נדה סד

נדה סד

גְּמָ’ אִיתְּמַר, רָאֲתָה יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ זֶה, וְיוֹם שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ זֶה, וְיוֹם שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ זֶה — רַב אָמַר: קָבְעָה לָהּ וֶסֶת לְדִילּוּג, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: עַד שֶׁתְּשַׁלֵּשׁ בְּדִילּוּג.

GEMARA: It was stated: If a woman saw menstrual blood on the fifteenth of this month, and on the sixteenth of the month after that, and on the seventeenth of the month after that, Rav says: She has thereby determined her menstrual cycle by skipping, i.e., as a month and a day. And Shmuel says: Her menstrual cycle is not determined until she skips a day three times. According to Shmuel, as the cycle is established in this case not by the date itself but by the pattern of one additional day every month, the pattern is established only when this occurs three consecutive times, i.e., when she menstruates on the fourth occasion.

נֵימָא רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: נִיסֵּת לָרִאשׁוֹן וָמֵת, לַשֵּׁנִי וָמֵת — לַשְּׁלִישִׁי לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לַשְּׁלִישִׁי תִּנָּשֵׂא, לָרְבִיעִי לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא.

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? As it is taught in a baraita: If a woman was married to her first husband and he died, and was then married to a second one and he too died, she may not marry a third husband; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She may marry a third husband, but if he also dies she may not marry a fourth husband. The suggestion is that Rav and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold that after two instances she has established a presumption and a pattern, whereas Shmuel and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintain that the presumption is established only after three occurrences.

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: רַב סָבַר חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִמִּנְיָנָא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו בְּדִילּוּג חֲזֵיתֵיהּ — לָאו מִמִּנְיָנָא הוּא.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that a presumption is established only after three times, and here they disagree with regard to this matter: Rav holds that when she experienced bleeding on the fifteenth of the month, that occasion is also one of the number, i.e., it counts as the first of the pattern, which therefore has three elements. And Shmuel holds that since she did not see the first time after skipping, i.e., after having experienced bleeding on the fourteenth of the previous month, it is not part of the number, which means that she has experienced bleeding only twice in accordance with that pattern.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין. שִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר — הוּתַּר שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְנֶאֱסַר חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר וְשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר.

Shmuel raised an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: If a woman was accustomed to see a flow of blood on the fifteenth day of the month, and deviated and instead experienced bleeding on the sixteenth day of the month, on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the sixteenth, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse with her husband. If she then deviated and experienced bleeding on the seventeenth day of the following month, the sixteenth day becomes permitted, and the fifteenth and seventeenth days of the following month are prohibited.

שִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר — הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּן, וְאֵין אָסוּר אֶלָּא מִשְּׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר וְאֵילָךְ. קַשְׁיָא לְרַב! אָמַר לְךָ רַב: לְמוּדָה שָׁאנֵי.

If she subsequently deviated and experienced bleeding on the eighteenth day of the following month, all the days are permitted. The fifteenth is permitted because she has now experienced bleeding three times on a different day, while the other days are permitted because she experienced bleeding only once on each day. And it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse in the following month only from the eighteenth day and onward, i.e., on the nineteenth day, since she has now established a pattern of bleeding after one month and one day. This is difficult for Rav, as he maintains that twice is sufficient to establish a pattern, whereas this baraita requires three instances. Rav could have said to you in response: Since she was accustomed to experience bleeding on the fifteenth it is different. In that particular case the fifteenth does not count as the beginning of a new pattern because it was already her regular established time.

וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ, מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ? לְמוּדָה אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דִּלְמוּדָה וַעֲקַרְתֵּיהּ — בִּתְרֵי זִימְנֵי עָקְרָה לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara expresses surprise at Shmuel’s question: And he who asked [udeka’arei] it, why did he ask it? The baraita clearly stresses the fact that the woman began with an established fixed menstrual cycle that was not part of the pattern. Shmuel could answer: It was necessary for the baraita to teach the case where she was accustomed to experience bleeding on a specific day, lest you say that since she was accustomed to experience bleeding on a specific day and displaced that pattern by bleeding on a different day, it should be sufficient that with two times she displaces it. For this reason, the baraita teaches us that an established pattern is displaced only after three occasions where she experiences bleeding on a different day. If it is not established, one displacement is enough.

מֵיתִיבִי: רָאֲתָה יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד בְּחֹדֶשׁ זֶה, יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם בְּחֹדֶשׁ זֶה, יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה בְּחֹדֶשׁ זֶה — קָבְעָה לָהּ וֶסֶת. סֵירְגָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה — לֹא קָבְעָה לָהּ וֶסֶת. תְּיוּבְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל!

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If a woman saw a flow of blood on the twenty-first day of this month, the twenty-second day of that month, i.e., of the next month, and the twenty-third day of that month, i.e., of the third month, she established a fixed pattern of bleeding after one month and one day. If in the third month she instead varied and experienced bleeding on the twenty-fourth day of the month, she has not established a fixed pattern, as this last interval was one month and two days long. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel, as according to the baraita the pattern is established after only two equidistant intervals, whereas Shmuel requires three.

אָמַר לָךְ שְׁמוּאֵל: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן דִּרְגִילָה לְמִחְזֵי בְּיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים, וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּשַׁבְקֵיהּ לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְנַקְטֵיהּ לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara answers that Shmuel could have said to you: Here, we are dealing with a case where the woman was accustomed to see a flow of blood on the twentieth day of the month, and she deviated and experienced bleeding on the twenty-first day of the month. Consequently, there were in fact a total of three equidistant intervals of one month and one day. The Gemara adds that the language of the baraita is also precise, as for what other reason would the baraita leave aside the twentieth day of the month and not use that date as the example, and instead take for its example the twenty-first day of the month? Learn from this that she had an established pattern of bleeding on the twentieth of every month before the events described in the baraita.

שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת עַד שֶׁתִּקְבָּעֶנָּה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְמִקְבְּעַהּ, אֲבָל לְמֵיחַשׁ לַהּ בַּחֲדָא זִימְנָא חָיְישָׁא.

§ The mishna teaches: As a woman establishes a fixed menstrual cycle only after she establishes it three times. Rav Pappa says, in explanation: We said that she must experience bleeding three times only with regard to establishing a fixed menstrual cycle, but with regard to being concerned for a pattern, even after one time she must be concerned that this might be the beginning of a fixed pattern.

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וְזֶה אֲסוּרִין!

The Gemara asks: What is Rav Pappa teaching us? We learn this in the mishna: If the woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood on the fifteenth day and she deviated from the norm to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day, on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. This clearly demonstrates that even after bleeding only once on a certain day she must be concerned that this could be the start of a new fixed menstrual cycle.

אִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי — הֵיכָא דְּקָיְימָא בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא קָיְימָא בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ — אֵימָא לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers: If this halakha was derived only from there, I would say that this statement applies in a case where she experiences bleeding on the twentieth day while she is standing in her days suitable for menstruation, i.e., the days following the eleven days after her last period, when she is most likely to menstruate. But in a case where she is not standing in her days suitable for menstruation, but rather during the eleven days when uterine bleeding would render her a zava, I would say that she does not need to be concerned that she might experience bleeding again at that time. Therefore, Rav Pappa teaches us that even during these eleven days she must be concerned.

וְאֵינָהּ מִטַּהֶרֶת מִן הַוֶּסֶת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דִּקְבַעְתֵּיהּ תְּלָתָא זִימְנֵי, דִּצְרִיכִי תְּלָתָא זִימְנֵי לְמִעְקְרֵיהּ, אֲבָל תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי — בַּחֲדָא זִימְנָא מִיעֲקַר.

§ The mishna teaches: And a woman is purified from the existing fixed menstrual cycle, in the sense that intercourse is permitted on that day, only when she has been displaced from that day three times. Rav Pappa says, in explanation: We said this only in the case of a set cycle that she established by three times. With regard to such a cycle, we said that a different three times are necessary to displace that cycle. But with regard to a cycle that is established with only two times, it is displaced by one time of bleeding on a different day.

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: אֵין הָאִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת עַד שֶׁתִּקְבָּעֶנָּה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: חֲדָא — לְחַד, תְּרֵי — לְתַרְתֵּי, וּתְלָתָא — לִתְלָתָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: What is Rav Pappa teaching us? We learn this in the mishna: A woman establishes a fixed menstrual cycle only after she establishes it three times. The Gemara answers that it was necessary for Rav Pappa to teach his halakha, lest you say that a cycle is displaced by bleeding one time on a different day for a cycle that was set one time, but by bleeding on two different days for a cycle that was established with two times, and likewise by bleeding on three different days for a cycle that was established with three times. Therefore, Rav Pappa teaches us that whether she experiences bleeding once or twice, she displaces it by bleeding once on a different day.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים, וְשִׁינְּתָה לַיּוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין. הִגִּיעַ יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא רָאֲתָה — מוּתֶּרֶת לְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַד יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים, וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְיוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa: If a woman was accustomed to see the flow of blood on the twentieth day after her previous flow, and she deviated from the norm to experience bleeding on the thirtieth day, on both this day, the twentieth, and that day, the thirtieth, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. If the twentieth day arrived, counting from the previous flow, which had occurred on day thirty, and she did not see a flow of blood, it is permitted for her to engage in intercourse until the thirtieth day after the previous flow, and she must be concerned on the thirtieth day.

הִגִּיעַ יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים וְרָאֲתָה, הִגִּיעַ יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא רָאֲתָה, וְהִגִּיעַ יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים וְלֹא רָאֲתָה, וְהִגִּיעַ יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְרָאֲתָה — הוּתַּר יוֹם שְׁלֹשִׁים,

If the thirtieth day arrived and she saw a flow of blood, and then the twentieth day after that arrived and she did not see a flow of blood, and the thirtieth day from her previous flow arrived and she did not see blood on that day but saw on a later day, and then the twentieth day after her previous flow arrived and she saw a flow of blood, the thirtieth day becomes permitted, as she experienced bleeding after an interval of thirty days only twice. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa that a cycle of bleeding that has occurred twice is displaced by a single time of not bleeding on that day.

וְנֶאֱסַר יוֹם עֶשְׂרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹרַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ בָּא.

And she is prohibited on the twentieth day, because it is the manner of women that their blood flow comes at its usual time.

מַתְנִי’ נָשִׁים בִּבְתוּלֵיהֶם כִּגְפָנִים, יֵשׁ גֶּפֶן שֶׁיֵּינָהּ אָדוֹם, וְיֵשׁ גֶּפֶן שֶׁיֵּינָהּ שָׁחוֹר, וְיֵשׁ גֶּפֶן שֶׁיֵּינָהּ מְרוּבֶּה, וְיֵשׁ גֶּפֶן שֶׁיֵּינָהּ מוּעָט. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל גֶּפֶן יֵשׁ בָּהּ יַיִן, וְשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יַיִן — הֲרֵי זֶה דּוֹרְקְטִי.

MISHNA: Women, with regard to the blood that flows when their hymens are ruptured, are like grapevines: There is a vine that produces wine that is red, and there is a vine that produces wine that is black; and there is a vine that produces wine in abundance, and there is a vine that produces only a meager amount of wine. Rabbi Yehuda says: In every vine, there are grapes fit to produce wine, but any vine in which there are no grapes fit to produce wine, this is a dry vine [durkati]. Likewise, any woman who experiences bleeding is capable of giving birth, whereas one who does not experience bleeding is like a dry vine, unable to give birth.

גְּמָ’ תָּנָא: דּוֹר קָטוּעַ. תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַשְּׂאוֹר יָפֶה לָעִיסָּה, כָּךְ דָּמִים יָפִין לָאִשָּׁה. תָּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁדָּמֶיהָ מְרוּבִּין — בָּנֶיהָ מְרוּבִּין.

GEMARA: With regard to the term durkati, the Gemara explains that this means truncated generation [dor katua]. As Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: Just as leaven is good for dough, so too, blood is good for a woman. It was likewise taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: Any woman whose blood is plentiful, her children are plentiful.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָאִשָּׁה.

מַתְנִי’ תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת וְנִיסֵּת — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נוֹתְנִין לָהּ אַרְבַּע לֵילוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁתִּחְיֶה הַמַּכָּה.

MISHNA: In the case of a young girl whose time to see a menstrual flow, i.e., the age of puberty, has not yet arrived, and she married and engaged in intercourse and her hymen was torn, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her four nights after intercourse during which the blood is attributed to the torn hymen and she remains ritually pure. Thereafter, any blood is assumed to be menstrual blood and renders her impure. And Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals.

הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת וְנִיסֵּת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נוֹתְנִין לָהּ לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת (ארבע) [אַרְבָּעָה] לֵילוֹת.

In the case of a young woman whose time to see a menstrual flow has arrived but she has not yet begun to menstruate, and she married and engaged in intercourse and her hymen was torn, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her the first night during which the blood is attributed to the torn hymen. Thereafter, any blood is assumed to be menstrual blood. And Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the conclusion of Shabbat, and she may engage in intercourse with her husband for four nights, as it was customary for a virgin to marry on Wednesday.

רָאֲתָה וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נוֹתְנִין לָהּ בְּעִילַת מִצְוָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה (כּוּלָּהּ) [שֶׁלָּהּ].

In the case of a young woman who saw menstrual blood before marriage while she was still in her father’s house, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her permission to engage only in relations that consummate a marriage, which are a mitzva, after which she is ritually impure due to the blood. And Beit Hillel say: The husband and wife may engage even in several acts of intercourse, as any blood seen throughout the entire night is attributed to the torn hymen.

גְּמָ’ אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: וַאֲפִילּוּ רָאֲתָה. מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָא מְפַלֵּיג בְּסֵיפָא בֵּין רָאֲתָה בֵּין בְּשֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא — לָא שְׁנָא הָכִי וְלָא שְׁנָא הָכִי.

GEMARA: The mishna first addresses the case of a young girl who has not yet reached puberty. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And this halakha applies to her even if she has seen menstrual blood. He explains his reasoning: From where do I derive this? I derive it from the fact that the tanna distinguishes in the latter clause of the mishna between a young girl who has seen menstrual blood and a young girl who has not seen menstrual blood. By inference, in the first clause of the mishna the halakha is no different in this case, where the young girl has experienced menstrual bleeding, and it is no different in that case, where she has not yet experienced menstrual bleeding.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁתִּחְיֶה הַמַּכָּה, בֵּין רָאֲתָה בֵּין לֹא רָאֲתָה.

This explanation of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak is also taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel say: With regard to a young girl who has not yet reached puberty, the blood she emits is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals, regardless of whether she has seen menstrual blood beforehand or whether she has not yet seen menstrual blood.

עַד שֶׁתִּחְיֶה הַמַּכָּה. עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁנּוֹחֶרֶת. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לִי: נְחִירָה זוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה הִיא, אֶלָּא כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהָרוֹק מָצוּי בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּה מֵחֲמַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ.

§ The mishna teaches that Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals. The Gemara clarifies: Until when can the blood be attributed to the torn hymen? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: All the time that she is noḥeret. Rav Yehuda continues: When I subsequently said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me: This noḥeret, I do not know what it is, nor do I know what Rav means by it. Rather, all the time that the saliva is in her mouth due to sexual intercourse, she may attribute the blood to the torn hymen. Shmuel is using a euphemism, i.e., as long as there is blood in her vagina resulting from sexual intercourse.

נְחִירָה דְּקָאָמַר רַב, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב — עוֹמֶדֶת וְרוֹאָה, יוֹשֶׁבֶת וְאֵינָהּ רוֹאָה — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה. עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע וְרוֹאָה, עַל גַּבֵּי כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת וְאֵינָהּ רוֹאָה — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא חָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה. עַל גַּבֵּי כּוּלָּם וְרוֹאָה, עַל גַּבֵּי כּוּלָּם וְאֵינָהּ רוֹאָה — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁחָיְתָה הַמַּכָּה.

The Gemara clarifies: This noḥeret that Rav says; what is it like? What did he mean? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: It was explained to me by Rav as follows: If the young girl stands up and sees blood, but she sits and does not see blood, it is known that the wound has not yet healed, and the blood is still attributed to the torn hymen. Similarly, if she sits on the ground and sees blood, but she sits on cushions and blankets and does not see blood, it is known that the wound has not yet healed and she may attribute the blood to the torn hymen, as the blood flows due to the strain of sitting on the ground. But if she sometimes sits on all of them, i.e., the ground, cushions, and blankets, and sees blood, and on other occasions she sits on all of them and does not see blood, it is known that the wound has healed, and this blood must now be menstrual blood.

הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ וְכוּ׳. אִיתְּמַר: שִׁימְּשָׁה בַּיָּמִים — רַב אָמַר: לֹא הִפְסִידָה לֵילוֹת, וְלֵוִי אָמַר: הִפְסִידָה לֵילוֹת.

§ The mishna teaches: In the case of a young woman whose time to see a menstrual flow has arrived, Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the conclusion of Shabbat and she may engage in intercourse with her husband for four nights. It was stated that there is a dispute between amora’im with regard to the following case: If she engaged in intercourse with her husband during the daytime, in addition to engaging in intercourse at night, Rav says: She has not lost her nights, and the blood is still attributed to the torn hymen for four nights. Levi says: She has lost her nights, since she has engaged in intercourse twice during the daytime and twice at night, and therefore she has already used up the equivalent of four nights.

רַב אָמַר: לֹא הִפְסִידָה לֵילוֹת, עַד ״מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת״ תְּנַן. וְלֵוִי אָמַר: הִפְסִידָה לֵילוֹת. מַאי ״אַרְבַּע לֵילוֹת״ דְּקָתָנֵי? אַרְבָּעָה עוֹנוֹת.

The Gemara explains: Rav says that she has not lost her nights, as we learned in the mishna that the blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the conclusion of Shabbat, and it does not limit the number of times she may engage in intercourse during that time. And Levi says: She has lost her nights, as what is the meaning of the term: Four nights, that is taught in the mishna? It means four twelve-hour periods, either days or nights.

וּלְרַב, לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵא ״אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת״? אוֹרַח אַרְעָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּדַרְכָּהּ דְּבִיאָה בַּלֵּילוֹת. וּלְלֵוִי, לִיתְנֵי ״אַרְבָּעָה לֵילוֹת״, ״עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת״ לְמָה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּשְׁרֵי לְמִבְעַל לְכַתְּחִלָּה בְּשַׁבָּת.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav, why do I need the mishna to teach: Four nights? The mishna should have stated four days, which would include both days and nights. Rav would respond that the mishna teaches us proper conduct, as it is proper that intercourse should be performed only at night. The Gemara suggests: And according to the opinion of Levi, let the mishna teach only: Four nights. Why do I need the mishna to specify: Until the conclusion of Shabbat? Levi would answer that this teaches us that it is permitted to engage in intercourse for the first time on Shabbat. Since the custom was for a virgin to marry on Wednesday, which means that one of the four first nights is Shabbat, it is permitted to engage in intercourse on that night, despite the fact that it may cause her to bleed.

כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: פִּרְצָה דְּחוּקָה מוּתָּר לִיכָּנֵס בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּשִּׁיר צְרוֹרוֹת.

The Gemara notes that Levi’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: It is permitted to enter into a narrow opening in a wall on Shabbat, and this is the halakha even though doing so causes pebbles to fall from the wall. Similarly, although engaging in intercourse might cause a wound and bleeding, it is permitted on Shabbat.

אִיתְּמַר: בָּעַל וְלֹא מָצָא דָּם, וְחָזַר וּבָעַל וּמָצָא דָּם, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: טְמֵאָה, וְרַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר: טְהוֹרָה.

It was stated that the amora’im engaged in a dispute: If a husband engaged in intercourse with a virgin and did not find blood, and he went back within the first four nights and again engaged in intercourse with her and this time he found blood, Rabbi Ḥanina says: The wife is ritually impure, as this is menstruation blood. And Rabbi Asi says: She is ritually pure, as it is blood from the wound resulting from the act of intercourse.

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: טְמֵאָה, דְּאִם אִיתַהּ דַּהֲוָה דַּם בְּתוּלִים — מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה אָתֵי. וְרַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר: טְהוֹרָה, דִּילְמָא אִתְרְמִי לֵיהּ כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: ״יָכוֹלְנִי לִבְעוֹל כַּמָּה בְּעִילוֹת בְּלֹא דָּם״. וְאִידָּךְ — שָׁאנֵי שְׁמוּאֵל דְּרַב גּוּבְרֵיהּ.

Rabbi Ḥanina says: She is ritually impure, as if it is so that it is blood from her hymen, i.e., the blood of her virginity, it would have come at the outset, after the first time they engaged in intercourse. And Rabbi Asi said: She is ritually pure, as perhaps it happened for him that he engaged in intercourse like Shmuel described. As Shmuel said: I can engage in intercourse several times without the appearance of blood. In other words, I can engage in intercourse with a virgin while leaving her hymen intact. And the other Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, does not allow for that possibility, since he maintains that Shmuel is different, as his strength was great. Shmuel was particularly skilled at this, while others cannot accomplish this.

אָמַר רַב: בּוֹגֶרֶת נוֹתְנִין לָהּ לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה, אֲבָל רָאֲתָה — אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא בְּעִילַת מִצְוָה וְתוּ לָא.

§ The mishna teaches the halakha of a young girl. The Gemara discusses the case of a girl who is older than twelve and a half. Rav says: The Sages give a grown woman, who engaged in intercourse on her wedding night, the entire first night, during which she may engage in intercourse with her husband several times. And this statement applies only if she did not see any blood. But if she saw blood, she has only the relations that consummate a marriage, which are a mitzva, and nothing more.

מֵיתִיבִי: מַעֲשֶׂה וְנָתַן לָהּ רַבִּי (ארבע) [אַרְבָּעָה] לֵילוֹת מִתּוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּיָהֵיב לַהּ כּוּלְּהוּ בִּימֵי קַטְנוּת,

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s statement from a baraita: There was an incident involving a virgin who married, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave her four nights in which to engage in intercourse within twelve months of her wedding when the blood is considered to be like blood resulting from the torn hymen. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave her all of those nights of purity in her days as a minor,