נדה דף י

הדר קחזיא בעונות, מאי? אמר רב גידל אמר רב: פעם ראשונה ושניה — דיה שעתה, שלישית — מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה.

The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if she then sees menstrual blood at regular intervals of thirty-day cycles? Is her time sufficient, or does she transmit impurity retroactively? Rav Giddel says that Rav says: With regard to the first time and the second time that she sees menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. After the third time, she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

ועוד עברו עליה שלש עונות, וראתה — דיה שעתה. הדר קחזיא בעונות, מאי?

The baraita further teaches, with regard to a young girl who did not experience bleeding for three typical cycles and then saw blood, and three further expected menstrual cycles passed without her experiencing bleeding and then afterward she saw menstrual blood, that her time is sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if she then sees menstrual blood at regular intervals of thirty-day cycles?

אמר רב כהנא, אמר רב גידל, אמר רב: פעם ראשונה — דיה שעתה, שניה — מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה.

The Gemara answers: Rav Kahana says that Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The first time that she sees menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. After the second time, she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

מני? רבי היא, דאמר: בתרי זימני הוי חזקה.

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the baraita? The Gemara answers: Since the baraita teaches that she attains the status of a regular adult woman upon the third sighting of menstrual blood, apparently it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that presumption is established by two occasions.

אימא סיפא: עברו עליה שלש עונות וראתה — דיה שעתה, אתאן לרבי אליעזר!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say the latter clause: If she then passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, and then she saw menstrual blood, she returns to the status of a young girl and her time is sufficient. In this ruling we come to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that any woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating and her time is sufficient. Is the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or Rabbi Eliezer?

וכי תימא רבי היא, ובעונות סבר לה כרבי אליעזר, ומי סבר לה? והא לאחר שנזכר קאמר! אלא רבי אליעזר היא, ובוסתות סבר לה כרבי.

And if you would say that the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and in the case of a woman who passes three menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but does he really hold in accordance with this opinion? Doesn’t the baraita state that after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that several authorities disagreed with the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer, he said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances, i.e., only in exigent circumstances. The Gemara concludes: Rather, the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Eliezer, and with regard to menstrual cycles he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that a presumptive cycle is established after two occasions of seeing menstrual blood.

כתם שבין ראשונה ושניה — טהור, שבין שניה ושלישית — חזקיה אמר: טמא, רבי יוחנן אמר: טהור. חזקיה אמר: טמא, כיון דאילו חזיא מטמאה — כתמה נמי טמא,

§ With regard to a young girl who was just starting to menstruate, the Gemara states: If she finds a blood stain between the first and second time that she sees menstrual blood, she is pure. If it is between the second and the third time, Ḥizkiyya says: She is impure; Rabbi Yoḥanan says: She is pure. The Gemara explains the reasoning behind their respective opinions. Ḥizkiyya says: She is impure, since if she had seen menstrual blood it would render her impure. Consequently, her blood stain is also impure. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: She is pure, since she has not yet attained the presumptive status of one who sees menstrual blood. Therefore, we also do not render her impure on account of her blood stain.

ורבי יוחנן אמר: טהור, כיון דלא אתחזקה בדם — כתמה נמי לא מטמינן לה.

מתקיף לה רבי אלעאי: וכי מה בין זו לבתולה שדמיה טהורין? אמר ליה רבי זירא: זו שירפה מצוי וזו אין שירפה מצוי.

Rabbi Ilai objects to this ruling of Ḥizkiyya: And what is the difference between this case of a girl who has not yet started menstruating and a recently married menstrual virgin whose stain is deemed pure for as long as her blood is pure, since the stain is presumed to be from her torn hymen? Rabbi Zeira said to him: With regard to this menstrual virgin, her secretion [sirfah] is common, i.e., blood from her torn hymen is normally found during this period. Therefore, any blood stain that is found is also assumed to be from her hymen. But in the case of this young girl, her secretion is not common. Therefore, if a blood stain is found, it is assumed to be menstrual blood.

אמר עולא, אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק: תינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות, וראתה פעם ראשונה ושניה — רוקה ומדרסה בשוק טהור, כתמה נמי טהור.

§ Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: With regard to a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived and she saw menstrual blood one time and then a second time, but not the third time that would render her a woman who regularly sees menstrual blood, her saliva and her garment that she treads upon that are found in the marketplace are pure if we do not know whether she has menstruated. Likewise, her blood stain is also pure. Ulla added: And I do not know if this ruling with regard to the stain is merely Rabbi Yoḥanan’s own conclusion or if that is also part of the opinion of his teacher.

ולא ידענא אם דידיה, אם דרביה.

למאי נפקא מינה? למיהוי דבריו של אחד במקום שנים.

The Gemara asks: What difference is there? That is, what does it matter who said it? The Gemara explains: It makes a difference for it to be considered the statement of one Sage in the place of two dissenting opinions. As stated above, Ḥizkiyya disagrees with this ruling and maintains that a young girl’s blood stain is impure after she sees menstrual blood twice. If this statement is both Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak’s opinion and that of Rabbi Yoḥanan, then Ḥizkiyya’s ruling is opposed by two Sages, which means that his is a minority opinion. If it is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion alone, then the two sides are equal, with one Sage maintaining each opinion.

כי אתא רבין וכל נחותי ימא, אמרוה כרבי שמעון בן יהוצדק.

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia along with all the seafarers [naḥotei yamma], they stated this ruling as the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak. If so, Rabbi Yoḥanan was relating his own opinion, which echoed that of his teacher, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, and therefore the halakha is in accordance with this majority opinion.

אמר רב חלקיה בר טובי: תינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות, אפילו שופעת כל שבעה — אינה אלא ראיה אחת. אפילו שופעת, ולא מבעיא פוסקת? אדרבה,

§ Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi says: With regard to a young girl whose time to see menstrual blood has not arrived, even if she continuously discharges menstrual blood for all seven days of a typical menstrual period, it is considered as only one sighting of blood and she remains in the category of one who lacks blood until she sees menstrual blood twice more. The Gemara asks: Why did Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi stress: Even if she continuously discharges menstrual blood, which indicates that it is not necessary to teach that this is the halakha if she stops seeing a discharge and then starts again? On the contrary, if she stops and restarts it is as though she has had two sightings of menstrual blood.

פוסקת הויא לה כשתי ראיות!

אלא, תינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות, ושופעת כל שבעה — אינה אלא ראיה אחת.

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi meant: With regard to a young girl whose time to see menstrual blood has not arrived, and she then continuously discharges menstrual blood for all seven days of a typical menstrual period, it is considered as only one sighting of blood. In other words, he did not state the word: Even.

אמר רב שימי בר חייא: מדלפת אינה כרואה, והא קחזיא! אימא: אינה כשופעת, אלא כפוסקת.

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: The case of woman who constantly drips menstrual blood is not considered like a full sighting of blood. The Gemara expresses surprise at this claim: But she saw blood. The Gemara answers: Say that what Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya meant was that she is not considered like one who continuously discharges blood, but rather like one who stops and starts again, even if she drips constantly.

מכלל דשופעת (נמי) כי נהרא? אלא אימא: אינה אלא כשופעת.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: From the fact that Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya claims that a different halakha applies to a woman who constantly drips menstrual blood, it can be inferred that the blood of one who continuously discharges menstrual blood streams like a river for seven days. But this is physically impossible. The Gemara explains: Rather, say that Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya meant that the status of a woman who constantly drips menstrual blood is nothing other than the status of a woman who continuously discharges blood. In both cases, it is all considered as one sighting.

תנו רבנן: חזקה בנות ישראל עד שלא הגיעו לפרקן — הרי הן בחזקת טהרה, ואין הנשים בודקות אותן. משהגיעו לפרקן — הרי הן בחזקת טומאה, ונשים בודקות אותן.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The presumption with regard to the daughters of Israel is that until they have reached their physical maturity they have the presumptive status of ritual purity, and adult women do not need to examine them to check if they are ritually pure before they handle consecrated items or teruma. Once they have reached their physical maturity, they have the presumptive status of ritual impurity, due to the possibility of an unnoticed menstrual discharge, and if they are still minors, adult women must examine them to check if they are ritually pure.

רבי יהודה אומר: אין בודקין אותן ביד, מפני שמעוותות אותן, אלא סכות אותן בשמן מבפנים, ומקנחות אותן מבחוץ, והן נבדקות מאיליהן.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They should not examine them by hand, because that is likely to scratch them and ruin their status, as it will be assumed that they are ritually impure with menstrual blood. Rather, they should smear them with oil inside and wipe them off on the outside. And through this method they are automatically examined, i.e., if at that age they are ready to menstruate, the oil will cause the blood to flow.

רבי יוסי אומר: מעוברת וכו׳. תני תנא קמיה דרבי אלעזר: רבי יוסי אומר: מעוברת ומניקה שעברו עליה שלש עונות דיה שעתה. אמר ליה: פתחת ב״תרי״ וסיימת ב״חדא״!

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three expected menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if she then saw blood, her time is sufficient. A tanna taught a baraita before Rabbi Elazar: Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three expected menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if she then experienced bleeding her time is sufficient. Rabbi Elazar said to him: The structure of your baraita is inconsistent. You opened with two categories of women: A pregnant woman and a nursing woman, and you ended your quote with one, as you concluded in the singular form: Her time is sufficient.

דלמא מעוברת והיא מניקה קאמרת, ומילתא אגב אורחיה קא משמע לן — דימי עיבורה עולין לה לימי מניקותה, וימי מניקותה עולין לה לימי עיבורה. כדתניא:

Rabbi Elazar continued: Perhaps you are saying that this is a case of a pregnant woman who was also nursing. And if so, the baraita teaches us a matter in passing, that with regard to tallying three menstrual cycles in which she saw no menstrual blood, her days of pregnancy count toward, i.e., combine with, her days of nursing and her days of nursing count toward her days of pregnancy. As it is taught in a baraita: Her days of pregnancy count toward her days of nursing and her days of nursing count toward her days of pregnancy.

ימי עיבורה עולין לה לימי מניקותה, וימי מניקותה עולין לה לימי עיבורה.

כיצד? הפסיקה שתים בימי עיבורה, ואחת בימי מניקותה; שתים בימי מניקותה, ואחת בימי עיבורה; אחת ומחצה בימי עיבורה, ואחת ומחצה בימי מניקותה — מצטרפות לשלש עונות.

The baraita continues: How so? If a woman stopped seeing menstrual blood for two expected menstrual cycles during her days of pregnancy and then for one more cycle during her days of nursing, or she passed two expected menstrual cycles during her days of nursing and one more during her days of pregnancy, or one and a half cycles during her days of pregnancy and one and a half cycles during her days of nursing, in all these cases the missed cycles spanning her pregnancy and nursing combine to a total of three missed cycles, and therefore her time is sufficient.

בשלמא ימי עיבורה עולין לה לימי מניקותה, משכחת לה דקמניקה ואזלא ומיעברה, אלא ימי מניקותה עולין לה לימי עיבורה, היכי משכחת לה?

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the claim that her days of pregnancy count toward her days of nursing, you can find it in a case where she was nursing continuously and then she became pregnant. But the scenario mentioned in the baraita where her days of nursing count toward her days of pregnancy, how can you find these circumstances? Since she certainly experienced bleeding when she gave birth, how can there be three consecutive menstrual cycles where she did not experience any discharge of blood?

איבעית אימא: בלידה יבשתא, ואיבעית אימא: דם נדה לחוד ודם לידה לחוד, ואיבעית אימא: תני חדא.

The Gemara provides several answers: If you wish, say that it is referring to a case of a dry birth, i.e., one without any discharge of blood. Or, if you wish, say: The blood of a menstruating woman is discrete and the blood seen during birth is discrete. Blood seen during birth does not disrupt the count of menstrual cycles during which a woman does not see menstrual blood. Therefore, the cycles before and after the birth combine to form the requisite three cycles according to Rabbi Eliezer. Or, if you wish, say: Teach only one of these scenarios. In other words, teach only the case where the days of pregnancy count toward the days of nursing, but not the case where the days of nursing count toward the days of pregnancy.

במה אמרו דיה שעתה וכו׳. אמר רב: אכולהו.

§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to what did they say that her time is sufficient? It is with regard to the first sighting of blood. But with regard to the second sighting, her status is like that of any other woman and she transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from her last examination. The Gemara inquires concerning which case this clause is referring to. Rav says: This qualification is stated with regard to all of them, i.e., all four cases of the mishna: The menstrual virgin, the elderly woman, the pregnant woman, and the nursing woman.

ושמואל אמר: לא שנו אלא בתולה וזקנה, אבל מעוברת ומניקה — דיין כל ימי עיבורן, דיין כל ימי מניקותן.

And Shmuel says: They taught it only with regard to a menstrual virgin and an elderly woman. But in the case of a pregnant woman and a nursing woman, their time is sufficient for all their days of pregnancy and their time is sufficient for all their days of nursing.

וכן אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש: אכולהו, ורבי יוחנן אמר: לא שנו אלא בתולה וזקנה, אבל מעוברת ומניקה — דיין כל ימי עיבורן, דיין כל ימי מניקותן. כתנאי:

The Gemara notes that another pair of Sages had the same dispute. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: This qualification applies to all of them; and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught it only with regard to a menstrual virgin and an elderly woman. But in the case of a pregnant woman and a nursing woman, their time is sufficient for all their days of pregnancy and their time is sufficient for all their days of nursing. The Gemara suggests: This is like a dispute between tanna’im in the following baraita: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman who were

מעוברת ומניקה שהיו