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?
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Niddah 9
קוֹשִׁי סָמוּךְ לַלֵּידָה רַחֲמָנָא טַהֲרֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב פַּפֵּי: הַנַּח מֵעֵת לְעֵת דְּרַבָּנַן.
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.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מִידִּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּרֹאשָׁהּ כָּבֵד עָלֶיהָ וְאֵבָרֶיהָ כְּבֵדִין עָלֶיהָ, הָכָא נָמֵי רֹאשָׁהּ וְאֵבָרֶיהָ כְּבֵדִין עָלֶיהָ.
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.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: רָאֲתָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הוּכַּר עוּבָּרָהּ, מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דִּבְעִידָּנָא דַּחֲזַאי לֹא הוּכַּר עוּבָּרָהּ — מְטַמְּיָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּסְמִוךְ לַהּ חֲזַאי — לָא מְטַמְּיָא?
With regard to the mishna’s 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִידִּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּרֹאשָׁהּ כָּבֵד עָלֶיהָ וְאֵבָרֶיהָ כְּבֵדִין עָלֶיהָ? בְּעִידָּנָא דַּחֲזַאי — אֵין רֹאשָׁהּ כָּבֵד עָלֶיהָ וְאֵין אֵבָרֶיהָ כְּבֵדִין עָלֶיהָ.
Rabbi Zeira said to him: That reason for the halakha that a pregnant woman’s 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.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִגִּיעַ עֵת וִסְתָּהּ בִּימֵי עִבּוּרָהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, מַהוּ? קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. מַאי? כֵּיוָן דִּוְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּדָמֶיהָ מְסוּלָּקִין לָא בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה?
§ A certain elder asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: If the time of a woman’s 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’s 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁחֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַדָּמִים. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא חֲרָדָה, הָא לֵיכָּא חֲרָדָה וְהִגִּיעַ וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְמֵאָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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.
אַלְמָא וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חֲרָדָה — דָּמֶיהָ מְסוּלָּקִין, וְלָא בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה. הָכָא נָמֵי — דָּמֶיהָ מְסוּלָּקִין, וְלָא בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
מְנִיקָה עַד שֶׁתִּגְמוֹל וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְנִיקָה שֶׁמֵּת בְּנָהּ בְּתוֹךְ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע חֹדֶשׁ — הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכׇל הַנָּשִׁים, וּמְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם הָיְתָה מְנִיקָתוֹ וְהוֹלֶכֶת אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
§ 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.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן כׇּל עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע חֹדֶשׁ, לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה מְנִיקָתוֹ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים — מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה.
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.
כְּשֶׁתִּמָּצֵא לוֹמַר, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — דָּם נֶעְכָּר וְנַעֲשָׂה חָלָב, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — אֵבָרֶיהָ מִתְפָּרְקִין, וְאֵין נַפְשָׁהּ חוֹזֶרֶת עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע חֹדֶשׁ.
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.
״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לְמָה לִי? מִשּׁוּם ״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
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.
וּ״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְמָה לִי? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי תַּרְתֵּי אִית לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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’s 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.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: דָּם נֶעְכָּר וְנַעֲשָׂה חָלָב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵבָרֶיהָ מִתְפָּרְקִין, וְאֵין נַפְשָׁהּ חוֹזֶרֶת עָלֶיהָ עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע חֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? דִּכְתִיב: ״מִי יִתֵּן טָהוֹר מִטָּמֵא לֹא אֶחָד״.
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: “Who can bring a pure thing out of an impure? Is it not the One?” (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?
וְרַבָּנַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, שֶׁהוּא — טָמֵא, וְאָדָם הַנּוֹצֵר מִמֶּנּוּ — טָהוֹר.
The Gemara asks: And the other Sages, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, how do they interpret this verse? Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ מֵי הַנִּדָּה, שֶׁהַמַּזֶּה וּמַזִּין עָלָיו — טָהוֹר, וְנוֹגֵעַ — טָמֵא. וּמַזֶּה טָהוֹר? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וּמַזֵּה מֵי הַנִּדָּה יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו״! מַאי ״מַזֶּה״? — נוֹגֵעַ.
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’t it written: “He who sprinkles the water of sprinkling will wash his clothes, and he who touches the water of sprinkling will be impure until evening” (Numbers 19:21)? The Gemara responds: What is the meaning of the term: “He who sprinkles”? It means: He who touches.
וְהָכְתִיב ״מַזֶּה״, וְהָכְתִיב ״נוֹגֵעַ״! וְעוֹד, ״מַזֶּה״ בָּעֵי כִּבּוּס, ״נוֹגֵעַ״ לָא בָּעֵי כִּבּוּס! אֶלָּא, מַאי ״מַזֶּה״? נוֹשֵׂא.
The Gemara asks: But it is written: “He who sprinkles,” and it is written in the same verse: “And he who touches.” 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 “he who sprinkles” is not referring to one who touches. Rather, the Gemara explains: What is the meaning of: “He who sprinkles”? This is referring to one who carries the purification waters.
וְלִיכְתּוֹב ״נוֹשֵׂא״! קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּעַד דְּדָרֵי כְּשִׁיעוּר הַזָּאָה. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַזָּאָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara asks: But if so, let the Torah write explicitly: One who carries. Why does it state “he who sprinkles” 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.
אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר, הָנֵי מִילֵּי — אַגַּבָּא דְּגַבְרָא, אֲבָל בְּמָנָא — בָּעֵינַן שִׁיעוּר. כְּדִתְנַן: כַּמָּה יִהְיוּ בַּמַּיִם וִיהֵא בָּהֶן כְּדֵי הַזָּאָה? כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטְבּוֹל רָאשֵׁי גִבְעוֹלִין וְיַזֶּה.
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.
וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״אָמַרְתִּי אֶחְכָּמָה וְהִיא רְחוֹקָה מִמֶּנִּי״.
The Gemara concludes the discussion of the purification waters with the following observation: And that is the meaning of that which King Solomon said: “I said I would become wise, but it eludes me” (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.
אֵיזוֹ הִיא זְקֵנָה? כֹּל שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת [סָמוּךְ לְזִקְנָתָהּ]. הֵיכִי דָמֵי סָמוּךְ לְזִקְנָתָהּ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כֹּל שֶׁחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ אוֹמְרוֹת עָלֶיהָ ״זְקֵנָה הִיא״. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר:
§ 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:
כֹּל שֶׁקּוֹרִין לָהּ ״אִמָּא אִמָּא״ וְאֵינָהּ בּוֹשָׁה. רַבִּי זֵירָא וְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק — חַד אָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַקְפֶּדֶת, וְחַד אָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ בּוֹשָׁה. מַאי בֵינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ: בּוֹשָׁה וְאֵינָהּ מַקְפֶּדֶת.
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 Yitzḥak 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.
וְכַמָּה עוֹנָה? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה: עוֹנָה בֵּינוֹנִית שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְרָבָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: עֶשְׂרִים יוֹם. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, מָר קָחָשֵׁיב יְמֵי טוּמְאָה וִימֵי טׇהֳרָה, וּמָר לָא חָשֵׁיב יְמֵי טוּמְאָה.
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 Ḥisda 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 Ḥisda, 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: זְקֵנָה שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת, וְרָאֲתָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. וְעוֹד עָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת, וְרָאֲתָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. וְעוֹד עָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת, וְרָאֲתָה — הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכׇל הַנָּשִׁים, וּמְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה.
§ 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.
וְלָא (מִיבַּעְיָא) שֶׁכִּוְּונָה, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ פִּיחֲתָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ הוֹתִירָה.
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.
״אֲפִילּוּ פִּיחֲתָה״, וְלָא מִבָּעֲיָא כִּוְּונָה? אַדְּרַבָּה, כִּי כִּוְּונָה — קָבְעָה לָהּ וִסְתָּהּ, וְדַיָּה שְׁעָתָהּ!
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.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, רַבָּנַן הִיא, דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי דּוֹסָא, דְּאָמְרִי: אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת, אִיפְּכָא מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, וְלֵימָא: וְלֹא שֶׁפִּיחֲתָה וְהוֹתִירָה, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ כִּוְּונָה!
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.
תְּנִי: לֹא שֶׁפִּיחֲתָה וְהוֹתִירָה, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ כִּוְּונָה. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְלֹא שֶׁכִּוְּונָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁפִּיחֲתָה וְהוֹתִירָה, אֲבָל כִּוְּונָה — קָבְעָה לָהּ וֶסֶת, וְדַיָּה שְׁעָתָהּ. וּמַנִּי? רַבִּי דּוֹסָא הִיא.
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.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא: אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לַחֲכָמִים: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרִיבָה אַחַת בְּהַיְתָלוֹ, שֶׁהִפְסִיקָה שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ: דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ.
§ 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.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵין שְׁעַת הַדְּחָק רְאָיָה. מַאי שְׁעַת הַדְּחָק? אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: שְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת הֲווֹ, אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: טְהָרוֹת אַפֵּישׁ (לַעֲבִידָא) [וַעֲבַדָא], וְחַשּׁוּ רַבָּנַן לְהֶפְסֵד דִּטְהָרוֹת.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה, וְעָשָׂה רַבִּי כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר, אָמַר: כְּדַי הוּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לִסְמוֹךְ עָלָיו בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק. מַאי ״לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר״? אִילֵּימָא לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר דְּאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא כְּרַבָּנַן, בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק הֵיכִי עָבֵיד כְּוָותֵיהּ?
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’s 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?
אֶלָּא, דְּלָא אִיתְּמַר הִילְכְתָא לָא כְּמָר וָלֹא כְּמָר, וּמַאי ״לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר״? לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר דְּלָאו יָחִיד פְּלִיג עֲלֵיהּ, אֶלָּא רַבִּים פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ, אֲמַר: כְּדַי הוּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לִסְמוֹךְ עָלָיו בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת וְרָאֲתָה, פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, שְׁנִיָּה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, שְׁלִישִׁית — הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכׇל הַנָּשִׁים, וּמְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה.
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-four–hour period or from examination to examination.
עָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת וְרָאֲתָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, וְעוֹד עָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת וְרָאֲתָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, וְעוֹד עָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת וְרָאֲתָה — הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכׇל הַנָּשִׁים, וּמְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה.
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.
וּכְשֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת, פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, שְׁנִיָּה — מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, עָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת וְרָאֲתָה — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ.
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.
אָמַר מָר: עָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ.
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.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy in Early Rabbinic Law, Part 2 of 3: The Law of Niddah
Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Niddah, Prakim Bet and Gimel
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Niddah 9
Χ§ΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€Φ·ΦΌΧ€Φ΅ΦΌΧ: ΧΦ·Χ Φ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ.
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.
Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨ΦΉΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΧΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·ΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ?
With regard to the mishnaβs 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.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ·ΧΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¨ΦΉΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ.
Rabbi Zeira said to him: That reason for the halakha that a pregnant womanβs 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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ· Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ?
Β§ A certain elder asked Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan: If the time of a womanβs 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 oneβs 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.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΈ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ· Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ.
Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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 YoαΈ₯anan 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.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ.
Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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.
ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³. ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ° Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦ°, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨.
Β§ 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.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ ΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ Φ·Χ€Φ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ.
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.
Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ΄ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ΄ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ.
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.
ΧΦΌΧ΄ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ΄ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
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 womanβs 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.
ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ ΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ Φ·Χ€Φ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨? ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ΄.
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: βWho can bring a pure thing out of an impure? Is it not the One?β (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?
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΆΧ¨Φ·Χ’, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ β ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨.
The Gemara asks: And the other Sages, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, how do they interpret this verse? Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨, ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ· β ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΧΧ΄! ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄? β Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·.
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 isnβt it written: βHe who sprinkles the water of sprinkling will wash his clothes, and he who touches the water of sprinkling will be impure until eveningβ (Numbers 19:21)? The Gemara responds: What is the meaning of the term: βHe who sprinklesβ? It means: He who touches.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·Χ΄! ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘, Χ΄Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·Χ΄ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄? Χ ΧΦΉΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ.
The Gemara asks: But it is written: βHe who sprinkles,β and it is written in the same verse: βAnd he who touches.β 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 βhe who sprinklesβ is not referring to one who touches. Rather, the Gemara explains: What is the meaning of: βHe who sprinklesβ? This is referring to one who carries the purification waters.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ΄Χ ΧΦΉΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ΄! Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨?
The Gemara asks: But if so, let the Torah write explicitly: One who carries. Why does it state βhe who sprinklesβ 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.
ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΉΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ΄.
The Gemara concludes the discussion of the purification waters with the following observation: And that is the meaning of that which King Solomon said: βI said I would become wise, but it eludes meβ (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.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΅Χ ΦΈΧ? ΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ [Χ‘ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ]. ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΅Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄. ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨:
Β§ 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:
ΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§ β ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧͺ.
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 YitzαΈ₯ak 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΈΧ: Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ Φ΄ΧΧͺ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΧΦ³Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
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 αΈ€isda 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 αΈ€isda, 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.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΅Χ ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
Β§ 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ (ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ) Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
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.
Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ? ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ β Χ§ΦΈΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ!
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χͺ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ!
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.
ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄Χ: ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ β Χ§ΦΈΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ? Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
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.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³. ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧΧΦΉ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ: ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ.
Β§ 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ©Χ (ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ) [ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ], ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ.
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.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ° Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§. ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Χ΄? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ?
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 Eliezerβs 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?
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Χ΄? ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ° Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§.
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.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ§ΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ, Χ€Φ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧͺ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
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-four–hour period or from examination to examination.
Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ, Χ€Φ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ.
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.
