Niddah 15a — the Talmud in English

This matter Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok asked before the Sages in Usha, and he said to them: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

Perhaps according to Rabbi Akiva

you say that she renders her partner impure

even if she saw [blood] during the twenty-four hours after the intercourse?

They said to him—

We have not heard

its measure, but we do not hold according to Rabbi Akiva.

He said to them—

Thus the Sages explained in Yavne:

As long as

she did not wait long enough to descend from the bed and wash her face

but only waited long enough to extend her hand and examine herself—

this is within the time!

[This accords with the statement of Rav Hisda, that the period called “after the time” is between the time of the intercourse and the time until she extends her hand and examines herself, and not until she descends and washes.] And during this period both of them, the husband and the woman, are

impure by uncertainty, and exempt from a sin-offering

of sin-offering,

and liable for a suspensive guilt-offering!

And if

she waited long enough to descend from the bed and wash her face—

after the time

[of “after the time”]

is this!

[And this is the third period, called in Rav Hisda’s terminology “after-after.”]

And likewise,

from here onward, from after she waited long enough to descend from the bed and wash,

when she waited for twenty-four hours and from examination to examination

after the intercourse—

her partner renders impure

only

because of contact

with a menstruant, whose impurity lasts one day [and is rabbinic, for the Sages decreed concerning everyone who sees blood that she renders pure things impure retroactively],

but he does not render impure

with seven-day impurity

because of

the partner

of a menstruant.

Rabbi Akiva says: He also renders impure

with seven-day impurity

because of the partner

of a menstruant!

Rabbi Judah, son of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, says:

After “the time,” her partner does not become impure at all, not even with the rabbinic impurity of the twenty-four hours. And if

her husband

is a priest, he

enters the Sanctuary

in purity,

and burns incense!

And the Gemara raises an objection from the baraita:

Granted, according to Rav Hisda,

who said that “after the time,” during which her partner is impure, lasts only until she extends her hand and examines herself,

this is why the Sages deem pure

in the baraita after this period.

But according to Rav Ashi,

who said that if the examination cloth is in her hand she renders her partner impure until she descends from the bed and washes her face [and Rav Ashi likewise explained “after the time” in the Mishna in this manner],

why do the Sages deem pure

her partner after the time has passed that she could extend her hand and examine herself? For according to Rav Ashi, the period during which she renders her partner impure continues until she descends from the bed and washes her face?!

And if you should say

that the baraita is speaking

when the examination cloth is not in her hand,

and therefore the measure of time is only until she extends her hand and examines herself ,

this “the examination cloth is in her hand” and “the examination cloth is not in her hand” is required!

That is, if so, the tanna of the baraita should have taught us this distinction: that it is speaking specifically when the examination cloth is not in her hand, and only then does the time end when she extends her hand and examines herself, after which she does not render her partner impure; but if the examination cloth was in her hand, she renders her partner impure until she descends from the bed and washes her face.

And the Gemara concludes:

It is difficult

for Rav Ashi!

We learned in the baraita above:

Rabbi Judah, son of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, says: Her husband—

enters the Sanctuary and burns incense!

And the Gemara asks:

And let it issue from the fact

that he is impure because

he was one who touched during the twenty-four hours of a menstruant,

for the Sages decreed retroactive impurity upon the pure things that she touched?

And it answers:

He,

Rabbi Judah,

said in accordance with Shammai,

who said that they did not decree the impurity of the twenty-four hours at all; rather,

“All women—

their time is sufficient for them!”

The Gemara asks further: How can he offer incense?

And let it issue from the fact

that he is impure because

he was one who experienced a seminal emission!?

And it answers: Here we are dealing

with a case in which he did not

complete his intercourse,

so that he did not emit semen.

We learned in the Mishna: And the Sages agree with Rabbi Akiva concerning one who sees a stain

that she renders her partner impure.

Rav said:

She renders her partner impure

retroactively

74 , and it is Rabbi Meir’s opinion,

who said [on 5a] that one who sees a stain renders pure things impure retroactively.

And Samuel said:

She renders impure only the partner who will have intercourse with her

from this point onward,

after she saw the stain,

and it is the opinion of the Sages,

who do not hold that stains render impure retroactively.

And the Gemara raises an objection against Samuel: If

from this point onward,

then

it is obvious

that she renders her partner impure, for she saw blood; and what is the novelty in our Mishna?

The Gemara resolves this:

Lest you say

that they did not decree impurity upon her partner at all,

since

the impurity of

the twenty-four hours is rabbinic, and the impurity of

stains is

rabbinic, and we might have said:

Just as “the twenty-four hours does not render her partner impure

retroactively,

so too stains do not render her partner impure

at all.

It teaches us

that one who sees a stain renders her partner impure

.

And the Gemara asks:

And say that this too is so?

Why, then, does the Mishna distinguish between the impurity of the twenty-four hours and the impurity of stains?

And it answers:

There,

with the impurity of the twenty-four hours,

“there is no slaughtered ox before you,”

for she did not see yesterday, but only now, and only as a safeguard did we make her pure things impure, but we were not stringent concerning her partner. But

here,

in the case of one who sees a stain,

“there is a slaughtered ox before you,”

for the blood is before you.

The Gemara adds:

And likewise Resh Lakish said

to explain the words of the Mishna according to Rav’s position, that one who sees a stain renders her partner impure

retroactively, and it is Rabbi Meir’s opinion.

But

Rabbi Yohanan said

in accordance with Samuel, that she renders her partner impure only

from

this point onward,

and our Mishna

is the opinion of the Sages!

Mishna:

All women—

are presumed pure for their husbands. Those who come from the road—

their wives are presumed pure for them.

The wording of the Mishna indicates two innovations:

A. That the examination before intercourse mentioned in the previous Mishna is only for a woman occupied with pure things, because of the stringency of sacred things; but a woman who is not occupied with pure things is presumed pure, and no examination is required to permit her to her husband. B. That even if the husband does not know whether his wife examined herself at the time when she was required to examine herself, he may rely on the presumption of her purity.

It follows that in the first part of the Mishna, the innovation is that the woman is exempt from examining herself, and in the latter part, the innovation is that the husband was exempted from the obligation to clarify with his wife whether she examined herself.

Gemara:

And the Gemara asks:

Why do I need it to teach, “those who come from the road,”

for this innovation of the Mishna also applies when her husband is in the city, as he can rely on the presumption of her purity and need not ask her whether she examined herself?

And it answers it:

You might have thought: This applies only

when he can rely on her that she examined herself

where he is present

to the husband,

in the city, for she takes it upon herself

that she pays attention then to her purity in relation to her husband

but where he is not in the city, for she does not take it upon herself.

Say

not

that she examined herself at the time when she was obligated to examine herself;

it teaches us

that one may rely on her examinations even when he is not in the city and maintain her presumption of purity.

The Gemara explains the establishment of the Mishna by means of three different statements:

1.

Rish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: And this

this law, that one who comes from the road may rely on her presumption of purity even without asking her—refers to a case

in which he came and found her within “the days

of her interval” 81,

for thirty days had not yet passed since her last sighting, because “ordinary women,” even those who have no fixed cycle, see after thirty days. Therefore, once the thirtieth day arrives, she is obligated to examine herself even if she did not feel anything and did not see anything, and she cannot rely on her presumption of purity; likewise, her husband is forbidden to have relations with her, unless he asks her whether she examined herself and found herself pure.

2.

Rav Huna said: They taught this only

in our Mishna, that one who comes from the road within the days of her interval [and in accordance with the words of Rish Lakish] need not ask her whether she examined herself, because she has a presumption of purity and does not require examination,

but

with a woman

who has no fixed cycle

whose time of seeing is only at the end of thirty days, and therefore she is permitted without examination and without a question.

But

if

she has a fixed cycle—

it is forbidden to have relations

unless she examines herself, and he must ask her whether she examined herself.

The Gemara is astonished:

What direction is this?!

How can this be? For

on the contrary, the opposite is logical:

for if

she has no fixed cycle

one must be concerned,

for perhaps she saw,

since she has no fixed cycle of thirty days, and if so, one must be concerned that perhaps she will see even within the days of the interval. But when

she has a fixed cycle—

she has an established cycle!

There is no concern that perhaps she will see on days that are not the days of her cycle?!

Rather, if it was stated in this manner, it was stated as follows: Rav Huna said: They taught this only when the time of her cycle had not arrived

while he was on the road, and therefore he may rely on the established cycle, that she did not see on the preceding days, and he need not ask her whether she examined herself properly, and she is pure.

But, if the time of her cycle arrived

while he was on the road—

she is forbidden!

For she has left a presumption of purity and entered a presumption of impurity, because “the visitor comes at his appointed time.” Therefore, whenever her husband did not explicitly ask her whether she examined herself at the time of the cycle and found herself pure, she has the presumption of impurity with regard to her husband.

The Gemara explains:

He holds

Rav Huna

that menstrual cycles are by Torah law!

That is, the obligation of examination at the time of the cycle is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai:

Therefore, even if she did not see and did not feel anything at the time of her cycle, if she did not examine herself, she has a presumptive status of impurity because of doubt, by a halakha given to Moses at Sinai whose stringency is like that of Torah law.

Therefore, one who comes from the road after the time of the cycle cannot rely on his wife that she examined herself at the time of the cycle and found herself pure, unless he explicitly asks her whether she indeed did so; he cannot rely merely on her consent to have relations.

3.

Rabba bar bar Hana said: Even if the time of her cycle arrived, she is also permitted!

He may rely on her consent to have relations without explicitly asking her whether she examined herself at the time of the cycle and found herself pure, because

he holds—

menstrual cycles are rabbinic!

For by Torah law, even if the time of her cycle arrived, if she did not feel anything and did not see anything, she has a presumption of purity and does not even require an examination. Rather, the Sages obligated her to examine herself on the day of the cycle; but even after they obligated her, this is merely an “obligation of examination,” and they did not establish her by rabbinic law as having a “presumption of impurity because of doubt” [as Rav Huna, who holds that menstrual cycles are by Torah law, established her] if she did not examine herself. Therefore, whenever the husband is uncertain whether she examined herself on the day of the cycle, he may rely on her previous presumption of purity, and he need not ask her about the examination; he may rely on her mere consent to have relations.

Rav Ashi

establishes the Mishna as saying that they have a presumption of purity with regard to their husbands even after the time of their cycles has arrived, and

the Mishna

follows the words of Rav Huna and Rabba bar bar Hana

as follows: