Niddah 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, asked the Sages in Usha this question, and said to them:

Exact page location")

Perhaps it is according to Rabbi Akiva

that you say that she renders the one who has intercourse with her impure

even if she saw blood during the twenty-four-hour period after the intercourse?

They said to him:

We have not heard

the measure of this time; however, we do not hold in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

He said to them:

This is how the Sages in Yavne interpreted it:

As long as

she did not remain [still] long enough to descend from the bed and wash her face

but only remained long enough to extend her hand and examine herself

this is considered within the time! [That is, this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Hisda, that the period called “after the time” is from the point at which she could have examined herself until the time it would take her to extend her hand and examine herself, and not until the time it would take her to descend and wash.] During this period, both of them, the husband and the wife,

[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

are impure by uncertainty, and are exempt from a sin-offering

for an inadvertent transgression,

but are liable to bring an asham talui!

And if

she remained [still] long enough to descend from the bed and wash her face:

[This is] after the time

[of “after the time”]

has passed! [This is the third period of time, called in Rav Hisda’s terminology “after-after.”]

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

And likewise,

from this point onward, from after she remained [still] long enough to descend from the bed and wash,

when she remained [still] for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination

after the intercourse,

the one who had intercourse with her becomes impure

only

due to contact

with a menstruating woman, whose impurity lasts one day [and is rabbinic, as the Sages decreed that anyone who sees blood renders pure food retroactively impure],

but he does not become impure

with seven-day impurity

due to

the one who has intercourse with

a menstruating woman.

Rabbi Akiva says: He also renders [him] impure

with seven-day impurity

due to the one who has intercourse

with a menstruating woman!

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

After “the time,” the man who had intercourse with her does not become impure at all, not even with the rabbinic impurity of the twenty-four-hour period. And if

her husband

is a priest, he

enters the Sanctuary

in a state of purity

and burns the incense!

The Gemara raises an objection from the beraita:

Granted, according to Rav Hisda,

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

this is why the Sages deem [him] pure

in the beraita after this period of time.

But according to Rav Ashi,

who said that if she has an examination cloth in her hand, she renders the man who had intercourse with her impure until she descends from the bed and washes her face [and Rav Ashi likewise interpreted “after the time” in the Mishna in this manner],

why do the Sages deem [him] pure

after the time it would take her to extend her hand and examine herself has passed? According to Rav Ashi, after all, the period during which she renders the man who had intercourse with her impure continues until she descends from the bed and washes [her face]?!

And if you say

that the beraita is speaking

when she does not have an examination cloth in her hand,

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

this “when she has an examination cloth in her hand” and “when she does not have an examination cloth in her hand” was necessary [to state]!

That is, if so, the tanna of the beraita should have taught us this distinction: that it is speaking specifically when she does not have an examination cloth in her hand, and that only in that case does the time end after the interval required for her to extend her hand and examine herself, after which she does not render the man who had intercourse with her impure. But if she had an examination cloth in her hand, she renders him impure until she descends from the bed and washes her face.

The Gemara concludes:

It is difficult

for Rav Ashi!

We learned in the beraita above:

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

enters the Sanctuary and burns the incense!

And the Gemara asks:

And let him derive

that he is impure due to

his having touched [something] during the twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman,

since the Sages decreed retroactive impurity upon pure food that she touched?

It answers:

He,

Rabbi Yehuda,

said in accordance with Beit Shammai,

who did not issue any decree concerning the impurity of the twenty-four-hour period. Rather,

“All women

have only the presumptive status of their time.”

The Gemara asks further: How can he burn the incense?

And let it derive

that he is impure because

he was one who experienced a seminal emission!?

It answers: Here we are dealing

with a case where he did not

complete the intercourse,

and he did not emit semen.

We learned in the Mishna: The Sages concede to Rabbi Akiva with regard to one who sees a stain

that she renders the man who has intercourse with her impure.

Rav said:

She renders the man who has intercourse with her

retroactively

74 , and it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir,

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

And Shmuel said:

She renders impure only the man 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 [one] retroactively impure.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against Shmuel: If

from this point onward,

then

it is obvious

that she renders the man who has intercourse with her impure, since she saw blood. What, then, is the novelty of our Mishna?

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say

that they did not decree impurity for the man who had intercourse with her at all,

since

the impurity of

the twenty-four-hour period is rabbinic, and the impurity of

stains is

stains is rabbinic,

and one might have said:

Just as “the twenty-four-hour period does not render the man who has intercourse with her impure

retroactively,

so too stains do not render the man who has intercourse with her impure

at all—

it teaches us

that one who sees a stain renders the man who has intercourse with her impure.

The Gemara asks:

And say that this is indeed so?

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

It answers:

There,

with regard to the impurity of the twenty-four-hour period,

“There is no slaughtered ox before you,”

since she did not see [blood] yesterday but only now; and only as a safeguard did we impose stringency, so that she renders pure food impure, but we did not impose stringency with regard to the man who had intercourse with her. But

here,

with regard to one who sees a stain,

“there is a slaughtered ox before you,”

since the blood is before you.

The Gemara adds:

And Reish Lakish likewise said

to explain the Mishna in accordance with Rav’s opinion, that one who sees a stain renders the man who has intercourse with her impure

retroactively, and it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

But

Rabbi Yohanan said

in accordance with Shmuel, that she renders the man who has intercourse with her impure only

from this point

onward,

and our Mishna

is the opinion of the Sages!

Mishna:

All women—

have the presumptive status of purity with regard to their husbands. Those who come from the road—

their wives have the presumptive status of purity with regard to them.

The language of the Mishna indicates two novel points:

A. The examination before intercourse mentioned in the previous Mishna is required only of a woman who is occupied with pure food, due to the greater stringency of sacred food. But a woman who is not occupied with pure food has the presumptive status of purity, and no examination is necessary to permit her to her husband. B. 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 clause of the Mishna, the novel point is that the woman is exempt from examining herself, while in the latter clause, the novel point is that the husband is exempt from the obligation to clarify with his wife whether she examined herself.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

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

when this novel point of the Mishna applies even when her husband is in the city, as he can rely on the presumption of her purity and does not need to ask her whether she examined herself?

And it resolves this:

One might have thought: This applies only

when he can rely on her examination

where he is present

with her husband

in the city, for she takes it upon herself

meaning that she pays attention to her ritual purity with regard to her husband and therefore examined herself,

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

I would say

she did not

examine 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 presume her to retain her presumptive status of purity.

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

1.

Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesi'a: And this

—this law, that one who returns from a journey may rely on her presumptive status of purity even without asking her—applies in a case

where he came and found her within the “days of

“her interval” 81 ,

meaning that thirty days had not yet passed since her last sighting, because “ordinary women,” even those who have no fixed menstrual period, see blood at thirty-day intervals. Therefore, once the thirtieth day arrives, she is obligated to examine herself even if she felt nothing and saw no blood, and she may no longer rely on her presumptive status of purity. Likewise, her husband is forbidden to have relations with her unless he asks her whether she examined herself and found that she was pure.

2.

Rav Huna said: They taught this only

in our Mishna—that one who returns from a journey during the intermediate interval [as stated by Reish Lakish] need not ask whether she examined herself, because she retains a presumptive status of purity and does not require an examination—

but

in the case of a woman

who has no fixed menstrual period,

whose time of seeing blood is only at the end of thirty days; therefore she is permitted without an examination and without being asked.

But

if

she has a fixed menstrual period—

it is forbidden to have relations with her

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

The Gemara objects:

That is entirely backwards?!

How can this be? For

on the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable:

for if

she has no fixed menstrual period,

there is reason for concern,

for perhaps she has already seen blood,

since she has no fixed period of thirty days, and therefore there is concern that she may see even during the intermediate interval. But when

she has a fixed menstrual period—

her period is established!

There is no concern that she may see blood on days that are not the days of her period?!

Rather, this is how it was stated: Rav Huna said: They taught this only when the time of her menstrual period had not arrived

while he was on the road. Therefore, he may rely on the regularity of her menstrual period, since she did not see blood on the preceding days, and he need not ask her whether she examined herself properly; she is presumed pure.

But if the time of her menstrual period arrived

while he was on the road—

she is forbidden!

For she has left her presumptive status of purity and entered a presumptive status of impurity, because “the flow arrives at its appointed time.” Therefore, so long as her husband did not explicitly ask her whether she examined herself at the time of her menstrual period and found herself pure, she is presumed impure with regard to him.

The Gemara explains:

He holds—

Rav Huna—

that menstrual periods are by Torah law!

That is, the obligation to examine herself at the time of her menstrual period is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai:

Therefore, even if she did not see blood and felt nothing at the time of her menstrual period, if she did not examine herself, she has the presumptive status of impurity as a matter of doubt, by virtue of the halakha given to Moses at Sinai, whose stringency is like that of a Torah law.

Therefore, one who returns from a journey after the time of her menstrual period cannot rely on his wife having examined herself at the time of the menstrual period and found herself pure unless he explicitly asks her whether she indeed did so. He cannot rely merely on her consenting to have relations with him.

3.

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

He can rely on her consent to have relations with him without explicitly asking whether she examined herself at the time of the menstrual period and found herself pure, because

he holds—

that menstrual periods are rabbinic!

By Torah law, even if the time of her menstrual period arrived, if she felt nothing and saw no blood, she retains a presumptive status of purity and does not even require an examination. Rather, the Sages obligated her to examine herself on the day of her menstrual period; but even after they imposed this obligation, it remains merely an “obligation of examination,” and they did not establish her by rabbinic decree as having a “presumptive status of impurity as a matter of doubt” [as Rav Huna established her, since he holds that menstrual periods are by Torah law] if she did not examine herself. Therefore, whenever the husband is uncertain whether she examined herself on the day of her menstrual period, he may rely on her previous presumptive status of purity. He need not ask her about the examination, but may rely on her mere consent to have relations with him.

Rav Ashi

establishes the Mishna as stating that they retain a presumptive status of purity with regard to their husbands even after the time of their menstrual period has arrived, and

the Mishna

follows the statements of Rav Huna and Rabba bar bar Hana

as follows: