Niddah 15b — the Talmud in English

Rav Huna said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact position on page")

They taught

that she is presumed pure, even when the time of her veset has arrived,

only when she does not have a veset for days

alone,

but she has

a combined veset

for days

and for jumping,

such that she sees only following a jump, and on fixed days.

Since the matter depends on an act

of jumping

[with regard to her seeing],

she is presumed pure even if the time has arrived at which, were she to jump, she would see, because we say:

Perhaps she will not jump and will not see

[since the change in the presumption is conditional upon an act, we ascribe that the presumption continues and that the act of jumping that changes it was not performed].

But,

if

she has a veset for days

alone, and the day of her veset has arrived,

she is forbidden to have intercourse

because she has lost her presumption of purity.

Rav Huna

held

“vesetot are from the Torah,”

and when the day of her veset arrived, she is presumed impure by Torah law as a matter of uncertainty if she did not examine herself on that day. Therefore, even if she agrees to have intercourse, the husband cannot rely on her, assuming that she examined herself at the time of her veset; rather, he must ask her whether she indeed examined herself at the time of her veset and was found pure.

Rabba bar bar Hana said: Even if she has a veset for days

and the time of her veset has arrived,

she is permitted

to her husband who comes from the road and does not know whether she examined herself at the time of her veset, for she is still presumed pure.

And the Gemara explains:

Rabba bar bar Hana held

—

“vesetot are rabbinic,”

for they instituted an examination for her on the day of the veset, but they did not annul her presumption of purity.

Rav Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A woman who has a veset,

and her husband was on the road, and he returned seven days after the time of her veset,

her husband

calculates the days of her veset and has intercourse with her,

for he can rely on the fact that she immersed after her seven days of menstruation, without asking her about this.

Rav Shmuel bar Yevai said to Rabbi Abba

: Is it in every woman that

Rabbi Yohanan

said that he may rely on the fact that she immersed,

even a young woman

[a minor]

who is embarrassed to immerse

[who is ashamed to immerse unless her husband appeases her so that she will immerse]?

He said to him,

Rabbi Abba:

“Is it so that Rabbi Yohanan said ‘She certainly saw’

—that he may rely on immersion without asking her?

I would say that Rabbi Yohanan said

that one who was on the road and does not know whether she saw, since

it is uncertain whether she saw or whether she did not see, and if you should say that she saw, perhaps she immersed ,

that the uncertainty of immersion is sufficient to permit a woman whose seeing is uncertain!

Since Rabbi Yohanan’s ruling applies only when it is uncertain whether she saw, one may be lenient even in the case of a young woman who is embarrassed to immerse without her husband appeasing her. In any event, there is uncertainty even with regard to a young woman, perhaps she immersed, and the uncertainty of immersion is sufficient to permit her, since the seeing too is only uncertain.

But if she certainly saw—

he cannot rely, because of uncertainty, on the fact that she immersed. For

who says that she immersed?

And if so,

it becomes an uncertainty

of permission

and a certainty

of prohibition.

And an uncertainty

of permission

does not remove

the status of

certainty

of prohibition.

And the Gemara asks:

“And not?!”

Is it not the case that an uncertainty removes a certainty?

But it was taught in a beraita: A haver

[one presumed to separate terumot and tithes]

died and left a storehouse full of produce,

and it is not known whether he separated terumot and tithes from it,

even if they are of that very day,

for he brought them into the storehouse only today—

they are presumed to have been properly tithed!

But here,

the produce was

certainly untithed produce

when it was brought into the storehouse, and now it is

uncertainly tithed, uncertainly not tithed, and

nevertheless

an uncertainty comes

of tithing

and removes

the status of certainty

of untithed produce?!

And the Gemara answers:

There—

it is a certainty and a certainty!

For we are certain that the haver properly tithed them before he died.

And it is as Rav Hanina the Peddler

said: It is presumed with regard to a haver that he does not bring out from his possession something that is not properly prepared!

And if you wish, say: It is an uncertainty and an uncertainty

[that is to say: even if the presumption of the haver is not a complete presumption, one may rely upon it, since the presumption of untithed produce is also not complete]. It is possible that the untithed produce is not untithed produce,

and in accordance with the words of Hoshaya,

and the uncertainty that he tithed is sufficient to permit uncertain untithed produce.

For Rabbi Hoshaya said: A person may use a stratagem with his produce

to exempt it from tithing, by

bringing it in with its chaff

to the house. For produce becomes forbidden as untithed produce only if the completion of the work on the produce occurred in the field and afterward it was brought into the house. But if bringing it into the house preceded the completion of the work on the produce, it does not again become forbidden as untithed produce even if they completed the work on the produce in the house.

And one who brings the produce while it is in its chaff, before the completion of the work, and threshes it in the house, uses a stratagem to exempt it from tithing. However, even though by Torah law produce brought into the house in its chaff is not forbidden, it is forbidden by rabbinic law [for they prohibited fixed eating of untithed produce even before its work was completed]. Therefore, the entire stratagem is effective only—

so that

his animal may eat!

For the eating of an animal, even extensive eating, is considered incidental eating.

And still

it is difficult: do we say

“doubt does not remove certainty”?

And was it not taught: There was an incident involving the maidservant of an olive presser [

olive presser ]

one, in Rimmon [

place name ]

who cast a stillborn fetus into a pit, and a priest peered into it

in the pit,

to know whether [it was] male

the fetus

or female,

with practical consequence for the days of impurity and purity.

And the incident

of that priest

came before the Sages, and they declared him pure [

for he had not overshadowed the fetus when he peered into the pit ],

because a weasel and a ferret are commonly found there

and dragged it from the pit.

But here,

in the case of a stillborn fetus that was in the pit,

she certainly cast

the maidservant

a stillborn fetus

into the pit, and it is uncertain whether they dragged it

the weasel and the ferret,

or whether they did not drag it, and

nevertheless

a doubt comes

of dragging

and removes

from certainty

of a stillborn fetus?!