נדה יד

נדה יד

רוֹכְבֵי גְמַלִּים אֲסוּרִין לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: רוֹכְבֵי גְמַלִּים — כּוּלָּם רְשָׁעִים, הַסַּפָּנִים — כּוּלָּם צַדִּיקִים,

It is prohibited for camel riders to partake of teruma, due to the concern for a seminal emission that might result from the friction. The Gemara notes: This opinion of Abaye is also taught in a baraita: Camel riders are all wicked, as they are suspected of emitting semen for naught. Sailors are all righteous, because they are in a constant state of danger at sea, and therefore their hearts are always turned to God in prayer.

הַחַמָּרִים — מֵהֶן רְשָׁעִים מֵהֶן צַדִּיקִים. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא דְּמִכַּף, הָא דְּלָא מִכַּף; וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא דִּמְטַרְטֵין, הָא דְּלָא מְטַרְטֵין.

The baraita continues: As for donkey drivers, some of them are wicked while some of them are righteous. With regard to the difference between wicked and righteous donkey drivers, there are those who say that this donkey driver is righteous, as his donkey is saddled, and therefore his penis does not rub against it, whereas that donkey driver is wicked, as his donkey is not saddled, which can cause a seminal emission. And there are those who say: This donkey driver is wicked, as he spreads [demittartein] his thighs on either side of the donkey, whereas that donkey driver is righteous as he does not spread his thighs in this manner, but rides with both legs on one side of the donkey, so that his penis does not rub against the donkey.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לָיֵיט אַמַּאן דְּגָנֵי אַפַּרְקִיד. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: פְּרַקְדָּן לֹא יִקְרָא ״קְרִיַּת שְׁמַע״ — קְרִיַּת שְׁמַע הוּא דְּלֹא יִקְרָא, הָא מִגְנָא שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי!

The Gemara further discusses actions that are apt to lead to a seminal emission. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would curse one who sleeps lying on his back [aparkeid], as this might lead to a seminal emission. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Yosef say: One who is lying on his back may not recite Shema? From this it may be inferred that it is only Shema that one may not recite in this position, but to sleep lying in that position is permitted.

לְעִנְיַן מִגְנָא, כִּי מַצְלֵי — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. לְעִנְיַן קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, כִּי מַצְלֵי — אָסוּר. וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַצְלֵי וְקָרֵי קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע! שָׁאנֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּבַעַל בָּשָׂר הֲוָה.

The Gemara answers: With regard to the prohibition against sleeping while lying on one’s back, when one leans slightly to the side it is permitted. But with regard to reciting Shema while lying face upward, even when one leans slightly to the side it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: But wouldn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan lie on his back leaning slightly to the side and recite Shema in this manner? The Gemara answers: The halakha in the case of Rabbi Yoḥanan is different, as he was corpulent, and consequently he could lean only slightly.

מַתְנִי’ דֶּרֶךְ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים, אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לָהּ, וְהַצְּנוּעוֹת מְתַקְּנוֹת שְׁלִישִׁי לְתַקֵּן אֶת הַבַּיִת.

MISHNA: It is the custom of Jewish women that they engage in intercourse with their husbands while using two examination cloths, one for the husband, to see if there is any of the wife’s blood on him after intercourse, and one for her, to ascertain after intercourse whether her menstrual flow has begun. And the modest women prepare a third examination cloth, to examine themselves and prepare the pubic area for intercourse.

נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלּוֹ — טְמֵאִין וְחַיָּיבִין קׇרְבָּן. נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹתְיוֹם — טְמֵאִין וְחַיָּיבִין בְּקׇרְבָּן. נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ לְאַחַר זְמַן — טְמֵאִין מִסָּפֵק, וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן.

If blood was found on his cloth, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure for seven days, in accordance with the halakha of a menstruating woman and of one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman, and are each liable to bring a sin offering for unwittingly performing an action punishable with excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. If blood was found on her cloth immediately [otyom] after intercourse, the woman and her husband are likewise ritually impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering.

אֵיזֶהוּ אַחַר זְמַן? כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּרֵד מִן הַמִּטָּה וְתָדִיחַ פָּנֶיהָ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת, וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אַף מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ.

What is considered as being: After time passed? It is a period of time equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face, a euphemism for her pubic area. And afterward, she retroactively transmits impurity to all ritually pure items with which she came into contact for the preceding twenty-four-hour period, by rabbinic law, but she does not transmit seven-day impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse. He is impure with this impurity by rabbinic law only until the evening, like one who came in contact with a menstruating woman. Rabbi Akiva says: In the case where blood was found on her cloth after time passed, she even transmits seven-day impurity by rabbinic law to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse.

מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ.

The mishna concludes: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva in the case of a woman who sees a blood stain and then engages in intercourse, that she transmits seven-day impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse, although this impurity also applies by rabbinic law.

גְּמָ’ וְנֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא דַּם מַאֲכוֹלֶת הוּא? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם בָּדוּק הוּא אֵצֶל מַאֲכוֹלֶת. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דָּחוּק הוּא אֵצֶל מַאֲכוֹלֶת.

GEMARA: The mishna states that if blood is found on the husband’s cloth after intercourse the husband and wife are both definitely impure. The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned that perhaps it is the blood of a louse, as it is possible that there was a louse in the woman’s pubic area that was squashed during intercourse, and its blood was found on the husband’s penis. Accordingly, it should be uncertain if they are impure. Rabbi Zeira says: There is no concern for this possibility, as that place, a woman’s genitals, is considered examined [baduk] with regard to the appearance of a louse, i.e., it is clear that no louse was there. And some say a different version of Rabbi Zeira’s statement: That place is too narrow [daḥuk] for a louse to enter, and therefore this is not a concern.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח מַאֲכוֹלֶת רְצוּפָה. לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר ״בָּדוּק הוּא״ — הָא מֵעָלְמָא אֲתַאי, לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר ״דָּחוּק הוּא״ — אֵימָא שַׁמָּשׁ רְצָפָהּ.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two versions of Rabbi Zeira’s statement? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where a squashed louse was found on the husband’s cloth, near the blood: According to this version, which states that a woman’s genitals are considered examined with regard to a louse, this louse certainly came from elsewhere, as a louse is never found in her pubic area, so the blood on the cloth is clearly from the woman, and therefore the couple is ritually impure. By contrast, according to that version, which states that the place is too narrow for a louse to enter, one can say that although it is generally too narrow, in this case one did enter and the man’s organ squashed it during intercourse, and therefore their impurity is uncertain.

אִתְּמַר: בָּדְקָה בְּעֵד הַבָּדוּק לָהּ, וְטָחַתּוּ בִּירֵכָהּ, וּלְמָחָר מָצָאתָה עָלָיו דָּם. אָמַר רַב: טְמֵאָה נִדָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא: וְהָא ״חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת״ אֲמַרְתְּ לַן!

It was stated: If the woman examined herself with a cloth that was examined by her before she used it and found free of blood, and after the examination she pressed it against her thigh, and did not look at the cloth, and on the following day she found blood on her thigh, Rav says: In such a case she is definitely impure as a menstruating woman. Since it is known that the cloth was clear of blood before the examination, the blood on her thigh must be from her examination, and it must have passed onto her thigh after the cloth was pressed there. Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said to Rav: But didn’t you say to us with regard to this case that she needs to be concerned for ritual impurity, which indicates that her impurity is uncertain?

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: טְמֵאָה נִדָּה. וְכֵן מוֹרִין בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא: טְמֵאָה נִדָּה.

In this regard it was also stated that Shmuel says: She is definitely impure as a menstruating woman. And they likewise rule as a practical halakha in the study hall that this woman is definitely impure as a menstruating woman.

אִתְּמַר: בָּדְקָה בְּעֵד שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּדוּק לָהּ, וְהִנִּיחַתּוּ בְּקוּפְסָא, וּלְמָחָר מָצְאָה עָלָיו דָּם. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כׇּל יָמָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי חִיָּיא טִימֵּא, וּלְעֵת זִקְנָתוֹ טִיהֵר.

With regard to a similar case, it was stated: If a woman examined herself with a cloth that was not examined by her before its use, and she then placed it in a box without looking at it, and on the following day she found blood on this cloth, the question is whether the blood was on the cloth before the examination and the woman is consequently not impure, or whether the blood is from the examination, and she is impure. Rav Yosef says: All the days of Rabbi Ḥiyya he would deem such a woman impure, but in his old age he would deem her pure.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר? כׇּל יָמָיו טִימֵּא מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה, וּלְעֵת זִקְנָתוֹ טִיהֵר מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה, וְטִימֵּא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to this statement of Rav Yosef: With regard to what type of impurity status is he speaking? Does he mean that all his days Rabbi Ḥiyya would deem the woman definitely impure as a menstruating woman, and therefore any teruma with which she came into contact required burning; and in his old age he would deem her pure from the definite impurity status of a menstruating woman, but would deem her impure as a woman who discovered a stain, which is an uncertain source of impurity? If so, according to his ruling from his old age any teruma she touches is not burned but may not be eaten.

אוֹ דִלְמָא: כׇּל יָמָיו טִימֵּא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם, וּלְעֵת זִקְנָתוֹ טִיהֵר מִוְּלֹא כְּלוּם?

Or perhaps does Rav Yosef mean that all his days Rabbi Ḥiyya would deem the woman impure as a matter of uncertainty due to the stain, and in his old age he would deem her pure from any type of impurity status?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: בָּדְקָה בְּעֵד שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּדוּק לָהּ, וְהִנִּיחַתּוּ בְּקוּפְסָא, וּלְמָחָר מָצְאָה עָלָיו דָּם, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: טְמֵאָה מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה, וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר: טְמֵאָה מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution for this dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman examined herself with a cloth that was not examined by her before its use, and she placed it in a box, and on the following day she found blood on this cloth, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: She is definitely impure as a menstruating woman, and Rabbi Ḥiyya says: She is impure as a matter of uncertainty due to the stain.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אִי אַתָּה מוֹדֶה שֶׁצְּרִיכָה כִּגְרִיס וְעוֹד? אָמַר לוֹ: אֲבָל. אָמַר לוֹ: אִם כֵּן, אַף אַתָּה עֲשִׂיתוֹ כֶּתֶם.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Do you not concede that for her to become ritually impure she requires that the size of the blood stain on the cloth be more than the size of a split bean? If the stain is smaller, it is assumed to have been caused by a squashed louse. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Indeed [aval], that is correct. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: If so, you too render this blood found on the cloth in the box a stain, which renders one impure as a matter of uncertainty. If you had considered it definitely impure, there would have been no distinction between a small stain and a large one.

וְרַבִּי סָבַר: בָּעֵינַן ״כִּגְרִיס וְעוֹד״ לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדַּם מַאֲכוֹלֶת, וְכֵיוָן דִּנְפַק לַהּ מִדַּם מַאֲכוֹלֶת — וַדַּאי מִגּוּפַהּ אֲתָא.

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who deems the woman definitely impure in this case, maintains that although we require that the size of the blood stain be more than the size of a split bean, this is necessary only to exclude the possibility that this is the blood of a louse; and since the possibility that it is the blood of a louse has been excluded, as its size is more than that of a split bean, it certainly came from her body, and therefore she is definitely impure.

מַאי לַָאו בְּזִקְנוּתוֹ קָאֵי? הָא בְּיַלְדוּתוֹ טִימֵּא מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara analyzes this statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya with reference to the dilemma under discussion: What, is it not correct to assume that Rabbi Ḥiyya was in his old age when he disagreed with his teacher, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He would not have done so when he was young. And if he deemed the woman impure as a matter of uncertainty in his old age, it can be inferred that in his youth he would deem her definitely impure as a menstruating woman. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from here that this is the case.

מִשְׁתַּבַּח לֵיהּ רַבִּי לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חָמָא בַּר בֵּיסָא, דְּאָדָם גָּדוֹל הוּא. אָמַר לוֹ: לִכְשֶׁיָּבֹא לְיָדְךָ, הֲבִיאֵהוּ לְיָדִי.

§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would praise Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, by saying that he is a great man. Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: When he comes to you, bring him to me.

כִּי אֲתָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּעִי מִינַּאי מִילְּתָא. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ: בָּדְקָה בְּעֵד שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּדוּק לָהּ, וְהִנִּיחַתּוּ בְּקוּפְסָא, וּלְמָחָר מָצְאָה עָלָיו דָּם, מַהוּ?

When Rabbi Ḥama came before him, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Ask me about a halakhic matter. Rabbi Ḥama asked him: If a woman examined herself with a cloth that was not examined by her before its use, and she placed it in a box, and on the following day she found blood on this cloth, what is the halakha?

אָמַר לוֹ: כְּדִבְרֵי אַבָּא אֵימָא לָךְ, אוֹ כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֵימָא לָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֵימָא לִי.

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Shall I say to you an answer in accordance with the statement of father, Rabbi Yosei, or shall I say to you an answer in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Which would you prefer? Rabbi Ḥama said to him: Say to me an answer in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: זֶהוּ שֶׁאוֹמְרִין עָלָיו דְּאָדָם גָּדוֹל הוּא? הֵיאַךְ מַנִּיחִין דִּבְרֵי הָרַב וְשׁוֹמְעִין דִּבְרֵי הַתַּלְמִיד?!

Rabbi Yishmael said: Is this the one that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says about him that he is a great man? How can he neglect the statement of the teacher, Rabbi Yosei, and listen to the statement of the student, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?

וְרַבִּי חָמָא בַּר בֵּיסָא סָבַר: רַבִּי רֵישׁ מְתִיבְתָּא הוּא, וּשְׁכִיחִי רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ, וּמְחַדְּדִי שְׁמַעְתָּתֵיהּ.

The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa did so because he maintains that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is preferable, as he is the head of the yeshiva, and the Sages are frequently in his presence, and due to the constant disputes his statements are sharper than those of Rabbi Yosei, despite the fact that Rabbi Yosei was his teacher.

מַאי רַבִּי, וּמַאי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי? אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָא, תָּנָא: רַבִּי מְטַמֵּא, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַהֵר.

The Gemara asks: What is this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, referred to by Rabbi Yishmael? Rav Adda bar Mattana says that the reference is to that which was taught in a baraita with regard to this case: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the woman impure and Rabbi Yosei deems her pure.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כְּשֶׁטִּימֵּא רַבִּי — כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּכְשֶׁטִּיהֵר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי — לְעַצְמוֹ טִיהֵר.

And Rabbi Zeira says, in explanation of this dispute: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deemed the woman impure, he ruled in accordance with the line of reasoning of Rabbi Meir, and when Rabbi Yosei deemed her pure, he deemed her pure in accordance with his own line of reasoning.

דְּתַנְיָא: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיְתָה עוֹשָׂה צְרָכֶיהָ וְרָאֲתָה דָּם, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם עוֹמֶדֶת — טְמֵאָה, אִם יוֹשֶׁבֶת — טְהוֹרָה.

As it is taught in a mishna (59b): In the case of a woman who was urinating and saw blood mixed in the urine, Rabbi Meir says: If she urinated while standing, she is impure, as the blood could have originated in the uterus. If she was sitting, she is pure, as the blood is clearly from the urethra.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ — טְהוֹרָה.

Rabbi Yosei says: Whether she urinates in this manner, standing, or whether she urinates in that manner, sitting, she is pure. Like Rabbi Meir, who disregards the possibility that the blood originated in the urethra in a case where the woman was standing, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems a woman impure in the case where blood is found on the cloth in the box, despite the possibility that it could have been on the cloth before she used it to examine herself. Rabbi Yosei, by contrast, maintains that wherever there is a reasonable uncertainty, the woman is not impure.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, כְּשֶׁטִּימֵּא רַבִּי מֵאִיר לֹא טִימֵּא אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם, וְאִילּוּ רַבִּי מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה קָאָמַר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן, כִּי אִיתְּמַר הָהִיא מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה אִיתְּמַר.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But doesn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, say that when Rabbi Meir deemed the woman impure in the case involving urination, he merely deemed her impure as a matter of uncertainty, due to contact with a blood stain, whereas Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that in the case involving a stained cloth the woman is definitely impure as a menstruating woman? Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava: This is what we are saying: When that comment of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, concerning the ruling of Rabbi Meir was stated, it was stated that he deemed the woman impure as a menstruating woman.

נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹתְיוֹם טְמֵאִין וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ שִׁיעוּר וֶסֶת? מָשָׁל לְשַׁמָּשׁ וָעֵד שֶׁעוֹמְדִין בְּצַד הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, בִּיצִיאַת שַׁמָּשׁ נִכְנָס עֵד.

§ The mishna states: If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure and are each liable to bring a sin offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation, i.e., what is considered to be immediately after intercourse? This is comparable to a male organ and a cloth that are standing alongside the doorpost, i.e., at the entrance to the vagina; at the exit of the organ the cloth immediately enters.

הֱוֵי וֶסֶת שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְקִינּוּחַ, אֲבָל לֹא לִבְדִיקָה.

The Gemara comments: This is the period of time concerning which the Sages said: During this period any blood on the cloth renders both the woman and the man ritually impure and liable to bring a sin offering. Yet this period is referring only to an external wipe of the pubic area with the cloth after intercourse, to see if there was a flow of blood during intercourse. But this time frame was not stated with regard to a full internal examination. If the woman conducts a full examination of herself, too much time would have passed since the intercourse for the man to be considered definitely impure.

נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ לְאַחַר זְמַן וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: וְחַיָּיבִין אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. וְתַנָּא דִידַן, מַאי טַעְמָא?

§ The mishna further states: If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, as it is possible that the blood appeared only after intercourse, and therefore they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita: But they are each liable to bring a provisional guilt offering brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering. The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason that he does not render each of them liable to bring a provisional guilt offering?

בָּעֵינַן חֲתִיכָה מִשְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת.

The Gemara answers: The tanna of our mishna holds that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering in every case involving the uncertain violation of a prohibition that, were it certain, would render one liable to bring a sin offering. Rather, we require it to be a case akin to that of one piece from two pieces, e.g., one had two pieces of meat before him, one of which was definitely forbidden while the other was permitted, and he does not know for certain which he ate. But when the uncertainty involves a single item, which may or may not have been forbidden, one does not bring a provisional guilt offering. In the case discussed in the mishna there is only one woman, as it is uncertain whether or not engaging in intercourse with her was permitted, which depends on whether menstruation began before or after intercourse.

אֵיזֶהוּ ״אַחַר זְמַן״ וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵיזֶהוּ ״אַחֵר זְמַן״? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק: כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוֹשִׁיט יָדָהּ תַּחַת הַכַּר אוֹ תַּחַת הַכֶּסֶת וְתִטּוֹל עֵד וְתִבְדּוֹק בּוֹ.

§ The mishna states: What is considered after time passed? It is a period of time equivalent to the time needed for the woman to descend from the bed and rinse her pubic area. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: What is considered after time passed? Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, explained: It is a period equivalent to the time in which she may extend her hand under the cushion or under the blanket and take a cloth and examine herself with it. This is a shorter period than that required for her to get out of bed and rinse her pubic area.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי ״אַחַר״? אַחַר אַחַר.

Rav Ḥisda says: What is the meaning of: After, in the mishna? After, after. In other words, this is referring to the period after the period of time mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, who said it is after the amount of time it takes for the woman to extend her hand under the cushion and take a cloth and examine herself. The mishna is referring to the period of time that follows the time frame referred to by Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, as: After time passed. If blood is found after this amount of time has elapsed the man is not ritually impure for a seven-day period, but only until evening, according to the Rabbis.

וְהָא קָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ לְאַחַר זְמַן — טְמֵאִין מִסָּפֵק, וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן. אֵיזֶהוּ ״אַחַר זְמַן״? כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּרֵד מִן הַמִּטָּה וְתָדִיחַ פָּנֶיהָ.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in the mishna with regard to this time period: If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both ritually impure due to uncertainty, and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. And the mishna continues: What is considered after time passed? It is a period of time equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face, i.e., her pubic area. This indicates that the period of time that follows the ability to perform an immediate examination is that which is mentioned in the mishna, and the mishna is not discussing the third time frame concerning which the husband is impure only until the evening.

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵיזֶהוּ ״אַחַר זְמַן״? כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוֹשִׁיט יָדָהּ לְתַחַת הַכַּר אוֹ לְתַחַת הַכֶּסֶת וְתִטּוֹל עֵד וְתִבְדּוֹק בּוֹ, וּכְדֵי שֶׁתֵּרֵד מִן הַמִּטָּה וְתָדִיחַ אֶת פָּנֶיהָ — מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲכָמִים.

The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: What is considered after time passed? It is a period equivalent to the time in which she may extend her hand under the cushion or under the blanket and take a cloth and examine herself with it, as stated by Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok. And with regard to the other time frame, i.e., equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face, i.e., her pubic area, there is a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis as to whether the man is impure for seven days or only until the evening.

וְהָא ״אַחַר כָּךְ״ קָתָנֵי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְזֶהוּ ״אַחַר כָּךְ״ שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲכָמִים.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis, doesn’t the mishna teach: Afterward, which indicates that they disagree concerning blood found in the time period that comes after the period in which she can descend from the bed and rinse her pubic area? The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: And this time frame, i.e., which is equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her pubic area, is that period of time labeled: Afterward, with regard to which Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא, עֵד בְּיָדָהּ — כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּרֵד מִן הַמִּטָּה וְתָדִיחַ אֶת פָּנֶיהָ, אֵין עֵד בְּיָדָהּ — כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוֹשִׁיט יָדָהּ לְתַחַת הַכַּר אוֹ לְתַחַת הַכֶּסֶת וְתִטּוֹל עֵד וְתִבְדּוֹק בּוֹ.

Rav Ashi says a different resolution of the apparent contradiction between the mishna and the baraita: Both this and that are one period, as it all depends on the situation. If the cloth is already in her hand, she does not need to extend her hand, and therefore the time frame is as stated in the mishna: Equivalent to the time needed for her to descend from the bed and rinse her face. If the cloth is not in her hand, the period is equivalent to the time in which she may extend her hand under the cushion or under the blanket and take a cloth and examine herself with it, while she is still in bed.

מֵיתִיבִי: אֵיזֶהוּ ״אַחַר זְמַן״? דָּבָר זֶה שָׁאַל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בְּאוּשָׁא, וְאָמַר לָהֶם:

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ashi’s interpretation from a baraita: What is considered after time passed, at which point the blood found on the woman’s cloth renders them both impure as a matter of uncertainty for seven days? About this matter Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, asked the Sages in Usha, and he said to them: