Niddah 12b — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rava to Rav Pappa:

Sodani [a Torah scholar]! —

! —

No!

She need not examine herself, because

it is degrading in his presence,

for if she were required to examine herself before intercourse, she would become degraded in his eyes, and it is possible to rely upon his claim in place of an examination.

Rav Kahana said: I asked the members of my household

the wives

of Rav Pappa and Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua: When the Sages come from the house of study —

do

they require you to examine yourselves

or not?

And they said to me,

the women:

No,

they do not require us to examine ourselves, and it is as the beraita states, that a claim is sufficient.

And we raised it: Why did Rav Kahana ask the women?

And let him ask them

their husbands?

And we answer:

Perhaps they are stringent with themselves,

for it is possible that they themselves were stringent, requiring their wives to examine themselves, but to Rav Kahana they would answer in accordance with the halakha, that a claim is sufficient and an examination is unnecessary. Therefore Rav Kahana asked their wives, in order to know whether there was room to be stringent, because Rav Kahana wished to be stringent like them, if they practiced this stringency.

The Sages taught: A woman who has no menstrual cycle —

is forbidden to engage in intercourse

even with an examination before intercourse, since perhaps she will see blood during intercourse.

And she has neither a ketubah [since it is a mitzva to divorce her, she leaves without a ketubah].

nor

produce [although she has no ketubah, the husband is not obligated to return the produce that he consumed from her melog property] .

although she is not entitled to a marriage contract, her husband is not required to repay the value of the produce he consumed from property that belongs to her but is managed by him .

nor

support [for he has no obligation to provide for her].

nor worn-out articles. [Wear: the clothing, for every woman who brings in clothing valued at the amount of her ketubah, her husband wears them until they are worn out, and when she leaves she is entitled to receive them when they are worn out. But this woman, whom it is a mitzva to divorce, is not entitled to receive them].

“Worn-out garments” means clothing that every woman brings into the marriage with its value included in her marriage contract. Her husband wears it until it becomes worn out, and when she leaves, she is entitled to receive it in its worn-out state. But this woman, whom it is a mitzva to divorce, is not entitled to receive it.

And he shall divorce her, and he may never remarry her —

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says:

she can remain under her husband, and she shall

engage in intercourse with two witnesses [sheets],

one before intercourse and one after intercourse.

And Rabbi Hanina explains her remedy through her engaging in intercourse with witnesses:

They,

the witnesses of the examination, through which the blood is found,

made her defective,

for she became impure by means of the examination with them. And therefore —

they

also

remedied her!

For through the examination witness before intercourse, she is permitted to engage in intercourse if no blood is found upon it.

In the name of Abba Hanan they said: Woe to her husband! [His intention will be explained shortly].

[His intention will be explained shortly.]

And the Gemara explains Rabbi Meir’s method:

“She is forbidden to engage in intercourse” —

perhaps she will damage him,

for there is concern that she will see during intercourse.

“And she has no ketubah” —

since she is not fit for intercourse, she has no ketubah.

“Nor produce, nor support, nor worn-out articles” —

because they are conditions of the ketubah, and they are considered like the ketubah.

And regarding what we learned,

“and he shall divorce her, and he may never remarry her”

— we raised it:

Is it obvious!?

For if she leaves because she has no menstrual cycle, all the more so he may not remarry her?!

And we explain:

It is necessary —

that she later recovered and was remedied!

For now she has a menstrual cycle, and she is permitted to marry.

It might enter your mind to say —

let him remarry her; it teaches us

that he may not remarry her. Because

sometimes she goes and marries

another man, who does not know that she has no menstrual cycle,

and is remedied [establishing a menstrual cycle for herself]

while she is under the second man,

and the first husband says,

the husband who divorced her:

“If I had known that this

I

would have been —

even if you had given me a hundred maneh

in order to divorce her,

I would not have divorced her! And it is found that the get is void [because there is a clear presumption that he did not divorce her with this understanding],

[because there is a clear presumption that he did not divorce her with this possibility in mind],

and her sons

from the second husband

are mamzerim.

Therefore they instituted that one who divorces his wife because she has no menstrual cycle must be informed at the time of the divorce that even if she is subsequently remedied, he will not be able to remarry her, and he will no longer be able to claim, “If I had known, I would not have divorced her”.

And the Gemara continues to explain the words of the tannaim in the beraita:

“In the name of Abba Hanan they said” —

“Woe to her husband.”

There are those who say —

he said it to Rabbi Meir [Abba Hanan was referring to Rabbi Meir’s words, that she leaves without a ketubah, and disagreed with him, maintaining that she has a ketubah].

For he wishes to collect her ketubah.

There are those who say: He said it to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus,

for she should not be permitted to engage in intercourse with witnesses, because of “woe to her husband,”

for she damages him!

For although she examined herself before intercourse and was found pure, there is concern that perhaps she will see during intercourse.

And now the Gemara brings a third statement in the name of Shmuel, concerning examination.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha follows Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus

that a woman who has no menstrual cycle engages in intercourse with two witnesses.

And we raised it:

And in what

manner did Shmuel say, “The halakha follows Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus”?

If she is occupied with matters of purity —

Shmuel already said this once [on the previous page, as will be explained immediately below in the Gemara],

that a woman who has no menstrual cycle engages in intercourse only with an examination.

And if she is not occupied with matters of purity —

he said

Shmuel, in that same statement:

“For her husband,”

a woman who is not occupied with matters of purity —

does she not require an examination!?

And the Gemara brings where Shmuel stated these two laws.

For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya in the name of Shmuel —

“A woman who has no menstrual cycle is forbidden to engage in intercourse until she examines herself,” and we established it

on the previous page, that Shmuel said his words

when she is occupied with matters of purity,

with regard to a woman occupied with matters of ritual purity,

for therefore she is obligated to examine herself. But when she is not occupied, she is not obligated to examine herself.

And the Gemara answers: Indeed, it is speaking of one who is occupied with matters of purity, but this is not a repeated statement of Shmuel; rather,

the one who teaches this does not teach that,

for Rav Yehuda said one statement in the name of Shmuel, and Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya said a second statement in his name. They do not acknowledge one another, but each maintains that Shmuel said only one statement.

We shall return to you, chapter Shammai