Niddah 16a (טז.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara resolves:

Do not say

that it is referring to a case where she

cast

a definite

miscarriage into the pit. Rather, say: She cast

a

possible miscarriage,

as there was uncertainty whether it was a miscarriage or a clump of flesh. And one uncertainty comes and removes the object from the status of uncertainty.

And the Gemara rejects this resolution:

But

the beraita is speaking of a definite miscarriage, as

it teaches: “to know whether it was male or female,”

in the beraita. This is why the priest looked inside; but there was no other uncertainty for him.

And the Gemara answers:

This is what it is saying: And a priest came and looked inside it to determine whether she had cast a miscarriage or whether she had cast a clump of flesh. And if you should say that she had cast a miscarriage—

to determine whether it was male or female!

Alternatively: Since weasels and martens are common there—

they certainly dragged it away,

and it was only on account of the certainty that it had been dragged away that we permitted an otherwise certain prohibition.

They asked Rav Naḥman: Are menstrual cycles—

a Torah obligation, or

a rabbinic obligation?

Is the obligation to examine herself at the time of her menstrual cycle from the Torah, because perhaps she will find blood then, and, if she did not examine herself at that time, she cannot rely on an examination conducted afterward, since perhaps the blood that was present at the time of the cycle was lost?

Or

by Torah law she may rely on the fact that she did not see blood at the time of her menstrual cycle and did not experience a sensation when it emerged; only

by rabbinic law

did the Sages obligate her to examine herself at the time of her menstrual cycle. If she did not examine herself then, she is pure, because the Rabbis did not decree that she should be impure on account of the uncertainty. Rather, they merely obligated her, by their words , to examine herself. [Whether she must examine herself again after the time of her menstrual cycle will be explained below.]

Rav Naḥman said to them:

Rav Naḥman said:

From what Rav Huna, our colleagues'

[our colleague's]

name of Rav said: A woman who has a menstrual cycle, and the time of her cycle arrived, but she did not examine herself

at the time of her cycle,

and ultimately,

after the time of her cycle,

she saw blood,

she is—

concerned

for her cycle,

rendering impure retroactively all pure items that she touched from the time of her cycle, even over the course of several days.

And she is concerned

for her seeing

blood: If she saw blood within twenty-four hours after the time of her cycle, she renders pure items impure retroactively for twenty-four hours from the time she saw the blood, and we do not say that she renders them impure retroactively only until the time of her cycle!

It follows from the fact that she renders pure items impure retroactively from the time of the menstrual cycle, despite the fact that she did not see blood at the time of the cycle,

that evidently—

menstrual cycles are a Torah matter!

For if menstrual cycles were only rabbinic, this would be merely an obligation to examine herself, and even if she did not examine herself, we would not presume her impure on account of the uncertainty. If so, there would be no basis for rendering impure the pure items that she touched from the time of the cycle.

Some say: This is what he said to them

Rav Naḥman:

The reason is that she saw blood

in the end, and it is on account of this that we are concerned and render the pure items impure from the time of her cycle.

Had she not seen blood

in the end,

we would not be concerned

to render them impure retroactively from the time of her cycle.

Evidently

menstrual cycles are rabbinic,

for if she became impure by Torah law on account of the uncertainty when she did not examine herself, we would not have declared the pure items impure retroactively even if she did not ultimately see blood. The uncertainty of impurity would remain in place: perhaps there was blood at the time of her cycle, but it was lost.

[As for the fact that pure items are rendered impure retroactively from the time of the menstrual cycle, although according to the position that menstrual cycles are rabbinic we say that they decreed impurity on account of uncertainty only when she did not see blood afterward, whereas here, since she saw blood afterward, we are concerned retroactively that the blood was already present at the time of the cycle, even according to the one who says that menstrual cycles are rabbinic.]

It was stated: A woman who has a menstrual cycle, and the time of her cycle arrived but she did not examine herself, and ultimately examined herself—

Rav said: If she examined herself

in the end

and found herself impure—

she is impure;

if she

found herself pure—

she is pure. And Shmuel said: Even if she examined herself in the end and found herself pure—

she is also impure, because the menstrual flow comes at its expected time!

Shall we say

that Rav and Shmuel

disagree about menstrual cycles,

whether they are a Torah or rabbinic matter?

For one master,

Shmuel,

holds that they are a Torah matter.

Therefore, even if she examined herself afterward and found herself pure, she is impure, because by Torah law, as long as she did not examine herself, she has the presumptive status of uncertain impurity.

And the other master,

Rav,

holds that they are rabbinic,

as the Sages obligated her only to examine herself at the time of her cycle, but did not establish her as having the status of uncertain impurity.

Rabbi Zeira said:

No!

Everyone

may hold that

menstrual cycles are a Torah matter.

As for Rav, who declares her pure when she examined herself in the end and found herself pure, it is because

here

the examination “in the end” was

an examination of herself

immediately after the cycle ,

within the measure of the menstrual flow

[the short period known as an otio]. Rav therefore holds that if the blood had been present at the time of the cycle, she would have found it in the examination she conducted within that measure of time after the cycle. This examination is effective even if we maintain that the obligation to examine herself at the time of the cycle is by Torah law. And Shmuel disagrees and holds that by Torah law she must conduct the examination at the time of the cycle itself, and once that time has passed without her examining herself, an examination is ineffective, even one conducted within the measure of a menstrual flow.

And what we said above according to Rav’s opinion—that if he holds that vesetot are by Torah law, she is impure from the time of the veset—is because

here

it is discussing a case

in which she did not examine herself “at the time of the veset”

after the veset.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: They disagree regarding the vesetot themselves:

Rav and Shmuel,

as one says,

Shmuel,

holds that vesetot are by Torah law.

And the other says,

Rav ,

holds that vesetot are by rabbinic law.

Rav Sheshet said:

Rav and Shmuel, who disagree whether vesetot are by Torah law or by rabbinic law, disagreed

as the tannaim

in a dispute between tannaim.

And as we learned:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

If her veset arrived and she did not examine herself, she is

impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman [

because vesetot are by Torah law].

And Rabbi Yehoshua says—she

must examine herself

afterward, and if she finds herself pure, she is retroactively pure, from the time of the veset [because vesetot are by rabbinic law].

And do these tannaim,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, disagree

like those tannaim,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages?

As it was taught:

If her veset arrived and she did not examine herself—

Rabbi Meir says: She is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman [

because vesetot are by Torah law].

And the Sages say: She must examine herself,

and if she finds herself pure, she is retroactively pure from the time of the veset [because vesetot are by rabbinic law].

Abaye said: We too have learned

that Rabbi Meir holds that vesetot are by Torah law!

As we learned: Rabbi Meir says—

if she was in hiding, and the time of her veset arrived and she did not examine herself—

she is pure, because fear dispels the blood.

And Abaye infers:

The reason is that there is fear

that we say she is pure if she did not examine herself at the time of the veset.

But if there is no fear

and she did not examine herself, she is

impure,

and an examination afterward will not help.

Evidently, 105 ,

Rabbi Meir

holds that vesetot are by Torah law!

Shall we say that these tannaim,

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as follows,

also disagree on this matter,

whether vesetot are by Torah law or by rabbinic law,

as well—

as it was taught: If one sees blood because of a wound

that she has in that place, she is

even if

she sees blood

during the days of her menstruation [

at the time of her veset]

pure, this is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

The Rashba [Torat HaBayit, section 7, gate 4, 23a] disagrees with the Tosafot and holds that she is permitted even without feeling bleeding from the wound, because since this woman cannot examine herself, the Sages did not wish to prohibit her to her husband. The Ḥatam Sofer raised the question: How could they be lenient concerning a possible Torah-level prohibition? And the Arukh LaNer answered that since blood that emerged without a sensation is permitted by Torah law, and the reason that a woman who sees blood without a sensation is prohibited is the concern that perhaps she did feel it but did not notice, in this case there is an additional factor favoring leniency: perhaps the blood came from the wound. This constitutes a safek sefeka, and she is permitted. Rabbi says: If she has a veset—she

must be concerned for her veset,

and if she sees blood at the time of her veset, she is impure, despite the fact that she has a wound from which she sees blood.

Is that not the issue over which they disagree—

as one says,

Rabbi,

holds that vesetot are by Torah law,

and therefore we are concerned even when she has a wound;

and the other says,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ,

holds that vesetot are by rabbinic law,

and therefore she need not be concerned when she has a wound?!

Ravina said—

No! Everyone agrees that vesetot are by rabbinic law, and here they disagree regarding “the uterus—its place is impure”—

they disagree

[whether the uterus renders impure every blood that passes through it, including blood from a wound]. And this is the explanation of the beraita:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds—

the woman is pure

[because vesetot are by rabbinic law, and in a case of uncertainty whether the blood came from a wound, they did not issue a decree; rather, they attribute it to the wound].

And the blood—

is impure, as it came through the uterus

[and is a primary source of impurity; it renders the woman impure with impurity lasting until evening, but not with seven-day impurity like menstrual blood].

And Rabbi said to him: If you are concerned for the veset—

the woman is also impure,

and not only the blood emerging from the uterus!

And if you are not concerned for the veset,

because vesetot are by rabbinic law, and therefore you attribute the blood to her wound, there is likewise no reason to be concerned about the impurity of the blood itself, because

the uterus—

its place is pure.

The uterus does not render impure the blood that passes through it; it renders impure only menstrual blood, and you are not concerned that this is menstrual blood. [This is the meaning of Rabbi’s statement, “If she has a veset, she must be concerned for her veset”: he was referring to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as explained, and not expressing the view that Rabbi himself holds that she must be concerned for her veset.]

Mishna:

A woman occupied with matters of purity, who is obligated to examine herself before intercourse and afterward—

Beit Shammai say: She requires

two cloths

new

for each and every act of intercourse

that takes place that night: one for examination before each act of intercourse and one afterward, and she should inspect them the next day. Since this examination is required only because of the stringency of matters of purity, even if she inspects the cloths the next day, the status of the pure items with which she came into contact will be established , since she does not touch pure items at night.

Or

check with those same cloths all night, but have marital relations

by candlelight

so that you can inspect the cloth after each act of marital relations by candlelight, before having marital relations again that same night.

Beit Hillel say: Two cloths suffice for the entire night,

and she should inspect them the following day, as she does not need to inspect between one act of marital relations and the next, since this examination is only for the stringency of matters of purity, and the Sages were lenient concerning it.