Niddah 5a — the Talmud in English

And

if

the beraita

that says that a stain renders a woman impure retroactively when she has a regular menstrual cycle

is accepted by everyone,

Rabbi Dosa also acknowledges that when she sees blood outside her expected time, she becomes impure retroactively.

The Gemara asks: Why does the Gemara reverse its position because of the beraita and establish the Mishna as the view of only one authority, Rabbi Dosa, in order to establish the beraita as accepted by everyone?

Why not establish it the other way around,

as the Gemara initially reasoned: the Mishna reflects the view of everyone, while the beraita expresses only the view of the Sages?

The Gemara answers:

Since it is possible to establish

the beraita as the view of everyone

in both a lenient and a stringent manner,

for it is possible to be lenient and say that everyone agrees that, when a woman sees blood at her expected time, she establishes her condition from that time onward only, and that they disagree only when she sees blood outside her expected time. Conversely, it is possible to be stringent and say that even when she sees blood at her expected time, the Sages disagree and rule stringently, whereas when she sees blood outside her expected time, everyone agrees that she becomes impure retroactively.

Therefore,

we establish it stringently!

We must be stringent and say that the Mishna, which states that a woman who has a regular cycle establishes her condition from that time onward only, follows only Rabbi Dosa; but the Sages rule stringently even when she sees blood at her expected time. The beraita, which rules that a stain renders her impure retroactively, is speaking of a sighting outside her expected time and is accepted by everyone.

The Gemara now explains the law of the stain mentioned in the beraita.

It teaches

in the beraita that the reason the Sages decreed that a stain should also render a woman impure retroactively is that we find a decree of retroactive impurity extending over the previous twenty-four hours in the case of a woman who sees blood emerging from her body:

If she sees

blood emerging from her body

outside her expected time,

she

renders things impure for the previous twenty-four hours.

The Gemara analyzes this:

The reason they disagree is that a woman with a regular cycle becomes impure retroactively when she sees blood outside her expected time,

meaning that they distinguish

between her stain,

which renders things impure retroactively,

and her actual sighting

at her expected time, which does not render things impure retroactively, since her stain cannot be treated more stringently than her actual sighting. For if she sees blood emerging from her body outside her expected time, she becomes impure retroactively for the previous twenty-four hours.

As for the other women, concerning whom the Sages said that they establish their condition from the time they find the blood,

such as the four women whose bodies are presumed not to produce menstrual blood, for whom we do not find retroactive impurity,

their stains

do not render them impure retroactively

just as their actual sightings,

which do not render them impure retroactively under any circumstances, since it is impossible for their stains to be treated more stringently than blood emerging from their bodies.

Whose

beraita is this?

It is Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus!

For Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus:

All women—

—

whose bodies are presumed not to produce menstrual blood,

concerning whom the Sages said

that they do not become impure retroactively but

establish their condition from the time they find the blood—

their stains

render them impure only from that point onward,

just as their actual sightings!

Except for a young girl who has not reached the age at which she is expected to see blood,

whose stains do not render her impure even from that point onward!

Even if her sheets are soiled with blood—

and she does not know whether the blood emerged from her body—

we do not regard her with concern

and render her impure! This is so even if she has no other blood to which the blood can be attributed; for example, she says that she did not pass through a butchers’ market. It is still possible that she passed through one but does not remember doing so.

The reason is that impurity due to stains is only a rabbinic decree. She found the stain without experiencing the bodily sensation accompanying the emergence of blood, and by Torah law a woman becomes impure only when she experiences that sensation.

When the Sages decreed that a woman who finds a stain becomes impure, they decreed this only in the case of a woman concerning whom it is plausible to attribute the blood to her body. In the case of this young girl, who has not reached the age at which she is expected to see blood, there is no basis whatsoever for attributing the blood to her body.

The Gemara challenges this:

Does Rabbi Hanina

hold that women whose bodies are presumed not to produce menstrual blood have

any stain

status at all, so that their stain renders them impure even from that point onward?

But it was taught in a beraita: All women—

—

And women

whose bodies are presumed not to produce menstrual blood,

concerning whom the Sages said that they establish their condition from the time they find the blood—

—

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Women concerning whom the Sages said that they establish their condition from the time they find the blood—

they have no stain status!

The Gemara analyzes this:

Does this not mean

that when Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says that women whose bodies are presumed not to produce menstrual blood have no stain status, he means that

they have no stain status at all,

and do not become impure even from that point onward?

The Gemara answers:

No

—do not say that their stains do not render them impure at all.

Rather,

this is what he is saying:

They do not have

retroactive

stain impurity, but they do have

forward-looking

stain impurity!

The Gemara asks:

By inference,

from Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus’s statement, which we have now established to mean that they have stain impurity from that point onward but not retroactively, you learn

that the first tanna,

who disagrees with him and says, “Women concerning whom the Sages said that they establish their condition from the time they find the blood—their stains render them impure,”

holds

that the stains of women whose bodies are presumed not to produce menstrual blood render them impure

even retroactively,

although blood actually emerging from their bodies does not render them impure retroactively?

The Gemara answers:

Yes! It is Rabbi Meir, who is more stringent concerning stains

in the case of the four women whose bodies are presumed not to produce menstrual blood than concerning blood actually emerging from their bodies.

The reason is that, concerning an actual sighting from their bodies, one can say that since they are presumed not to produce menstrual blood, we must assume that the blood did not emerge earlier but only now, when it was found. But concerning blood found as a stain on a garment, there is no reason to say that, because she has now found the stain on the garment, the blood emerged from her body only now. Rather, we must be concerned that if she had examined the garment earlier, she would have found the blood earlier as well.

For it was taught in a beraita: All women—

—

they too—

their stains render them impure retroactively! This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Women concerning whom the Sages said that they establish their condition from the time they find the blood,

their stains do not render them impure retroactively; rather,

their stains are like their actual sightings,

rendering them impure only from that point onward.

And a young girl who has reached the age at which she is expected to see blood

and finds a stain

has

stain

impurity

from that point onward, even though she has never yet seen blood emerge from her body.

And

a young girl

who has not reached the age at which she is expected to see blood—

—

stain

impurity!

And when has she reached the age

at which the young girl is expected to see blood?

When she reaches the days of maturity,

meaning that she has developed two pubic hairs, or that she has reached the age of twelve years and one day, even if she has not developed two pubic hairs.

We learned in the Mishna:

And a woman who has marital relations while using examination cloths

—this examination is considered an examination that establishes the time of her status!

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: An examination cloth with which she

examined herself

before marital relations does not reduce the period in the same way as an examination that establishes her status,

and therefore it does not reduce either the previous twenty-four-hour period or the period from one examination that establishes her status to the next. When the Mishna says that a woman who has marital relations while using examination cloths is considered to have performed such an examination, it refers to the cloth with which she examines herself after marital relations.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason

that an examination with a cloth used before marital relations is not considered an examination that establishes her status?

Rav Ketina said: Since

the woman

is agitated

and hurries

home

for marital relations, we cannot rely on the examination she performed before marital relations.

The Gemara challenges this:

What difference does it make that she is “agitated about returning home”?

After all, she did examine herself!

The Gemara answers:

Since she is agitated about returning home, she

does not insert

the examination cloth

into the folds and crevices,

and consequently she does not examine herself properly.

The Gemara challenges this:

We learned

in our Mishna that a woman

who has marital relations while using examination cloths—

—

The Gemara infers from the fact that the tanna used the plural expression “examination cloths” that the Mishna is speaking of two cloths.

Does this not mean

that the two cloths are:

one,

the cloth with which she examines herself

before marital relations, and one,

the cloth with which she examines herself

after marital relations? 71 .

This proves that the examination cloth used before marital relations is also considered an examination that establishes her status.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

the Mishna was not referring to the examination cloth used before marital relations.

Rather, both this and that,

those two cloths, are cloths used

after marital relations. And

the Mishna means:

one for him,

the husband, who wipes himself with it after marital relations,

and one for her,

the woman.

These two cloths used after marital relations are

as we learned:

The practice of Jewish women

is that they

have marital relations using two examination cloths—

—

The Gemara challenges this answer:

This

answer, that the Mishna is speaking of two cloths, one for him and one for her, both used after marital relations—

what

does it explain?

For

if you say it reasonably

that the two cloths in the Mishna are the woman’s own cloths,

one before marital relations and one after marital relations, it is well that the tanna needed to teach us

this law.

For

it might have entered your mind to say that, since she is agitated about returning home, she does not examine herself properly

with the cloth used before marital relations.

It teaches us

the tanna of the Mishna that nevertheless this examination too

is considered an examination that establishes her status,

and therefore it reduces both the previous twenty-four-hour period and the period from one examination that establishes her status to the next.

But,

[that is, on the other hand,]

if you say that both this and that

are examinations

after marital relations,

what does the tanna of the Mishna teach us? It is

obvious

that an examination after marital relations, which is a proper examination, reduces both the previous twenty-four-hour period and the period from one examination that establishes her status to the next!

The Gemara answers: The tanna needed to teach us that even an examination after marital relations is considered a proper examination.

One might have thought

that there is reason

to be concerned that she sees a drop of blood

that is as small

as a mustard seed, and semen covers that drop of blood,

so that the examination after marital relations is not a proper examination. Therefore,

it teaches us

the tanna of the Mishna that there is no need for such concern, and that the Mishna is indeed speaking only of an examination after marital relations.

Alternatively,

it is possible

that the Sages required two examinations

of the woman,

one before marital relations and one after marital relations,

and these are the two cloths mentioned in the Mishna. Nevertheless, this does not refute Shmuel’s statement that only the second cloth, used after marital relations, is considered an examination that establishes her status.

For when it teaches

in the Mishna that a woman who has marital relations while using examination cloths

is considered to have performed an examination that establishes her status—

—

refers only to the cloth

used after marital relations!

and no other!

The reason the Mishna also mentions the cloth used before marital relations is to teach that a woman has a mitzva to have marital relations using two cloths, before and after marital relations. However, only the second cloth is considered an examination that establishes her status.

The Gemara challenges this:

How can you say that the Mishna teaches that it is a mitzva to have marital relations using two cloths, before and after marital relations?

But it teaches “a woman who has marital relations”

using cloths

!

This wording indicates not a mitzva or obligation, but rather something she does of her own practice.

If so, when the Mishna teaches “a woman who has marital relations using cloths,” it must be indicating that the two examinations are equivalent and that both are considered examinations that establish her status. If you say that only the last examination is considered such an examination, the question remains: Why was the first examination, before marital relations, mentioned?

And we explain:

Teach

in our Mishna in place of “and one who has intercourse using witnesses" —

“and she has intercourse using witnesses”

in the language of obligation, and the tanna of our Mishna teaches us two matters: the first, that she is commanded to use two witnesses, one before intercourse and one afterward. And the second, that the examination after intercourse is considered an inspection. But the examination before intercourse, since she hurries in performing it, she does not examine properly; therefore it is not considered an inspection.

We learned in the Mishna: And one who has intercourse using witnesses

reduces by means of a twenty-four-hour period.

And we raise an objection to it:

Now, a twenty-four-hour period,

which is a period of time longer than the period of time from one inspection to the next [for example, from the morning inspection to the evening inspection], and nevertheless the inspection with the witnesses at the time of intercourse

reduces from it.