds: And if so, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗砖讛 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讞讻诪讬诐 诪注砖讛 讘专讬讘讛 讗讞转 讘讛讬转诇讜 砖讛驻住讬拽讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles passed during which she saw no menstrual blood, if she experiences bleeding, her time is sufficient. Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if she then saw blood her time is sufficient. Rabbi Eliezer cites a proof for his opinion. It is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain girl in the village of Hitlo who stopped menstruating for three typical menstrual cycles, after which she experienced menstruation. And the matter came before the Sages, and they said that her time is sufficient and she does not transmit impurity retroactively.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 砖注转 讛讚讞拽 专讗讬讛 诪讗讬 砖注转 讛讚讞拽 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖谞讬 讘爪讜专转 讛讜讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讟讛专讜转 讗驻讬砖 诇注讘讬讚讗 讜讞砖讜 专讘谞谉 诇讛驻住讚 讚讟讛专讜转

The other Sages said to Rabbi Eliezer: Decisions rendered in exigent circumstances are no proof. The Gemara asks: What were the exigent circumstances? Some say that it was during the years of famine, and some say that the girl had handled many ritually pure items and the Sages were concerned for the loss of those pure items if they were ruled retroactively impure.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讜注砖讛 专讘讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讗诪专 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽 诪讗讬 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi acted by ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. After he remembered that Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him on this matter and that he had apparently ruled incorrectly, he nevertheless said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: After he remembered? If we say that this means after he remembered that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, if so, how could he act in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer even in exigent circumstances, since the halakha has been decided against him?

讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇讗 讻诪专 讜诇讗 讻诪专 讜诪讗讬 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讚诇讗讜 讬讞讬讚 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬诐 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽

Rather, one must say that the halakha had not been stated on this matter, neither in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, nor in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, the Rabbis. And what is the meaning of: After he remembered? After Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that it was not a lone authority who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, but it was several Sages who disagreed with him, and there is a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many over the opinion of an individual, he nevertheless said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转谞讜拽转 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 讜专讗转讛 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 砖谞讬讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 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

The Gemara continues the discussion of a woman who fails to experience menstruation for three typical menstrual cycles. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a young girl, less than twelve years old, whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived and she saw menstrual blood, after the first time her time is sufficient. After the second time, again her time is sufficient. After the third time, she is like all normal adult women, and therefore she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-fourhour period or from examination to examination.

注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜注讜讚 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 讜注讜讚 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 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

The baraita continues: If she then passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, and then she saw menstrual blood, she returns to the status of a young girl and her time is sufficient. And if it further happens that she again passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, and then she saw menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. And if she passed three further cycles without experiencing bleeding, and she subsequently saw menstrual blood, she is like all normal adult women. She is considered a woman who experiences regular menstruation at long intervals with breaks of ninety days. And therefore she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

讜讻砖讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇专讗讜转 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 砖谞讬讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讜专讗转讛 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

The baraita concludes: And with regard to a girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has arrived, i.e., she has reached the age of twelve, when she sees menstrual blood for the first time, her time is sufficient. After the second time, she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination. If three menstrual cycles then passed without her experiencing bleeding, and afterward she saw menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that any woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating.

讗诪专 诪专 注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讚讬讛 砖注转讛

The Master said in the baraita: If the young girl who had started menstruating passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding and then saw menstrual blood, she returns to the status of a young girl and her time is sufficient.

Scroll To Top