Niddah 12a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Yehuda:

A woman,

who is not occupied with matters of ritual purity and is not obligated to examine herself before intercourse—

what is the ruling as to her examining herself

before intercourse

for her husband?

That is, is it proper for her to do so?

He said to him

Rav Yehuda:

She should not examine!

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

Let her examine, and what of it?!

Rav Yehuda said to him: If so,

if she examines herself,

the heart

of her husband

is troubled,

for he is concerned that she is examining because she sensed the departure of blood,

and he will abstain!

Rabbi Abba asked Rav Huna:

A woman

who is not occupied with matters of ritual purity who had intercourse, and who is not obligated to examine herself after intercourse—

what is the ruling as to her examining herself

[that is, whether it is nevertheless proper for her to examine herself immediately after intercourse, within the short period called] “

the measure of a menstrual interval”—

in order to render her husband liable for a sin-offering!

That is, so that she will know whether her intercourse was permitted or forbidden. For if it was forbidden, the two of them will bring atonement, a sin-offering .

And the reason Rav Huna required her to examine specifically within the short period “the measure of a menstrual interval” is that below, on page 14, it is explained in the Mishna that only if she saw after intercourse within this period would they become liable for a sin-offering.

Rav Huna said to

Rabbi Abba:

Can you find such a thing,

how is it possible

to examine

within such a short time,

the measure of a menstrual interval?

For by the time she performs the examination internally, in the folds and cracks, that short period called “the measure of a menstrual interval” will already have passed?

And it was taught in a beraita: What is the “measure of a menstrual interval”

that the Sages stated, such that if she sees blood after intercourse within the measure of a menstrual interval, they become liable for a sin-offering?—

An analogy

[for the brevity of the time]:

to a man having intercourse and a cloth standing beside the doorpost,

the one close to the other,

and when the man having intercourse departs, the cloth enters.

The object of the analogy is that immediately upon the departure of the man having intercourse [the organ of intercourse], she examined herself with a sheet [the cloth].

And the beraita continues:

You must say: “

say: “

the measure

of a menstrual interval”

that they said

in the Mishna below, for which they become liable for a sin-offering, is a period of time

for wiping

alone,

and not for examination!

For only if she wiped externally and found blood, we attribute that the blood was also present at the time of intercourse. But if she examined herself internally, this is a longer period than “the measure of a menstrual interval.” Since the cloth is not located beside the “doorpost,” but she holds it in her hand, by the time she brings it to the doorpost and examines internally, the time has already passed! And if blood is found in the examination, it is impossible to say with certainty that the blood was present at the time of intercourse; rather, it is possible that it came afterward, and they are not liable for a sin-offering, but only for a doubtful guilt-offering.

In light of this, Rav Huna asked Rabbi Abba how he could be uncertain about examination after intercourse in order to render him liable for a sin-offering?!

Rather,

Rabbi Abba corrected his question, so that the issue is:

A woman,

what is the ruling as to her wiping

externally after intercourse, so that if she finds blood in the wiping, which is performed immediately after intercourse, within the measure that is “the measure of a menstrual interval,” there will be liability for a sin-offering?

Some say that he asked him thus:

This is how Rabbi Abba discussed the matter before Rav Huna:

What is the ruling as to a woman examining herself

after intercourse? And although the time of the examination is after “the measure of a menstrual interval,” will this examination nevertheless be useful

to render her husband liable for a doubtful guilt-offering

as with every doubtful prohibition?

He said to him

Rav Huna:

She should not examine!

Rabbi Abba said to him:

Let her examine, and what of it?!

Rav Huna said to him:

If so,

if he knows that after intercourse she will engage in examination, lest the intercourse was forbidden,

his heart will be troubled and he will abstain

from intercourse! Therefore, it is preferable that she not examine at all [unless she is occupied with matters of ritual purity, in which case she is obligated by fundamental law to examine].

We learned in the Mishna:

And when she passes

to serve her house, she is obligated to examine [if she was occupied with matters of ritual purity].

Rabbi Ami said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: And this,

that same cloth with which she examines before intercourse [mentioned in our Mishna—when she passes to serve her house], is

“the cloth

of the modest women”

[mentioned below in the Mishna, 14a: “And the modest women prepare for themselves a third cloth, to prepare the house!” That is, before intercourse].

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said to Rabbi Ami: The tan[n]a teaches

in our Mishna

“they require,”

meaning that the woman must examine when she passes to serve her house,

and

if

you teach “This is the cloth of the

“This is the cloth of

modest

women,” which is not an obligation, but merely a pious practice?!

He said to him

Rabbi Ami: Indeed, the expression “modesty” is appropriate even with regard to a requirement,

for I say: Whoever fulfills the words of the Sages is called “modest”! He said

[asked]

Rava:

But is one who

does not fulfill the words of the Sages

merely not

“modest,”

is that all that he is not called,

so that this is his only deficiency?

But

according to your words, “

wicked”—

he is not called [that]?

Is it impossible to call him by the name “wicked”?!

Rather, Rava said:

The statement of the Mishna below, “And the

modest

women prepare a third cloth,” does not refer to the obligation of examination before intercourse, for this obligation has already been explained in our Mishna, in which every woman occupied with matters of ritual purity is obligated. Rather, it tells us that modest women have a praiseworthy practice, namely:

“The cloth with which they examined themselves before this intercourse—they do not examine with it before another intercourse”

because the first examination has already dulled the whiteness of the cloth, and the second examination will not be clearly discernible on it.

But women

“

who are not modest”

examine again and again with the same cloth,

and they do not care

to be particular about the appearance of their examinations.

The essential matter: Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya in the name of Shmuel: A woman who has no regular period—

it is forbidden for her to have intercourse until she examines!

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya [who stated this law in the name of Shmuel]: Is it only a woman who

[who had stated this law in the name of Shmuel]: Did he mean that only a woman who

has no regular period

and is occupied with matters of ritual purity who

requires examination

before intercourse, whereas a woman who

has a regular period does not require examination?

For we learned in our Mishna that even a woman who has a regular period is obligated to examine when she passes to serve her house [when she is occupied with matters of ritual purity]?

He said to him

Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya to Rabbi Zeira: Shmuel taught us a great novelty: the obligation of examination for every woman applies only if she is awake, for then she is fit to engage in matters of ritual purity, and therefore we obligated her to examine even for her husband. Likewise, examination is not a great exertion when she is awake.

But if she is asleep, at that time she is not fit to engage in matters of ritual purity. Likewise, there is exertion and distress in awakening her so that she will be alert in a manner enabling her to examine — the Sages were lenient and did not obligate her to examine in every case [even a woman occupied with matters of ritual purity]. Rather:

If she

has a regular period, the Sages were lenient: only when she is

awake

does she

require examination. But if she is

But if she is

asleep—

she does not require examination!

But if she

has no regular period—

then

whether

she is

awake or asleep, she requires

examination [and the reason that we were more lenient with one who has a regular period is that he had intercourse with her not at the time of her period, so he can rely on the fact that at that time she is considered removed from blood].

meaning that she is obligated to examine herself. [The reason for the greater leniency when she has a regular menstrual cycle is that he engaged in relations with her when it was not the time of her expected cycle, so he may rely on the fact that at that time she is considered free of blood.]

Accordingly, Shmuel’s novelty in saying “A woman

who has no regular period

is forbidden to have intercourse until she examines” is twofold:

a. The obligation stated in the Mishna—that every woman, even one who has a regular period, must examine before intercourse—applies only when she is awake, but not when she is asleep.

b. In the case of a woman who has no regular period, they imposed greater stringency upon her: even if she is asleep, they must awaken her, because she must examine, in every case.

Rava said: Let Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya say to him

Rabbi Zeira another explanation of the intent of Shmuel’s statement:

If she has a regular period—

then only

for matters of ritual purity

[a woman occupied with matters of ritual purity] does she

require examination

before intercourse; but when she is not occupied with matters of ritual purity, when the examination is only

for her husband, she does not require examination.

But if she

has no regular period—we imposed greater stringency upon her, so that

we were stricter with her, so that

even for her husband as well

[and even when she is not occupied with matters of ritual purity] she

requires examination!

That is, it should be said that this is what Shmuel intended when he said, “A woman who has no regular period is forbidden until she examines”: since she has no regular period, we imposed greater stringency upon her and forbade her until she examines, even when she is not occupied with matters of ritual purity, in contrast to a woman who has a regular period, who, if she is not occupied with matters of ritual purity, is exempt from examination.

And the Gemara analyzes:

And from the fact that he did not say to him

Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya to Rabbi Zeira

this, infer that Shmuel holds: Anything for her husband

[that is, a woman who is not occupied with matters of ritual purity]

does not require examination

before intercourse, whether she has a regular period or whether she has no regular period. Therefore, Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya could not explain that Shmuel’s novelty was that we imposed upon a woman who is not occupied with matters of ritual purity the requirement to examine when she has no regular period.

From here, Shmuel’s statement, “A woman who has no regular period is forbidden to have intercourse until she examines,” applies only to a woman occupied with matters of ritual purity [for Shmuel taught us that they imposed this stringency upon her even when she is asleep]. But if she is not occupied with matters of ritual purity, she does not require examination at all, even if she has no regular period. And this statement of Shmuel accords with his statement on the previous page, that a woman who is not occupied with matters of ritual purity does not require examination in any case.

The Sages taught: Mule-drivers, laborers, and those returning from a house of mourning or from a house of feasting—

their wives are presumed by them to be ritually pure, and they come and stay with them whether they are asleep or awake.

When are these words said,

that they are permitted even without asking them and without their examining before intercourse?

When he left them with a presumption of ritual purity.

But if he left them with a presumption of ritual impurity, she is always impure,

even if the time has passed in which she could immerse and become pure,

until she says to him, “I am pure.”

And we raise an inquiry concerning it:

But,

this beraita,

Shmuel—

with what does he establish it?

If it is when she has a regular period—

it is difficult concerning when she is awake: why is she exempt from examination? For the wording of the beraita implies that it concerns one occupied with matters of ritual purity.

And if it is when she has no regular period—

is it difficult both when she is awake and when she is asleep?

And we answer:

It is always when she has a regular period.

And the reason that she does not need to examine when she is awake is

since

when he

requested

intercourse and she consented,

you have no greater examination than this!

For we were lenient with her , so that she does not need an actual examination, but a request is sufficient [and according to Shmuel as well, a request is sufficient], for had she not been certain that she was pure, she would have examined herself .

Rav Pappa said to Rava: What is [the ruling] with regard to acting in accordance with this beraita?

Is it possible to rely on this beraita in practice, that an examination specifically is not necessary, but a claim is sufficient; or perhaps it is not possible to rely on it, but she must examine?