Commentary for Niddah 105:45

שלים בין השמשות דר' יהודה

only when she has examined herself in R. Judah's twilight<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus ascertaining that there was no discharge at twilight. ');">⁴³</span> and did not examine herself in that of R. Jose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which in their opinion is regarded as night. ');">⁴⁴</span> but where she did not examine herself at all they agree with him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 368 n. 14. R. Jose, however, who holds his twilight to be a doubtful time, takes into consideration the possibility of a discharge in his twilight which would be regarded as two, one of which must be attributed to the passing, and the other to the incoming day. ');">⁴⁵</span> But does not the following show incongruity?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With what had been said supra that according to R. Judah b. Agra it is not certain whether the twilight of R. Jose is night or day. ');">⁴⁶</span> [For it was taught:] If a woman observed a bloodstain, the observation being one of a large one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One that can be divided into three stains each of which is slightly bigger than the size of a bean. ');">⁴⁷</span> she must take into consideration the possibility of a discharge at twilight,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which counts as two. ');">⁴⁸</span> but if the observation was one of a small stain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. one not bigger than a little more than the size of two beans, so that it can only be divided into two stains of the prescribed minimum. ');">⁴⁹</span> she should not take the possibility into consideration. This is the ruling of R. Judah b. Agra who cited it in the name of R. Jose. Said Rabbi: I heard from him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose. ');">⁵⁰</span> that in both cases must the possibility be taken into consideration; 'and', he said to me, 'it is for this reason: What if she had been a menstruant who did not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the seventh day after menstruation. ');">⁵¹</span> make sure of her cleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'separated in cleanness'. ');">⁵²</span> from the minha time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two and a half seasonal hours before nightfall. ');">⁵³</span> and onwards, would she not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though in the morning she made sure of her cleanness. ');">⁵⁴</span> have been regarded as being in a presumptive state of uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course she would, and in consequence she would not be allowed to undergo immersion in the evening. Thus it follows that in the absence of an examination, the possibility of a discharge is considered. Similarly in the case of the stain under discussion, since no examination was held at twilight, the possibility of a discharge that must be counted as two must be taken into consideration. ');">⁵⁵</span> And his ruling is acceptable to me where she has examined herself. Now what is meant by 'she has examined herself'? If it be suggested that she has examined herself in the twilight of R. Judah and did not examine herself in that of R. Jose, it would follow that R. Judah b. Agra holds that even though she did not examine herself either in the twilight of R. Judah or in that of R. Jose the possibility need not be considered; but why should this be so seeing that she did not examine herself? It must be obvious then that she did examine herself both in the twilight of R. Judah and in that of R. Jose. Thus it follows that R. Judah b. Agra holds that if she examined herself in the twilight of R. Judah and not in that of R. Jose she need not consider the possibility. It is thus clear that the twilight of R. Jose is according to R. Judah b. Agra regarded as night. Does not this then present a contradiction between two rulings of R. Judah b. Agra?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to his first ruling supra the twilight of R. Jose is only a doubtful time while according to his present ruling it is definitely night. ');">⁵⁶</span> In the absence of Rabbi's interpretations<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both here and supra. ');">⁵⁷</span> there would well be no difficulty, since the former ruling might refer to a case where she has examined herself in R. Judah's twilight and not in that of R. Jose while here it is a case where she has examined herself in R. Jose's twilight as in that of R. Judah's; but with Rabbi's interpretations<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which inevitably lead to the conclusion (as stated supra) that, according to the first ruling, R, Judah b. Agra holds R. Jose's twilight to be a doubtful time, while according to his second ruling, it is definitely night. ');">⁵⁸</span> does not the contradiction arise? — Two Tannas expressed different views as to the opinion of R. Judah b. Agra. The first Tanna holds that the twilight of R. Judah ends first

Explore commentary for Niddah 105:45. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.