נדה דף יא

שופעות דם ובאות — דיין כל ימי עיבורן ודיין כל ימי מניקותן, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יוסי ורבי יהודה ורבי שמעון אומרים:

continuously discharging menstrual blood, their time is sufficient for all their days of pregnancy and their time is sufficient for all their days of nursing. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon all say: They said that her time is sufficient only 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 examination to examination.

לא אמרו דיין שעתן אלא בראייה ראשונה, אבל בשניה מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה.

ואם ראתה ראשונה וכו׳. אמר רב הונא: קפצה וראתה, קפצה וראתה, קפצה וראתה — קבעה לה וסת. למאי? אילימא לימים, הא כל יומא דלא קפיץ לא חזאי!

§ The mishna teaches: And if she saw the first sighting as a result of unnatural circumstances, then even with regard to the second sighting her time is sufficient. Rav Huna says: If she jumped and saw menstrual blood, and again she jumped and saw menstrual blood, and a third time she jumped and saw menstrual blood, she has established a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara asks: For what occurrence has she established a fixed cycle? If we say that it is a cycle of days alone, this cannot be correct, as every day that she did not jump, she also did not see menstrual blood. Therefore, her cycle cannot be a mere pattern of days.

אלא לקפיצות, והתניא: כל שתקבענה מחמת אונס, אפילו כמה פעמים — לא קבעה וסת! מאי לאו — לא קבעה וסת כלל?

The Gemara explains: Rather, the established menstrual cycle is caused by jumps, i.e., by observing a pattern of jumping and seeing blood three times, she has established that jumping causes the onset of her menstrual period. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Any woman who establishes a pattern of seeing menstrual blood due to a recurring accident, even if the pattern repeats, still has not established a fixed menstrual cycle? An accidental menstrual pattern brought about by external causes does not create a menstrual cycle. The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not correct to say that the baraita means that she has not established a fixed menstrual cycle at all?

לא, לא קבעה וסת לימים לחודייהו ולקפיצות לחודייהו, אבל קבעה לה וסת לימים ולקפיצות. לימים לחודייהו פשיטא! אמר רב אשי: כגון דקפיץ בחד בשבת וחזאי,

The Gemara answers: No, the baraita means that she has not established a fixed menstrual cycle of days alone, nor of jumps alone, but she has established a fixed menstrual cycle for a combination of days and of jumps. In other words, she has established a fixed menstrual cycle when she jumps on specific days. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that she does not establish a cycle for days alone? Why is it necessary to state this? Rav Ashi says: It is necessary to teach this in a case where she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and again she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and then on the following Shabbat she jumped and did not see blood, but on Sunday, the next day, she saw menstrual blood without jumping.

וקפיץ בחד בשבת וחזאי, ובשבת קפצה ולא חזאי, ולחד בשבת חזאי בלא קפיצה.

מהו דתימא: איגלאי מילתא למפרע, דיומא הוא דקגרים ולא קפיצה, קא משמע לן דקפיצה נמי דאתמול גרמא, והאי דלא חזאי — משום דאכתי לא מטא זמן קפיצה.

Rav Ashi explains: Lest you say that the matter is revealed retroactively that it was the day that caused her to experience menstruation and not the jumping, and therefore she has established a menstrual cycle of menstruating on Sundays, regardless of jumping, the baraita teaches us that it was also the jumping of yesterday, on Shabbat, that caused the menstruation today, on Sunday. And as for the fact that she did not see menstrual blood then, that was because the time when jumping causes menstruation had not yet arrived.

לישנא אחרינא, אמר רב הונא: קפצה וראתה, קפצה וראתה, קפצה וראתה — קבעה לה וסת לימים ולא לקפיצות. היכי דמי? אמר רב אשי: דקפיץ בחד בשבת וחזאי,

The Gemara presents another version of Rav Huna’s statement. Rav Huna says: If a woman jumped and saw menstrual blood, and again she jumped and saw menstrual blood, and a third time she jumped and saw menstrual blood, she has established a fixed menstrual cycle for a pattern of days and not for a pattern of jumps. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? Rav Ashi says: This is referring to a case where she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and then again she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and then on the following Shabbat she jumped and did not see blood, but on Sunday, the next day, she saw menstrual blood without jumping. In that case there, the matter is revealed retroactively that it is the day that causes her to menstruate, not the jumping.

וקפיץ בחד בשבת וחזאי, ובשבת קפצה ולא חזאי, ולחד בשבת (אחרינא) חזאי בלא קפיצה, דהתם איגלאי מילתא דיומא הוא דקא גרים.

מתני' אף על פי שאמרו דיה שעתה, צריכה להיות בודקת, חוץ מן הנדה והיושבת על דם טוהר.

MISHNA: Although the Rabbis said that for a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle her time is sufficient and she does not transmit impurity retroactively, she is required to examine herself each day to ensure that she is ritually pure and will not impurify pure items that she is handling. All women must examine themselves each day except for a menstruating woman, whose impure status is known, and a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, whose ritually pure status is known even if she experiences bleeding.

ומשמשת בעדים, חוץ מיושבת על דם טוהר, ובתולה שדמיה טהורים.

And even a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle engages in intercourse while using examination cloths to ascertain whether her menstrual flow began, except for a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, and a virgin whose blood is ritually pure for four days after engaging in intercourse for the first time.

ופעמים צריכה להיות בודקת: שחרית, ובין השמשות, ובשעה שהיא עוברת לשמש את ביתה. יתירות עליהן כהנות, בשעה שהן אוכלות בתרומה. רבי יהודה אומר: אף בשעת עברתן מלאכול בתרומה.

And she is required to examine herself twice each day: In the morning, to ascertain if she menstruated during the night, and at twilight, to ascertain if she menstruated during the day. And she is also required to examine herself at a time that she is about to engage in intercourse with her husband. The obligation of women of priestly families is greater than that of other women, as they are also required to examine themselves when they seek to partake of teruma. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when they conclude partaking of teruma they are required to examine themselves, in order to ascertain whether they experienced bleeding while partaking of teruma.

גמ' חוץ מן הנדה. דבתוך ימי נדתה לא בעי בדיקה.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: All women must examine themselves each day, except for a menstruating woman. The Gemara explains: Such a woman does not need to examine herself, as during the days of her menstruation she does not need examination.

הניחא לרבי שמעון בן לקיש, דאמר: אשה קובעת לה וסת בתוך ימי זיבתה, ואין אשה קובעת לה וסת בתוך ימי נדתה — שפיר. אלא לרבי יוחנן, דאמר:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that a woman can establish a fixed menstrual cycle even during the days that she has zava status, but a woman does not establish a fixed menstrual cycle during the days of her impurity due to menstruation, as any bleeding during these seven days is merely a continuation of her original menstruation. According to this opinion, it is well, and one can understand the mishna. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that a woman can establish a fixed menstrual cycle during the days of her menstruation, let her examine herself, as perhaps she will establish a fixed menstrual cycle.

אשה קובעת לה וסת בתוך ימי נדתה — תבדוק, דילמא קבעה לה וסת!

אמר לך רבי יוחנן: כי אמינא אנא — היכא דחזיתיה ממעין סתום, אבל חזיתיה ממעין פתוח — לא אמרי.

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoḥanan could say to you: When I say that a woman can establish a fixed menstrual cycle during the days of her menstruation, that applies only in a case where the first two instances of her fixed cycle were established when she first saw blood from a stopped source, i.e., she saw blood on those particulars days at the outset of her period. But when she first saw blood from an open source, i.e., when the first two instances that she experienced bleeding on those particular days was in the middle of her menstrual period, I did not say that she establishes a fixed menstrual cycle, and therefore there is no need for her to examine herself.

והיושבת על דם טוהר, קא סלקא דעתך — מבקשת לישב על דם טוהר.

§ The mishna teaches: All women must examine themselves each day, except for a menstruating woman, whose impure status is known, and a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity. The Gemara explains: It may enter your mind that when the mishna mentions a woman who is observing the period of the blood of purity, it is referring to one who is finishing the period of impurity following a birth and is anticipating observing the period of the blood of purity. In other words, her days of impurity are ending and she is about to start her days `of purity, and the mishna is stating that there is no need for an examination to conclude her days of impurity before starting her days of purity.

הניחא לרב, דאמר: מעין אחד הוא, התורה טמאתו והתורה טהרתו — שפיר.

The Gemara analyzes the mishna in accordance with this interpretation. This works out well according to the opinion of Rav, who said that blood after birth and blood of purity both come from one source, and the Torah deemed blood after birth impure, and the Torah deemed blood of purity pure. According to this opinion, it is well, and one can understand the mishna, since even if she emits blood continuously through the end of her days of impurity into her days of purity, the blood during her days of purity is pure.

אלא ללוי דאמר: שני מעינות הם, תבדוק, דילמא אכתי לא פסק ההוא מעין טמא! אמר לך לוי: הא מני?

But according to the opinion of Levi, who said that there are two distinct sources, one for blood after birth and one for blood of purity, she should be required to examine herself at the end of the period following birth, as perhaps that impure source of blood after birth had not yet stopped flowing. The Gemara explains that Levi could say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling?

בית שמאי היא, דאמרי: מעין אחד הוא. וסתם לן תנא כבית שמאי?! סתם ואחר כך מחלוקת הוא, וכל סתם ואחר כך מחלוקת אין הלכה כסתם.

It is the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that there is only one source for the two types of blood (see 35b). The Gemara asks: But can it be that the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna, which is generally accepted as the halakha, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, whose opinion is usually not accepted as halakha? The Gemara answers: It is a case where the mishna first records an unattributed opinion and afterward it records a dispute with regard to the same matter. And there is a principle that any time the mishna first records an unattributed opinion and afterward it records that the ruling is subject to a dispute, then the halakha is not necessarily in accordance with the unattributed opinion.

ואי בעית אימא: מי קתני ״מבקשת לישב״? ״יושבת״ קתני! אי יושבת, מאי למימרא? מהו דתימא תיבדוק, דדילמא קבעה לה וסת — קא משמע

And if you wish, say instead: Does the mishna teach: A woman is anticipating observing the period of the blood of purity? Rather, it teaches: Who is observing the period of the blood of purity. The Gemara asks: If the mishna is referring to a woman who is already observing the period of the blood of purity, what is the purpose of stating that she is exempt from performing examinations? Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that she should examine herself, as perhaps she will find that she established a fixed menstrual cycle through blood found on her examination cloths, the mishna teaches us that a woman does not establish a cycle from sightings of blood that came from a pure source that transfers to the period when she sees blood from an impure source.

לן דמעין טהור למעין טמא לא קבעה.

הניחא ללוי, דאמר: שני מעינות הם, אלא לרב דאמר: מעין אחד הוא — תבדוק, דילמא קבעה לה וסת! אפילו הכי, מימי טהרה לימי טומאה לא קבעה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: This answer works out well according to Levi, who said that there are two distinct sources, one for blood after birth and one for blood of purity; one can understand that she does not establish a cycle with regard to blood from one source, from a sighting of blood from a different source. But according to Rav, who said that blood after birth and blood of purity both come from one source, she should be required to examine herself during the period of the blood of purity, as perhaps she established a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara answers: Even so, i.e., that both types of blood come from the same source, nevertheless a woman does not establish a cycle from her days of purity that transfers to her days of impurity.

ומשמשת בעדים וכו׳. תנן התם: תינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות ונשאת, בית שמאי אומרים: נותנין לה ארבע לילות, ובית הלל אומרים: עד שתחיה המכה.

§ The mishna teaches: And even a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle engages in intercourse while using examination cloths to ascertain whether her menstrual flow began, except for a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, and a virgin whose blood is ritually pure for four days after engaging in intercourse for the first time. In this connection, the Gemara notes that we learned in a mishna there (64b): With regard to a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived, as she has not yet reached puberty, and she married, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her four nights after intercourse during which the blood is attributed to her torn hymen and she is ritually pure. Thereafter, any blood is menstrual blood and she is impure. And Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals.

אמר רב גידל, אמר שמואל: לא שנו אלא שלא פסקה מחמת תשמיש וראתה שלא מחמת תשמיש, אבל פסקה מחמת תשמיש וראתה — טמאה.

With regard to Beit Hillel’s statement, Rav Giddel says that Shmuel says: They taught this only in a case where she does not stop seeing blood due to intercourse. In other words, every time she engages in intercourse she experiences bleeding. In that case, even if she saw blood not due to intercourse, Beit Hillel still attribute the blood to the torn hymen. But if she stops seeing blood due to intercourse, and then she subsequently saw blood on another occasion, that blood renders her impure.

עבר לילה אחת בלא תשמיש וראתה — טמאה. נשתנו מראה דמים שלה — טמאה. מתיב רבי יונה: ״ובתולה שדמיה טהורים״, אמאי? תשמש בעדים, דדילמא נשתנו מראה דמים שלה!

He continues: Similarly, if one night passed without them engaging in intercourse and she subsequently saw blood without connection to intercourse, this indicates that the blood is no longer from her torn hymen and therefore she is deemed impure. Likewise, if the appearance of her blood had changed since her initial blood from her torn hymen, she is impure. Rabbi Yona raises an objection to this last halakha from the mishna: And a virgin whose blood is ritually pure is not required to examine herself when she engages in intercourse. Why not? She should engage in intercourse while using examination cloths, as perhaps she will find that the appearance of her blood has changed, which would mean that her blood is no longer ritually pure blood from her torn hymen.

אמר רבא: אימא רישא ״חוץ מן הנדה והיושבת על דם טוהר״, הוא דלא בעיא בדיקה, אבל בתולה שדמיה טהורין בעיא בדיקה. אלא קשיין אהדדי!

Rava says: Say the first clause: All women must engage in intercourse while using examination cloths, except for a menstruating woman whose impure status is certain and a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity. It can be inferred from here that these two exceptions are not required for women to examine themselves, but a virgin whose blood is pure is required to perform an examination. This ruling apparently supports Shmuel’s opinion that examination is required to determine if there is a change in the appearance of her blood. But if so, then the two clauses of the mishna are difficult, as they contradict each other.

כאן — ששמשה, דאימא שמש עכרן; כאן — שלא שמשה.

The Gemara explains: Here, in the latter clause that indicates that a virgin requires no examination, it is referring to a case where she had engaged in intercourse. In such a situation an examination would be inconclusive, as even if the appearance of her blood had changed, one can say that it was because the man’s organ soiled it, i.e., perhaps the intercourse caused the change of appearance in her blood. By contrast, there, in the first clause, it is referring to a case where she had not engaged in intercourse, and therefore she is required to perform an examination to determine if there was a change in appearance in her blood, as any difference in appearance would indicate a change from pure blood to impure blood.

תניא נמי הכי: במה דברים אמורים? שלא פסקה מחמת תשמיש, וראתה שלא מחמת תשמיש.

The Gemara notes that this halakha is also taught in a baraita. With regard to the opinion of Beit Hillel that blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals, the baraita asks: In what case is this statement said? In a case where she does not stop seeing blood due to intercourse, i.e., every time she engages in intercourse she experiences bleeding. If so, even when she sees blood not due to intercourse, it is deemed pure.

אבל פסקה מחמת תשמיש וראתה — טמאה, עבר לילה אחת בלא תשמיש וראתה — טמאה, נשתנו מראה דמים שלה — טמאה.

But if she stopped seeing blood due to intercourse, and she subsequently sees blood at a different time, that sighting renders her impure. Similarly, if one night passed without her engaging in intercourse and then she saw blood without connection to intercourse, she is deemed impure. Furthermore, if she sees blood and the appearance of her blood had changed from her initial blood from her torn hymen, she is impure.

פעמים היא צריכה וכו׳. אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: לא שנו אלא לטהרות, אבל לבעלה מותרת. פשיטא, ״שחרית״ תנן!

§ The mishna teaches: And she is required to examine herself twice each day, in the morning and at twilight. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The mishna taught this halakha only with regard to touching ritually pure items. But with regard to her husband, she is permitted to him without any requirement to perform examinations. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious, as we learn in the mishna that she must examine herself twice a day, and the first time is in the morning? This indicates that the mishna is concerned about the status of ritually pure items that she will handle during the day, but not about intercourse with her husband, as a couple usually engages in relations at night rather than during the day.

אלא אי אתמר אסיפא אתמר: ובשעה שהיא עוברת לשמש את ביתה. אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: לא שנו אלא באשה עסוקה בטהרות,

The Gemara answers: Rather, if the statement of Rav Yehuda citing Shmuel was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: And she is also required to examine herself at a time that she is about to engage in intercourse with her husband. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The mishna taught this halakha only with regard to a woman who is engaged in handling pure items. She alone is required to examine herself before intercourse. The reason is that since she is required to perform an examination in preparation for handling pure items, she also requires an examination in preparation for intercourse with her husband. But with regard to a woman who is not engaged in handling pure items, she is not required to perform an examination in preparation for intercourse with her husband.

דמגו דבעיא בדיקה לטהרות — בעיא נמי בדיקה לבעלה, אבל אינה עסוקה בטהרות — לא בעיא בדיקה.

מאי קא משמע לן? תנינא: כל הנשים בחזקת טהרה לבעליהן! אי ממתניתין הוה אמינא, הני מילי באשה שיש לה וסת, אבל אשה שאין לה וסת — בעיא בדיקה.

The Gemara asks: What is Rav Yehuda teaching us? We already learn this from the mishna (15a): All women have the presumptive status of purity to their husbands, and therefore the husband does not need to ascertain whether she is ritually pure before engaging in intercourse. The Gemara answers: If this halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that this statement applies only to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle. But in the case of a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, she is required to perform an examination before intercourse. Consequently, Rav Yehuda teaches us that even a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle is not required to perform an examination before intercourse, unless she handles pure items.

והא מתניתין באשה שיש לה וסת עסקינן! מתניתין בין שיש לה וסת, בין אין לה וסת, והא קא משמע לן: דאף על גב דיש לה וסת,

The Gemara asks: But aren’t we are dealing in the mishna with a case of a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle? The Gemara answers: The mishna is dealing both with a case where she has a fixed menstrual cycle and with a case where she does not have a fixed menstrual cycle. And this is what the mishna teaches us: That even though she has a fixed menstrual cycle, and therefore one might think that she is exempt from examination, nevertheless if she handles pure items, since she is required to perform an examination in preparation for handling those pure items, she is also required to perform an examination in preparation for intercourse with her husband.

מגו דבעיא בדיקה לטהרות, בעיא נמי בדיקה לבעלה.

והא אמרה שמואל חדא זימנא! דאמר רבי זירא, אמר רבי אבא בר ירמיה, אמר שמואל: אשה שאין לה וסת אסורה לשמש עד שתבדוק. ואוקימנא בעסוקה בטהרות!

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Shmuel already state this halakha on another occasion? As Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Abba bar Yirmeya says that Shmuel says: With regard to a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, it is forbidden for her to engage in intercourse with her husband until she examines herself and determines that she is pure. And we interpreted this halakha as referring to a case where she is engaged in handling pure items. The Gemara answers: Shmuel did not in fact issue two statements; rather, one was stated by inference from the other. In other words, Shmuel said one of these statements explicitly; the other was reported by his students in his name based on an inference from what he had said.

חדא מכלל חברתה אתמר.

תניא נמי הכי: במה דברים אמורים — לטהרות, אבל לבעלה מותרת. במה דברים אמורים — שהניחה בחזקת טהורה, אבל הניחה בחזקת טמאה — לעולם היא

The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that a woman requires an examination, said? It is said with regard to a woman who is preparing for handling pure items. But with regard to engaging in intercourse with her husband, she is permitted to do so without performing an examination. The baraita qualifies this ruling: And in what case is this statement, that she is not required to perform an examination, said? It is said when her husband traveled and left her with the presumptive status of ritual purity. If so, upon his return she does not need to perform an examination before they engage in intercourse. But if he left her with the presumptive status of ritual impurity, she remains forever in her status of impurity, until she says to him: I am ritually pure.

בטומאתה עד שתאמר לו ״טהורה אני״.