Niddah 16a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

Do not say

that it is speaking of

[one who] cast

a definite

miscarriage into the pit. Rather, say:

[one who] cast

something resembling a miscarriage,

for it was uncertain whether it was a miscarriage or a lump of flesh, and one uncertainty comes and removes the status of another uncertainty.

And the Gemara rejects the answer:

But

the beraita is speaking of a definite miscarriage, for

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

in the beraita; therefore the koen glanced at it, but he had no other uncertainty.

And the Gemara resolves:

This is what it says: And a koen came and glanced at it, to know whether it was a miscarriage that she had cast or a lump of flesh that she had cast. And if you should say that it was a miscarriage that she had cast—

to know whether it was male or female!

And if you wish, say: Since weasels and wild cats are commonly found there—

they certainly dragged it away,

and it was only because of the certainty that we permitted a definite prohibition.

They asked Rav Naḥman: “The [laws of] menstrual cycles”—

are they of Torah origin, or

of rabbinic origin?

Is the obligation to examine at the time of the menstrual cycle from the Torah, lest she find blood then, and, since she did not examine at its time, can she not rely on an examination afterward, for perhaps the blood that was present at the time of the menstrual cycle was lost?

Or

according to Torah law she may rely on the fact that she did not see blood at the time of the menstrual cycle and did not feel its emergence; only

by rabbinic law

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

Rav Naḥman said to them

Rav Naḥman:

From what Huna said, “our colleague”

our colleague],

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

at the time of her menstrual cycle,

and ultimately,

after the time of her menstrual cycle,

she saw blood,

she is—

concerned

for her menstrual cycle,

to render impure retroactively all pure items that she touched beginning from the time of the menstrual cycle, even for several days.

And she is concerned

for her seeing,

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

And it follows from the fact that she renders pure items impure retroactively from the time of the expected cycle, even though she did not see blood at the time of the expected cycle,

It follows—

the laws of menstrual cycles are of Torah origin!

For if the laws of menstrual cycles were only of rabbinic origin, this would be merely an obligation to examine herself, and even if she did not examine herself we would not establish her as impure because of an uncertainty. If so, there is no reason to render impure the pure items that she touched from the time of the menstrual cycle.

Some say: This is what he said to them

Rav Naḥman:

The reason is that she saw blood

ultimately, and this is why we are concerned and render the pure items impure from the time of her menstrual cycle.

Had she not seen blood

ultimately,

we would not be concerned

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

It follows

that the laws of menstrual cycles are of rabbinic origin,

for if she became impure by Torah law because of an uncertainty when she did not examine herself, we would not have declared the pure items pure retroactively even if she ultimately did not see blood, [because the uncertainty of impurity would remain in place: perhaps there was blood at the time of the menstrual cycle, and it was lost].

[As for the fact that pure items are rendered impure retroactively from the time of the expected cycle, although according to the view that menstrual cycles are rabbinic we say that the Sages decreed no impurity due to uncertainty, but only an obligation to examine herself: That applies when she did not see blood afterward. Here, however, when she saw blood afterward, we are concerned retroactively that the blood was already present at the time of the expected 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 menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, and ultimately she examined herself—

Rav said: If she examined herself

ultimately

and found herself impure—

she is impure;

if she found herself

pure—

she is pure! And Shmuel said: Even if she examined herself ultimately and found herself pure—

she is also impure, because the natural event comes in its time!

Shall we say

that Rav and Shmuel

disagree over the laws of menstrual cycles

as to whether they are of Torah origin or of rabbinic origin?

One master,

Shmuel,

holds that they are of Torah origin,

and therefore even if she examined herself afterward and found herself pure, she is impure, since by Torah law, as long as she did not examine herself, she has the status of one whose impurity is uncertain.

And the other master,

Rav,

holds that they are of rabbinic origin,

for they obligated her only to examine herself at the time of the menstrual cycle, but did not establish her as subject to an uncertainty of impurity.

Rabbi Zeira said:

Rabbi Zeira said:

Everyone

may hold

that the laws of menstrual cycles are of Torah origin.

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

here

the examination “ultimately” was

an examination of herself

immediately after the menstrual cycle ,

within the measure of the menstrual cycle [

which is the short time of “at once”]. Rav therefore holds that if there had been blood at the time of the menstrual cycle, she would have found it in the examination she performed within the measure of the menstrual cycle after the menstrual cycle. This examination is effective even if we hold that the obligation to examine herself at the time of the menstrual cycle is of Torah origin. But Shmuel disagrees and holds that she must perform the examination by Torah law at the menstrual cycle itself, and once this time passed without her examining herself, an examination will not help her, not even “within the measure of the menstrual cycle.”

And what we said above according to Rav—that if he holds that menstrual cycles are by Torah law, she is impure from the time of the cycle—is because

here

it is speaking

of a case in which she did not examine herself “at the time of the cycle”

after the cycle.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: They disagree concerning the cycles themselves.

Rav and Shmuel,

for this one,

Shmuel,

holds that menstrual cycles are by Torah law.

And this one,

Rav ,

holds that menstrual cycles are by rabbinic law.

Rav Sheshet said:

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

as the tannaitic dispute,

in the dispute of the tannaim.

And just as we learned:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

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

an impure menstruant [

because menstrual cycles are by Torah law].

And Rabbi Yehoshua says—

she should examine herself

afterward, and if she finds herself pure, she is retroactively pure, from the time of the cycle [because menstrual cycles are rabbinic].

And these tannaim,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, disagree

like those tannaim,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages.

As it was taught:

Her cycle arrived and she did not examine herself—

Rabbi Meir says: She is an impure menstruant [

because menstrual cycles are by Torah law].

And the Sages say: She should examine herself,

and if she finds herself pure, she is retroactively pure from the time of the cycle [because menstrual cycles are rabbinic].

Abaye said: We too have learned

that Rabbi Meir holds that menstrual cycles are by Torah law!

For we learned: Rabbi Meir says—

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

she is pure, because fear drives away the blood.

And Abaye analyzes:

The reason is that there is fear

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

But if there is no fear

and she did not examine herself, she is

impure,

and an examination afterward will not help.

It follows 105

that Rabbi Meir

holds that menstrual cycles are by Torah law!

Shall we say that these tannaim,

Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as follows,

also disagree in this matter,

whether menstrual cycles are by Torah law or rabbinic law,

as well—

as it was taught: One who sees blood because of a wound

that she has in that place is

even if

she sees blood

within the days of her menstruation [

at the time of her cycle]

pure; these are the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rabbi says: If she has a cycle—

she is concerned for her cycle,

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

What, is it not that they disagree in this matter—

for this one,

Rabbi, holds

that menstrual cycles are by Torah law,

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

and this one,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ,

holds that menstrual cycles are rabbinic,

and therefore he is not concerned when she has a wound?!

Ravina said—

No! Everyone agrees that menstrual cycles are rabbinic, and here they disagree concerning “the womb—its place is impure”

whether “its place is impure”

[whether the womb renders impure all blood passing through it, even blood from a wound], and this is the explanation of the beraita:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds—

the woman is pure

[because menstrual cycles are rabbinic, and in a case of uncertain blood from a wound they did not decree, but attribute it to the wound].

And the blood—

is impure, for it comes through the womb

[and it is a primary source of ritual impurity, rendering the woman impure with one-day impurity, but not with seven-day impurity like menstrual blood].

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

the woman too is impure,

and not only the blood emerging from the womb!

And if you are not concerned for the cycle

because menstrual cycles are rabbinic, and therefore you attribute the blood to her wound, there is no concern even for the impurity of the blood itself, because

the womb—

its place is pure

for the womb does not render impure the bloods passing through it, but only menstrual blood, and you are not concerned for menstrual blood. [And this is the intention of Rabbi when he says: If she has a cycle, she is concerned for her cycle; that is, he was saying this with reference to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as explained, and not that Rabbi himself held that she is concerned for her cycle].

Mishna:

A woman occupied with pure foods, 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 same night: one for examination before each act of intercourse, and one after each act of intercourse; and she should inspect them the next day, since this examination is only because of the stringency of pure foods, even if she inspects the cloths the next day, the status of the pure foods that she touched will be clarified , for she does not touch pure foods at night.

Or

check with those same witnesses all night, but have intercourse

by candlelight

so that you can examine the witness after each intercourse by candlelight, before having intercourse again that same night.

Beit Hillel say: Two witnesses for the entire night are sufficient for her,

and she should examine them the following day, for she does not require an examination between one intercourse and the next, since this examination is only for the stringency of matters of purity, and the Sages were lenient in it.