Niddah 12b (יב:) — 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 repulsive in his eyes, and one may rely on his claim in place of an examination.

Rav Kahana said: I asked the women 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, in accordance with the law of the beraita, that a claim is sufficient.

And we raised a question concerning this: Why did Rav Kahana ask the women

? But let him ask them

their husbands

?

And we answer:

Perhaps they were stringent with themselves, meaning that they may have been stringent with themselves and required their wives to examine themselves, but they would have answered Rav Kahana in accordance with the halakha, that a claim is sufficient and an examination is unnecessary. Therefore, Rav Kahana asked their wives, in order to determine whether there was reason to be stringent, since Rav Kahana wished to adopt their practice if they followed this stringency.

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

is forbidden to engage in intercourse

even if she examines herself before intercourse, as perhaps she will see blood during intercourse.

And she has neither a marriage contract [since it is a mitzva to divorce her, she leaves without a marriage contract

],

nor produce [although she has no marriage contract, her husband is not required to return the produce he consumed from her usufruct property

] .

Nor sustenance [he is not obligated to support her

].

Nor worn garments. [Worn garments are the clothing that every woman brings in with the valuation of her marriage contract; her husband wears them until they become worn out, and when she leaves she is entitled to receive them in their worn state. But this woman, whom it is a mitzva to divorce, is not entitled to receive them

].

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

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says:

She can remain with her husband, and she may

engage in intercourse with two witnesses

[sheets], one before intercourse and one after intercourse.

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

They,

the witnesses of examination through which the blood is discovered,

have rendered her defective,

causing her to become impure through the examination performed with them. Therefore—

they

also

remedied her!

Through the examination witness before intercourse, she is permitted to engage in intercourse if no blood is found on it.

In the name of Abba Hanan they said: Woe to her husband!

[His intention will be explained shortly.]

And the Gemara explains Rabbi Meir’s approach:

“She is forbidden to engage in intercourse”—

perhaps she will cause him harm,

as there is concern that she may see blood during intercourse.

“And she has no marriage contract”—

since she is unfit for intercourse, she has no marriage contract.

“Nor produce, nor sustenance, nor worn garments”—

because they are conditions [of the marriage contract], and are considered equivalent to the marriage contract.

And concerning what we learned: “

And he must divorce her, and may never remarry her” —

we raised a question:

Is this not obvious!?

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

We explain:

It is necessary—

that she subsequently developed an established cycle!

She now has an established cycle and is permitted to marry.

Lest you say—

let him remarry her, it teaches us

that he is forbidden to remarry her. This is because

there are times when she goes and marries

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

and develops an established cycle

[establishing a cycle for herself] while she is with the second husband,

and

the first husband who divorced her will say:

If I had known that this

[unclear: isolated letter]

had been the case—

even if you had given me one hundred maneh

to divorce her,

I would not have divorced her! And it would emerge that the bill of divorce was void

[because there is compelling presumptive evidence that he did not divorce her with this possibility in mind],

and her sons

from the second husband would be

mamzerim.

Therefore, they instituted that when one divorces his wife because she has no established cycle, they inform him at the time of the divorce that even if she subsequently develops a cycle, he will not be able to remarry her, and he will no longer be able to claim, “If I had known this, I would not have divorced her”.

And the Gemara continues to explain the statements 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 statement that she leaves without a marriage contract, and he disagreed with him, maintaining that she does have a marriage contract. This is what he meant when he said: Woe to her husband],

for he will have to collect her marriage contract.

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

who should not permit her to engage in intercourse with witnesses, because of “Woe to her husband

,” for she will cause him harm!

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

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

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus

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

And we raised a question:

And in what

context did Shmuel say, “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus”?

If it is when she is occupied with matters of ritual purity—

Shmuel already said this once

[on the previous page, as the Gemara will explain immediately below], that a woman who has no established cycle engages in intercourse only after an examination.

And if it is when she is not occupied with matters of ritual purity—

he said

Shmuel, in that same statement:

Any woman [who engages in intercourse] for her husband,

a woman who is not occupied with matters of ritual purity—

does not require examination!?

And the Gemara cites where Shmuel stated these two laws.

As Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya said that Shmuel said—

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

[on the previous page] that Shmuel stated this

when she is occupied with matters of ritual purity,

and therefore she is required to examine herself. But when she is not occupied with such matters, she is not required to examine herself.

The Gemara answers: Indeed, it is referring to a woman occupied with matters of ritual purity, but this is not a repetition of Shmuel’s statement. Rather,

the one who teaches this did not teach that,

meaning that Rav Yehuda said one statement in the name of Shmuel, while Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya said a second statement in his name. They do not agree with one another; rather, each maintains that Shmuel said only one of the two statements.

We shall return to you, chapter of Shammai.