Niddah 12a (יב.) — 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—

may she examine herself

before intercourse

with her husband?

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

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

She should not examine herself!

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

Let her examine herself—what harm is there in that?!

Rav Yehuda said to him: If so,

if she examines herself,

the heart

of her husband

will be troubled,

because he will be concerned that she is examining herself because she felt blood emerge,

and he will abstain!

Rabbi Abba asked Rav Huna:

A woman

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

may she examine herself

[that is, is it 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 to a sin-offering!

That is, so that she will know whether her intercourse was permitted or prohibited. For if it was prohibited, both of them must attain atonement through a sin-offering .

[The reason Rav Huna required her to examine herself specifically within the short period “the measure of a menstrual interval” is that, as the Mishna below, on page 14, explains, only if she saw blood after intercourse within this period do they become liable to a sin-offering.]

Rav Huna said to him,

Rav Huna to Rabbi Abba:

Can you find such a case,

how could there be

an examination

within so short a time,

the measure of a menstrual interval?

By the time she performs an internal examination in the folds and crevices, 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 this interval, they become liable to a sin-offering?

It is comparable

[in terms of the brevity of the period]

to having intercourse and to a witness standing beside the doorpost,

one immediately beside the other,

and as the man withdraws, the cloth enters.

The analogy is that immediately when the man withdraws [the organ of intercourse], she examines herself with a cloth [the witness].

The beraita continues:

You must therefore

say: “

The measure

of a menstrual interval”

that they stated

in the Mishna below, such that they become liable to a sin-offering, is the period required

for wiping

alone,

not for examination!

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

In light of this, why did Rav Huna ask Rabbi Abba how he could have been uncertain about an examination after intercourse in order to render him liable to a sin-offering?!

Rather,

Rabbi Abba amended his question. The issue is:

A woman—

what is the halakha regarding her wiping

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

Some say that this is how he asked him:

This is what Rabbi Abba discussed before Rav Huna:

What is the halakha regarding a woman examining herself

after intercourse? Even though the examination takes place after “the measure of a menstrual interval,” will the examination nevertheless be effective

to render her husband liable to an offering for uncertain guilt,

as in every case of uncertain prohibition?

He said to him,

Rav Huna:

She should not examine herself!

Rabbi Abba said to him:

Let her examine herself—what harm is there in that?!

Rav Huna said to him:

If so,

if he knows that after intercourse she will engage in an examination lest the intercourse have been prohibited,

his heart will be troubled and he will abstain

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

We learned in the Mishna:

And when she is about to pass

to engage in marital relations, she is obligated to examine herself [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 herself before intercourse [as stated in our Mishna—when she is about to engage in marital relations], is

the cloth—

of the modest women

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

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said to Rabbi Ami: A tanna teaches

in our Mishna

“they are required,”

meaning that a woman must examine herself when she is about to engage in marital relations,

but

if

you teach

“this is the cloth of the

modest

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

Rabbi Ami said to him:

Indeed, the expression “modesty” is appropriate even with regard to an obligation,

for I say: Anyone who 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—

that is all he is not called,

so that this is his only shortcoming?

Is

according to your words, he is not called

wicked—

he is not called so?

Is it impossible to call him “wicked”?!

Rather, Rava said:

When the Mishna below says, “And the

modest women prepare a third cloth,” it is not referring to the obligation to examine before intercourse, for that obligation has already been explained in our Mishna, which obligates every woman occupied with matters of ritual purity. Rather, it teaches us that the modest women have an exemplary practice, namely:

prepare a third cloth,” does not refer to the obligation to examine before marital relations, since that obligation has already been explained in our Mishna, which requires every woman occupied with matters of ritual purity to examine herself. Rather, it teaches us that modest women have an admirable practice, namely:

The cloth with which they examined themselves before this intercourse, they do not use to examine themselves before another intercourse,

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

But women who are

not modest

do examine

themselves again and again with the same cloth,

and they do not care

to take care over the appearance of their examinations.

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

is forbidden to engage in intercourse until she examines herself!

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya

[who had stated this law in the name of Shmuel]: Does only a woman who

has no regular cycle

and is occupied with matters of ritual purity

require an examination

before intercourse, whereas a woman who

has a regular cycle does not require an examination?

But we learned in our Mishna that even a woman who has a regular cycle is obligated to examine herself when she is about to engage in marital relations [when she is occupied with matters of ritual purity]?

He said to him,

Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya to Rabbi Zeira: Shmuel taught us a major innovation: the obligation to examine every woman applies only when she is awake, at which time she is fit to engage in matters of ritual purity; therefore, we obligated her to examine herself even for her husband. Moreover, examining herself while she is awake does not involve significant effort.

But if she is asleep, at which time she is not fit to engage in matters of ritual purity, and it also involves effort and distress to awaken her and make her sufficiently alert to examine herself , the Sages were lenient and did not obligate her to examine herself in every circumstance [even when she is occupied with matters of ritual purity]. Rather:

If she

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

awake

does she

does she require an examination.

But if she is

asleep—

she does not require an examination!

However, if she

has no regular cycle, then

then

whether

she is

awake or asleep, she requires

an examination [the reason we were more lenient with one who has a regular cycle is that he has intercourse with her not at the time of her expected cycle, and he can rely on the fact that at that time she is considered free of 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 statement, “A woman

who has no regular cycle

is forbidden to engage in intercourse until she examines herself,” contains a double innovation:

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

b. With regard to a woman who has no regular cycle, the Sages imposed the stringency that even if she is asleep, they must awaken her, because she must examine herself in every circumstance.]

Rava said: Let Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya tell him

Rabbi Zeira another explanation of Shmuel’s statement:

If she has a regular cycle—

she requires examination only

for matters of ritual purity

[when she is occupied with matters of ritual purity];

she requires an 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 an examination.

But if she

has no regular cycle, we imposed a 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 an examination!

[That is, Shmuel intended the following by his statement, “A woman who has no regular cycle is forbidden to engage in intercourse until she examines herself”: Since she has no regular cycle, we imposed the stringency of forbidding her until she examines herself, even when she is not occupied with matters of ritual purity, unlike a woman who has a regular cycle, who, when she is not occupied with matters of ritual purity, is exempt from examination.]

The Gemara infers:

And since he did not say to him

Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya to Rabbi Zeira

this, infer from it that Shmuel holds: Whenever it is for her husband,

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

she does not require an examination

before intercourse, whether she has a regular cycle or has no regular cycle. Therefore, Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya could not explain that Shmuel’s innovation was that a woman not occupied with matters of ritual purity was made subject to the stringency of examination when she has no regular cycle.

It follows that Shmuel’s statement, “A woman who has no regular cycle is forbidden to engage in intercourse until she examines herself,” applies only to a woman occupied with matters of ritual purity [for Shmuel taught that the Sages 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 cycle. This statement of Shmuel accords with his statement on the preceding amud, that a woman who is not occupied with matters of ritual purity does not require examination under any circumstances.

The Sages taught: Caravan drivers, laborers, and those returning from a house of mourning or from a wedding feast—

their wives are presumed to be ritually pure for them, and they may come and remain with them whether the women are asleep or awake.

When are these words stated,

that they are permitted even without asking the women and without 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 remains impure forever,

even after enough time has passed for her to immerse and become pure,

until she says to him, “I am pure.”

We raise an objection:

But this,

this beraita—

where does Shmuel

establish it?

If it is referring to one who has a regular cycle—

the case of her being awake is difficult: Why is she exempt from examination? The language of the beraita implies that it concerns one occupied with matters of ritual purity.

And if it is referring to one who has no regular cycle—

the cases of both her being awake and her being asleep are difficult!

We answer:

It is always referring to one who has a regular cycle.

The reason she does not need to examine herself when she is awake is

that since

she

she requested

intercourse and he consented,

you have no greater examination than this!

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

Rav Pappa said to Rava: What is the ruling as to acting in accordance with this baraita?

Can this baraita be relied upon in practice, so that a specific examination is not required and an inquiry suffices, or should it not be relied upon, and she is required to undergo an examination?