Niddah 105
נראין דברי רבי יהודה בן אגרא בשלא בדקה ודברי חכמים בשבדקה
and the ruling of the Sages where she did examine. What is meant by 'she did examine' and by 'she did not examine'? — Raba replied: I found the Rabbis of the schoolhouse sitting at their studies and discoursing thus: 'Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the dispute between R. Judah b. Agra and the Rabbis, ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אמר רבא אשכחתינהו לרבנן דבי רב דיתבי וקאמרי
but did not examine her shirt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was examined for the first time on the third day when a stain of the size of two beans was discovered. As it is thus unknown when the stain was made, the possibility must be taken into consideration that there may have been a discharge at the twilight of each, or at least one, of the two days; and, since a discharge at twilight counts as two (one for the passing and one for the coming day), that she had experienced no less than three discharges on three consecutive days. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שבדקה עצמה ולא בדקה חלוקה ואף עצמה לא בדקה אלא בין השמשות דרבי יהודה ובבין השמשות דר' יוסי לא בדקה
and even her own body was examined by her only at the twilight of R. Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which extends after sunset for a time during which one can walk a distance of a thousand cubits. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
דרבנן סברי בבין השמשות דרבי יוסי ליליא הוא והא בדקה בבין השמשות דרבי יהודה
while at the twilight of R. Jose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which lasts no longer than a 'wink of the eye', beginning and ending later than R. Judah's twilight. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ור' יוסי לטעמיה דאמר בין השמשות ספיקא הוי
she did not examine herself. In such a case, the Rabbis being of the opinion that at the twilight of R. Jose it is already night, [the question of <i>zibah</i> does not arise] since she had examined herself at the twilight of R. Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When she had ascertained that on that day she was clean, Any subsequent discharge at the twilight of R. Jose could only be counted as one for the following day. The total of her discharges cannot consequently have been more than two. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ואמינא להו אנא
and R. Jose follows his own view, he having stated that twilight is a doubtful time'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one, As it is possible that there was a discharge at that time (which counts as both possible day and possible night) the woman must be treated as if she experienced two discharges (one on the passing, and one on the incoming day) in addition to the discharge on the other day in question, thus making a total of three discharges. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
אלמא
'Rabbi stated: R. Judah b. Agra's ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the possibility of zibah is to be considered even where a stain is not big enough to be divided into three parts, each of the prescribed minimum. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
בין השמשות דר' יוסי לרבי ליליא הוא
is acceptable where she did not examine'. Now<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Rabbi stated that only in this case he accepted the ruling of R. Judah b. Agra, it follows that where she did examine herself he does not accept his ruling though R. Judah himself maintains that the possibility of zibah must be considered even in the latter case. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
אימא סיפא ודברי חכמים כשבדקה
what is meant by 'she did not examine'? If it be suggested that she examined herself in the twilight of R. Judah but did not examine herself in the twilight of R. Jose [the difficulty would arise]: From this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since 'no examination' only means the absence of one in R. Jose's twilight though one did take place in R. Judah's twilight. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
אילימא דבדקה בדרבי יהודה ולא בדקה בדרבי יוסי מכלל דרבנן סברי אע"ג דלא בדקה בתרוייהו לא חיישינן הא לא בדקה
that even where she examined herself both times,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The twilight of R. Judah and the twilight of R. Jose. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
אלא פשיטא דבדקה בין בדר' יהודה ובין בדרבי יוסי אבל בדקה בדר' יהודה ולא בדקה בדר' יוסי חיישינן
the possibility of <i>zibah</i> must be considered; [but why should this be so] seeing that she did examine herself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Making sure that on that day there was no discharge. How then could one subsequent possible discharge in the night be counted as two? ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
בין השמשות דרבי יוסי לרבי ספקא הוי
is] that she did not examine herself either in the twilight of R. Judah or in that of R. Jose;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the possibility must be considered that she may have experienced a discharge in R. Judah's twilight. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
נראין דברי רבי יהודה בן אגרא לרבנן דלא בדקה כלל לא בדרבי יהודה ולא בדרבי יוסי שאף חכמים לא נחלקו עליו אלא דבדקה בדר' יהודה ולא בדקה בדר' יוסי
there is no need for her to consider the possibility [of <i>zibah</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one discharge in the night cannot possibly be counted as two discharges. ');"><sup>26</sup></span>
הרואה כתם לראיה מרובה חוששת לראיה מועטת אינה חוששת זו דברי רבי יהודה בן אגרא שאמר משום רבי יוסי
Now read the final clause: 'And the ruling of the Sages where she did examine' — What is meant by 'she did examine'? If it be suggested that she examined herself in the twilight of R. Judah but did not examine herself in that of R. Jose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is in this case only that Rabbi stated that the ruling of the Sages is acceptable but, it follows, where she examined herself in neither, though the Rabbis still maintain that the possibility of zibah need not be considered he holds that it must be taken into consideration. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
אני שמעתי ממנו שאחת זו ואחת זו חוששת ומן הטעם הזה אמר לי
that the Rabbis are of the opinion that even if she did not examine herself in either<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the two'. The twilights of R. Judah and R. Jose respectively. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
ומה אילו נדה שלא הפרישה בטהרה מן המנחה ולמעלה לא תהא בחזקת טמאה
there is no need to consider the possibility of <i>zibah</i> [but why should this be so] seeing that she did not examine herself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which she may have experienced a discharge at twilight when the one discharge is counted as two. How then could the possibility of zibah be ruled out? ');"><sup>32</sup></span>
מאי בדקה
is] that she examined herself both in the twilight of R. Judah and in that of R. Jose, but that if she had examined herself in the twilight of R. Judah and not in that of R. Jose the possibility of <i>zibah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rabbi who in this case disagrees with the Sages' ruling. ');"><sup>34</sup></span>
אילימא דבדקה בדר' יהודה ולא בדקה בדרבי יוסי מכלל דרבי יהודה בן אגרא סבר אע"ג דלא בדקה לא בדר' יהודה ולא בדר' יוסי לא חיישא
must be considered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being possible that she experienced a discharge in R. Jose's twilight when one discharge is counted as two. ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
בדקה בדר' יהודה ולא בדקה בדר' יוסי לא חיישא אלמא
Does not this then present a contradiction between two statements of Rabbi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a difficulty of Rabbi on Rabbi'. According to the inference from the first clause R. Jose's twilight is regarded by him as right while according to the inference from the final clause it is doubtful whether it is day or night. ');"><sup>38</sup></span>
בשלמא בלא רבי לא קשיא התם דבדקה בדר' יהודה ולא בדקה בדר' יוסי הכא דבדקה נמי בדר' יהודה ובדר' יוסי אלא בדרבי קשיא
is acceptable to the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to himself; sc. Rabbi did not express any opinion as to what view he accepted and with whom he agreed (as was previously assumed when the contradiction was pointed out) but merely explained the extent and limits of the dispute between the Sages and R. Judah b. Agra. ');"><sup>41</sup></span>
תרי תנאי ואליבא דרבי יהודה בן אגרא האי תנא סבר
when she did not examine herself at all either in R. Judah's twilight or in that of R. Jose's, for even the Sages differed from him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In maintaining that the possibility (cf. p. 368, n. 14) may be disregarded. ');"><sup>42</sup></span>
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. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> and did not examine herself in that of R. Jose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which in their opinion is regarded as night. ');"><sup>44</sup></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. ');"><sup>45</sup></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. ');"><sup>46</sup></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. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> she must take into consideration the possibility of a discharge at twilight,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which counts as two. ');"><sup>48</sup></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. ');"><sup>49</sup></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. ');"><sup>50</sup></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. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> make sure of her cleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'separated in cleanness'. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> from the minha time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two and a half seasonal hours before nightfall. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> and onwards, would she not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though in the morning she made sure of her cleanness. ');"><sup>54</sup></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. ');"><sup>55</sup></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. ');"><sup>56</sup></span> In the absence of Rabbi's interpretations<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both here and supra. ');"><sup>57</sup></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. ');"><sup>58</sup></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