Commentary for Niddah 127:47

הגיע יום שלשים וראתה הגיע יום עשרים ולא ראתה והגיע יום שלשים ולא ראתה והגיע יום עשרים וראתה הותר יום שלשים

one occurrence suffices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in one time she fears'. If, for instance, she observed a discharge on the fifteenth of one month intercourse is forbidden on the same date in the next month. ');">43 But what44 does he45 teach us, seeing that we have learnt: IF SHE WAS ACCUSTOMED TO OBSERVE A FLOW OF MENSTRUAL BLOOD ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY AND THIS WAS CHANGED TO THE TWENTIETH DAY, MARITAL INTERCOURSE IS FORBIDDEN ON BOTH DAYS?46 — If the inference had to be made from there,47 it might have been presumed that the ruling48 applied only where the woman was still49 within her menstruation period,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case in our Mishnah where the discharge occurred on the fifteenth day after immersion, which is the fourth day (11 days of zibah + 4 days of the 7 of menstruation = 15) of a menstruation period. Hence the restriction when the next fifteenth day (also within the menstruation period) arrives. ');">50 but where she is not within her menstruation period<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But in the zibah period; where, for instance, her discharge appeared on the tenth day after immersion, which is still within the eleven days of a zibah period that follows that of the seven days of menstruation. ');">51 she52 need not consider the possibility of a discharge,53 hence we were informed54 [that even in the latter case the possibility of a discharge must be taken into consideration]. NOR IS SHE RELEASED FROM THE RESTRICTIONS OF A SETTLED PERIOD etc. R. Papa explained: This, that it is necessary for the change to recur three times before a settled period can be abolished, was said only where a settled period had been established by three regular occurrences, but one that was established by two recurrences only may be abolished by one change. But what55 does he56 teach us, seeing that we learnt: A WOMAN MAY NOT REGARD HER MENSTRUAL PERIODS AS SETTLED UNLESS THE RECURRENCE HAS BEEN REGULAR THREE TIMES?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since this is followed by NOR IS SHE RELEASED … UNLESS IT HAS VARIED THREE TIMES it is obvious that the three occurrences for the abolition of a settled period (the latter case) are necessary only where there were three occurrences for its establishment (the first case). What need then was there for R. Papa's ruling? ');">57 — It might have been presumed58 that one occurence59 is required for the abolition of one,60 two61 for two62 and three61 for three,62 hence we were informed63 [that even for two occurrences64 only ones is required].65 It was taught in agreement with R. Papa:66 If a woman had a habit of observing her menstrual discharge on the twentieth day,67 and this was changed to the thirtieth, intercourse is forbidden68 on both days. If the twentieth day68 arrived and she observed no discharge, she is permitted intercourse until the thirtieth but must consider the possibility of a discharge on the thirtieth day itself.69 If the thirtieth day arrived and she observed a discharge, the twentieth68 arrived and she observed none, the thirtieth arrived and she observed none and the twentieth68 arrived and she observed one, the thirtieth68 becomes a permitted day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, though in the course of two months a discharge appeared on it, there was none, in the third one, and one change suffices to release the woman from its restrictions (cf. prev. n. but three). ');">70

Explore commentary for Niddah 127:47. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse