015a – כל היד – פרק שני – נדה, דף טו ע”א

Perhaps you are saying [this] in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who holds that she renders the man who had relations with her tamei?^[1]

שמא כר"ע אתם אומרים שמטמאה את בועלה - [Rabbi Akiva holds that she renders him tamei] for the whole twenty-four-hour period before, so that you have no measure in the matter other than twenty-four hours.

They said to him: We have not heard [of it].

לא שמענו - [We have not heard] its measure; and (like Rabbi Eliezer) we do not hold.

He said to them: This is how the Sages in Yavneh explained it.

If she did not wait as long as it takes to get down from the bed and rinse her face, ‘this is within the time’.

לא שהתה כדי שתרד - but only as long as it takes to sit up and examine herself while still in bed – they are tamei out of doubt. That is, the [first] “after” (the text reads “os yom”), in accordance with Rav Chisda.

And they are tamei out of doubt, exempt from a [chatas] offering, and liable to an asham taluy.^[2]

If she waited as long as it takes to get down from the bed and rinse her face,

שהתה כדי שתרד - for its measure is longer.

‘this is after the time’.

אחר הזמן הוא זה - that is to say, this is the “after” of “after”.

And likewise when she waited twenty-four hours, or from examination to examination.^[3]

וכן מעת לעת - that is to say, from this measure onward, throughout the twenty-four hours after relations, if she examined herself and found herself tamei: the man who had relations with her – she renders him tamei on account of touching [a niddah] within the twenty-four hours, with tumah until evening, and in a doubt [of this kind] the Rabbis [made him] provisionally [tamei]. But she does not render him tamei on account of having had relations with a niddah, with seven-day tumah, not even provisionally.

The man who had relations with her is tamei on account of touching, but he is not tamei on account of having had relations.^[4]

Rabbi Akiva says: He is also tamei on account of having had relations.

Rabbi Yehudah, the son of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, says: Her husband may enter the Heichal and burn the ketores.”

נכנס להיכל - it is explained below.

Granted according to Rav Chisda – that is why the Rabbis declare him tahor.^[5]

בשלמא לרב חסדא - who said: “As long as it takes to get down” is “after” of “after” – that is why the Rabbis declare him tahor.

But according to Rav Ashi, why do the Rabbis declare him tahor?

And if you will say: [The beraisa speaks] where there is no cloth in her hand –

וכי תימא דאין עד בידה - so that after getting down she needed to reach [for a cloth], and these are two measures [together]. If so, he should have taught and distinguished between a cloth in her hand and no cloth in her hand, so that no error would come of it. For as it stands it implies that even with a cloth in her hand, where she waited only as long as it takes to get down, the Rabbis declare him tahor. And since he does not distinguish, learn from this that the Rabbis certainly declare him tahor with the time it takes to get down alone.

[then] he should have [distinguished between] a cloth in her hand and no cloth in her hand!

It is difficult.

“Rabbi Yehudah, the son of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, says: Her husband may enter the Heichal and burn the ketores.”^[6]

But let him derive [that he is tamei] because he touched [her] within the twenty-four hours of a niddah!

He holds like Shammai,

who said: “All women – their time is enough for them.”^[7]

But let him derive [that he is tamei] because he is a ba’al keri!^[8]

Where he did not complete his relations.

בשלא גמר ביאתו - and even so, according to Rabbi Akiva she renders the man who had relations with her tamei, for the initial stage of relations with a niddah is like completed relations,^[9] as it is written (Vayikra 20): “he has laid bare her source”. But with regard to keri, [he is not tamei] until he emits seed.

“And the Sages agree with Rabbi Akiva regarding one who sees a kesem”:^[10] Rav said: Retroactively, and it is Rabbi Meir.

ור"מ היא - who is stringent about stains, as it says in the first perek (above, 5a) and later in perek Ba Siman (52b).

And Shmuel said: From now on, and it is the Rabbis.

“From now on” – that is obvious!

פשיטא - what are they conceding? Surely they disagree about retroactive [tumah] with regard to the twenty-four hours, and not about “from now on”!

You might have said: Since the twenty-four hours is Rabbinic, and stains are Rabbinic,

וכתמים דרבנן - even from now on.

just as the twenty-four hours does not render the man who has relations with her tamei, so stains do not render the man who has relations with her tamei.

[The Mishnah] teaches us [otherwise].

But say that it is indeed so!

There, there is no slaughtered ox before you.^[11]

אין שור שחוט - for yesterday she had not seen [blood]; it is only a fence [of the Rabbis].

Here, there is a slaughtered ox before you.

הכא הרי שור שחוט לפניך - for she did not handle a bird and did not pass through the butchers’ market, and from the day she put it [the garment] on she is in this doubt.

And so said Reish Lakish: Retroactively, and it is Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yochanan said: From now on, and it is the Rabbis.

MISHNAH

All women are in a presumption of taharah for their husbands.^[12]

כל הנשים בחזקת טהרה לבעליהן - without an examination, for an examination was mentioned only for a woman who handles taharos.

Those coming back from a journey – their wives are in a presumption of taharah for them.

GEMARA

Why does he need to teach “those coming back from a journey”?

You might have thought: That applies only where he is in town, for she takes it upon herself and examines herself.

But where he is not in town, so that she does not take it upon herself – not.

[The Mishnah] teaches us [otherwise].

Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehudah Nesiah: That is provided he came and found her within the days of her onah.^[13]

בתוך ימי עונתה - thirty days from [the last] sighting. But after thirty she needs an examination, since ordinary women see [blood] at the end of an onah.

Rav Huna said: They taught this only

לא שנו - that when he finds her within the days of her onah she needs no examination.

where she does not have a vest; but if she has a vest, it is forbidden to have relations.^[14]

Which way is this going?

On the contrary, the reverse is more reasonable!

If she has no vest, say she saw [blood];

if she has a vest – her vest is fixed for her!

Rather, if it was said, this is how it was said:

Rav Huna said: They taught this only where the time of her vest has not arrived;

אלא שלא הגיע עת וסתה - within those days that he was on the road; for example, a woman who has a vest, and it did not arrive within those days.

but if the time of her vest arrived,

אבל הגיע עת וסתה - before he came home from the journey.

she is forbidden.

אסורה - for the manner of women comes at its time.

He holds that vestos are from the Torah.^[15]

דאורייתא - a halachah given to Moshe at Sinai, so that we presume her to be in doubtful tumah.

Rabbah bar bar Chanah said: Even if the time of her vest arrived, she is also permitted.

He holds that vestos are Rabbinic.

וסתות דרבנן - the Sages required her to examine herself on the day of her vest, lest she see [blood]. But where he was not in town, and we do not know whether she examined herself or not, we do not place her in doubtful tumah.

Rav Ashi taught it this way:^[16]

Rav Huna said:

Tosfos

לא שהתה כדי שתרד מן המטה מטמאה את בועלה [וחייבת באשם תלוי] שהתה כדי שתרד כו' ר"ע אומר מטמאה בועלה - It is puzzling: if Rabbi Akiva agrees in the first case, as is implied, since he disagrees only on the last case, then he holds that the written form [of the text] is authoritative.^[17] Yet in the first perek of Sanhedrin (4a) Rabbi Akiva holds that the reading is authoritative, regarding a revi’is of blood coming from two dead bodies, where he says that we read [the word as] “nefashos” (persons). And one cannot say that here he disagrees in the first case too, for we learned in perek Dam Shechitah (Kerisos 22b): A piece of kodesh and a piece of chullin – one person ate the first, and another came and ate the second: this one brings an asham taluy and that one brings an asham taluy – the words of Rabbi Akiva. But why should the second be liable? At the time he ate there were not two pieces before him, and according to the one who requires two pieces he is exempt in such a case, as is said there at the end of the perek. And Rebbi too holds in perek Safek Achal (ibid. 18a) that where one ate the first deliberately and the second unwittingly he is liable to an asham taluy for the second, and Rebbi holds in the first perek of Sanhedrin (4a) that the reading is authoritative. One must say that there is some difference between reading and written form here and the reading and written form elsewhere: Chiya bar Rav, who requires two pieces, holds that all hold here that the reading is authoritative, and Rav Assi, who disagrees with him, holds that all hold that the written form is authoritative, as we find (Bava Metzia 22b) regarding “yutan” being like “yiten”, and “oved” like “avad” (Pesachim 26b), and “oni” like “ani” (ibid. 36a), and “kapos” like “kapas” (Sukkah 32a), and there there is another reason. And know that this is so, for when [the Gemara] there raises many difficulties against Chiya bar Rav and answers that it is Rabbi Eliezer, who obligates an asham taluy for “chelev koy” – surely many Tanna’im disagree about reading and written form, so why did it single out Rabbi Eliezer, who is a Shamuti? And would the questioner not have known that many Tanna’im disagree about reading and written form? Rather, it is as I explained. And further one can say that Rabbi Akiva and Rebbi are speaking where the first did not eat the whole piece but half of it, so that when [the second] ate there were still two pieces before him; and in this way the Yerushalmi answers in [perek] Ha’ishah Rabbah.

האי עד בידה ואין עד בידה מיבעי ליה - Rashi explained that he should have distinguished everything in [the case where] she waited. But this is difficult: perhaps he does distinguish within [the case of] no cloth in her hand, between where she waited and where she did not. It seems right to explain that he should have specified in the beraisa [that it speaks of] no cloth in her hand, since our Mishnah speaks of a cloth in her hand.

כשמאי דאמר דיה שעתה - Nevertheless Shammai agrees regarding [the span of] a single “after”, that he is tamei for seven [days], since he is liable to an asham taluy.

אמר רב למפרע ור"מ היא - And if you will ask: In the first perek of Yoma (2a) we learned: The Kohen Gadol is separated from his house for seven days,^[18] and it says: [This is] lest he have relations with his wife and she be found to be a doubtful niddah; and it asks: According to whom? According to Rabbi Akiva, who says that she even renders the man who had relations with her tamei; and Rav Chisda says it can be even according to the Rabbis, for in [the span of] a single “after” they agree that the man is tamei for seven days. Why did it not answer: Lest she find a stain, for the Sages agree with Rabbi Akiva regarding one who sees a stain? One can answer: because of Shmuel, who said here: From now on. And further one can say that she will examine her garment before he leaves, and then the Kohen does not become tamei before the examination. And if you will ask: Why does it say “lest his wife be found a doubtful niddah”? Let it say a certain niddah, if she examines herself within the measure of a vest close to the relations. One can answer that this is not common.

הכי איתמר לא שנו אלא שלא הגיע שעת וסתה - He should not have retracted from what he said at first – “they taught this only where she does not have a vest” – for it is true that she is in a presumption of taharah, as we say in the first perek (above, 12a): Any [woman], for her husband, needs no examination, even if she has no vest. And he could have added: and also where she has a vest, when the time of her vest has not arrived, etc. Rather, he is smoothing out the language he said at first without adding.

אפי' הגיע זמן וסתה מותרת - It is puzzling: how can she be permitted? Surely we say in Shevuos, the second perek (18b), and later in perek Ha’ishah (63b): A warning to the Children of Israel that they separate from their wives close to their vest!^[19] One can answer that it speaks where she waited seven days after her vest, so that she could have immersed, for a doubt of immersion removes [her] from a doubt of having seen, like that [case] of Rabbi Yochanan nearby. And according to the one who says vestos are from the Torah, even if she waited the measure of time for immersion she is forbidden, for we consider her to have certainly seen. And from this one can deduce that Rabbi Yochanan nearby holds vestos are Rabbinic.

Notes

1. 1. This continues a beraisa begun on the previous amud. Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Tzadok asked the Sages in Usha what the Mishnah means by “after time”. Rabbi Akiva holds that a woman who finds blood renders the man who had relations with her tamei retroactively, as one who had relations with a niddah (seven-day tumah), throughout the preceding twenty-four hours (me’es le’es) – the same span for which the Sages made her retroactively tamei for taharos she touched.
2. 2. An asham taluy (provisional guilt offering) is brought by one who is unsure whether he committed a sin that, if certain, would require a chatas. Since the relations might have preceded her bleeding, the doubt brings an asham taluy and not a chatas. On the previous amud the Gemara noted that some require the doubt to be “one piece of two pieces” for an asham taluy.
3. 3. “From examination to examination”: if she examined herself and was clean less than twenty-four hours before the examination that found blood, her retroactive tumah reaches back only to the earlier, clean examination.
4. 4. One who touches a niddah is tamei until evening; one who has relations with a niddah becomes tamei for seven days, like her. The beraisa rules that blood found after this time makes the man tamei only for touching.
5. 5. On the previous amud Rav Chisda explained that the Mishnah’s “after time” is the short span of reaching for a cloth and examining in bed, and that “as long as it takes to get down and rinse” is a later span (“after of after”), where the Rabbis make the man tamei only until evening. Rav Ashi held it is one span: if the cloth was already in her hand it is the time to get down and rinse; if not, the time to reach for one.
6. 6. The Gemara takes up this clause of the beraisa: Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai holds that when the blood is found after this time, the husband is not tamei at all – not even until evening – so that a kohen may serve in the Heichal.
7. 7. Shammai’s opinion is in the first Mishnah of the masechta (2a): a woman who sees blood is tamei only from the moment she sees it, with no retroactive tumah.
8. 8. A ba’al keri, one who has had an emission of seed, is tamei until evening (Vayikra 15:16–18); after relations the husband should be tamei for that reason in any case.
9. 9. Ha’ara’ah is the first, initial stage of relations. With regard to a niddah the Torah treats it like completed relations (Vayikra 20:18), so the man is tamei as one who had relations with a niddah even though he emitted no seed.
10. 10. The Gemara takes up this clause of the Mishnah: the Sages, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva about blood found after the time, agree that a woman who finds a kesem – a blood stain on her garment, which makes her tamei by Rabbinic law – renders the man who had relations with her tamei for seven days. Rav and Shmuel dispute whether this is retroactive (Rabbi Meir, who is stringent about stains) or only from the time she found it (the Rabbis).
11. 11. “The slaughtered ox is before you”: the evidence of tumah is here now. In the case of the twenty-four hours, nothing was found at the time of relations; with a stain, the blood is already present.
12. 12. A chazakah (presumption) of taharah: a woman whose status was tahor is assumed to remain so, and her husband need not ask her to examine herself before relations.
13. 13. An onah here is the ordinary span between periods, thirty days. If the husband returned within thirty days of her last period, we assume she has not yet seen again.
14. 14. A vest is a woman’s fixed pattern of seeing – for example on a set day of the month. A woman with a vest is expected to see blood at that time.
15. 15. Rav Huna holds that the concern for a vest is from the Torah (a halachah from Sinai): a woman whose vest has come and who did not examine herself is presumed to have seen. Rabbah bar bar Chanah holds it is Rabbinic: she must examine herself, but without an examination she is not presumed tamei.
16. 16. Rav Ashi’s version of Rav Huna’s statement continues on the next amud.
17. 17. Yesh em la-mikra / la-masores: whether a Torah word is interpreted by how it is read (with its vowels) or by how it is written (its letters). Here the question is whether one woman counts as “one of two” for an asham taluy.
18. 18. Seven days before Yom Kippur the Kohen Gadol was moved from his house to a chamber in the Beis Hamikdash, so that he would not become tamei before the avodah of the day.
19. 19. Shortly before her expected period, a husband must separate from his wife; Shevuos 18b derives it from the pasuk “And you shall separate the Children of Israel from their tumah” (Vayikra 15:31).