Niddah 127

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איתמר ראתה יום חמשה עשר לחדש זה ויום ט"ז לחדש זה ויום שבעה עשר לחדש זה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was stated: If a woman observed a discharge on the fifteenth day of one month, on the sixteenth of the next month and on the seventeenth of the third month, Rab ruled: She has thereby established for herself a settled period in arithmetical progression,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in skipping'. The eighteenth day of the fourth month, the nineteenth of the fifth and so on are consequently forbidden days. ');">¹</span>

רב אמר

but Samuel ruled: No settled period can be established unless the progression is repeated three times.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. only if in the intercourse given, the discharge had actually appeared on the eighteenth of the fourth month. The appearance on the fifteenth is not counted since it was the first of the series when the process of progression had not yet been apparent (v. infra). ');">²</span>

קבעה לה וסת לדילוג

Must it be conceded that Rab and Samuel differ on the same principle as that on which Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel differ? For it was taught: If a woman was married to one man who died and to a second one who also died, she may not be married to a third one; so Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: She may be married to a third but may not be married to a fourth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the case of the husbands, it is asked, analogous to that of the periods, so that Rab's view coincides with that of Rabbi and the view of Samuel with that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? But, if so, why should the same principle be discussed twice? ');">³</span>

ושמואל אמר

— No, all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even Rab. ');">⁴</span>

עד שתשלש בדילוג

may concede that the law is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel but it is this principle on which they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab and Samuel. ');">⁵</span>

נימא רב ושמואל בפלוגתא דרבי ורשב"ג קמיפלגי

differ here: Rab holds that the fifteenth day is included in the number while Samuel holds that the fifteenth, since the observation on it was not in arithmetic progression, is not included in the number.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but three. ');">⁶</span>

דתניא ניסת לראשון ומת לשני ומת לשלישי לא תנשא דברי רבי

He raised an objection against him: If a woman had been accustomed to observe her discharge on the fifteenth day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the month. ');">⁷</span>

רשב"ג אומר

and this was changed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a subsequent month. ');">⁸</span>

לג' תנשא לד' לא תנשא

to the sixteenth, intercourse is forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the month following that in which the discharge appeared on the sixteenth. ');">⁹</span>

לא דכ"ע כרשב"ג והכא בהא קמיפלגי

on both days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fifteenth and sixteenth. ');">¹⁰</span>

רב סבר חמשה עשר ממנינא ושמואל סבר כיון דלאו בדילוג חזיתיה לאו ממנינא הוא

If this was changed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the month following that in which the discharge appeared on the sixteenth. ');">¹¹</span>

איתיביה

to the seventeenth day, intercourse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the month following. ');">¹²</span>

היתה למודה להיות רואה יום ט"ו ושינתה ליום ששה עשר זה וזה אסורין

on the sixteenth is again permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a discharge appeared on it once only, the prohibition on it also is abolished by one change. ');">¹³</span>

שינתה ליום שבעה עשר הותר ששה עשר ונאסר חמשה עשר ושבעה עשר

but on the fifteenth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was the day of her established settled period. ');">¹⁴</span>

שינתה ליום שמונה עשר הותרו כולן ואין אסור אלא משמונה עשר ואילך

and the seventeenth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The day on which her discharge was last observed. ');">¹⁵</span>

קשיא לרב

it is forbidden. If<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the month following. ');">¹²</span>

אמר לך רב

this was changed to the eighteenth intercourse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the month following. ');">¹²</span>

למודה שאני

is again permitted on all the former dates;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is permitted on the sixteenth and seventeenth for the reason given supra (prev. n. but two); and on the fifteenth it is permitted because in three consecutive months the discharge appeared on days (sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth) other than the fifteenth which, in consequence, can no longer be regarded as the settled period. ');">¹⁶</span>

ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה

and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the discharge appeared three times on days that represent an arithmetical progression. ');">¹⁷</span>

למודה אצטריכא ליה

is forbidden only on the day after<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from'. ');">¹⁸</span>

מהו דתימא

the eighteenth and onwards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. on the nineteenth of the next month, the twentieth of the one following it, and so on in arithmetical progression in each succeeding month. ');">¹⁹</span>

כיון דלמודה ועקרתיה בתרי זימני עקרה ליה קמ"ל

Now does not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it is obvious that, since only three occurrences cause the abolition of the old, and the establishment of a new settled period, the first occurrence is not counted. ');">²⁰</span>

מיתיבי

present an objection against Rab?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled that even a change on two dates in arithmetical progression abolishes the old, and establishes a new settled period. ');">²¹</span>

ראתה יום עשרים ואחד בחדש זה יום עשרים ושנים בחדש זה יום עשרים ושלשה בחדש זה קבעה לה וסת

— Rab can answer you: Where a woman was accustomed to observe her discharge on a certain date<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case in the Baraitha cited. ');">²²</span>

סירגה ליום עשרים וארבעה לא קבעה לה וסת

the law is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From that dealt with by Rab. In the former case, the first of the dates under discussion might well be added to the similar dates in the previous months and hence could not be counted as the first in the arithmetical progression. In the case dealt with by Rab, however, either the first of the dates under discussion was one on which the woman observed a discharge for the very first time, or the woman was one who had never before had a settled period or one whose settled period was on a day other than the first of those under discussion. The first day, therefore, may well be counted as one of the three days that establish a settled period. ');">²³</span>

תיובתא דשמואל

But as to him who raised the objection, on what possible ground did he raise it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. did he not know of the difference between a settled and an unsettled period? ');">²⁴</span>

אמר לך שמואל

— [He assumed that the case of] one who was accustomed to a settled period had to be stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the same law applies to one who had no settled period. ');">²⁵</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דרגילה למחזי ביום עשרים ושינתה ליום עשרים ואחד

As it might have been presumed that since she was accustomed to observe her discharge on a settled date and this was changed, the change is effective<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the first date is no longer regarded as a settled period. ');">²⁶</span>

דיקא נמי דשבקינן ליום עשרים ונקט ליום עשרים ואחד ש"מ

even if this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The change from the date mentioned. ');">²⁷</span>

שאין האשה קובעת לה וסת עד שתקבענה וכו'

occurred only twice, hence we had to be informed [that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a new settled period is to be established. ');">²⁸</span>

א"ר פפא

the change must have recurred three times].

לא אמרן אלא למקבעה אבל למיחש לה בחדא זימנא חיישא

An objection was raised: If she observed a discharge on the twenty-first day of one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">²⁹</span>

מאי קמ"ל

month, on the twenty-second of the next month and on the twenty-third of the third month, she has thereby established for herself a settled period. If she skipped over<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the twenty-second. ');">³⁰</span>

תנינא

to the twenty-fourth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of the twenty-third. ');">³¹</span>

היתה למודה להיות רואה יום חמשה עשר ושינתה ליום עשרים זה וזה אסורין

day of the month, she has not established for herself a settled period.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the difference between the dates of the first and the second month was only one day while that between the second and the third was two days. ');">³²</span>

אי מהתם ה"א

Does not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first case where three observations, including the first one, establish a settled period. ');">³³</span>

ה"מ היכא דקיימא בתוך ימי נדתה אבל היכא דלא קיימא בתוך ימי נדתה אימא לא קמ"ל

present an objection against Samuel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that no settled period in arithmetical progression can be established unless the discharge appeared on three dates exclusive of the first. ');">³⁴</span>

ואינה מטהרת מן הוסת וכו'

— Samuel can answer you: Here we are dealing with the case of a woman, for instance, who was accustomed to observe her discharge on the twentieth day and this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first discharge mentioned. ');">³⁵</span>

א"ר פפא

was changed to the twenty-first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the change actually occurred three times (on the twenty-first, twenty-second and twenty-third) on dates in arithmetical progression exclusive of the first date which was the twentieth. ');">³⁶</span>

לא אמרן אלא דקבעתיה תלתא זימני דצריכי תלתא זימני למעקריה אבל תרי זימני בחדא זימנא מיעקר

An inference from the wording also justifies this view;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we are here dealing with a case where the woman 'was accustomed to observe her discharge on the twentieth'. ');">³⁷</span>

מאי קמ"ל

for the twentieth day was left out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the three dates given. ');">³⁸</span>

תנינא

and the twenty-first was mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had not the woman had the habit of observing her discharge on the twentieth, that date (which is simpler than the twenty-first) would have been taken as an example of the first of the three dates, and the twenty-first and twenty-second would have been taken as examples of the subsequent dates. ');">³⁹</span>

אין האשה קובעת לה וסת עד שתקבענה שלש פעמים

This is conclusive.

מהו דתימא חדא לחד תרי לתרתי ותלתא לתלתא קא משמע לן

FOR A WOMAN MAY NOT REGARD HER MENSTRUAL PERIOD AS SETTLED UNLESS THE RECURRENCE HAS BEEN REGULAR etc. R. Papa explained: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the occurrence must be repeated three times. ');">⁴⁰</span>

תניא כותיה דרב פפא

was said only in regard to the establishment of a settled period,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the uncleanness should begin just at the time of the period and not earlier; and that the settled period should not be abolished unless a change occurred three times. ');">⁴¹</span>

היתה למודה להיות רואה יום עשרים ושינתה ליום שלשים זה וזה אסורין הגיע יום עשרים ולא ראתה מותרת לשמש עד יום שלשים וחוששת ליום שלשים

but as regards taking the possibility of a discharge into consideration<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. to treat the date on which a discharge appeared in one month as one on which intercourse is forbidden in the next month. ');">⁴²</span>

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</span> But what<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we did not know before. ');">⁴⁴</span> does he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papa. ');">⁴⁵</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ruling which embodies that of R. Papa. ');">⁴⁶</span> — If the inference had to be made from there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁷</span> it might have been presumed that the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As enumerated by R. Papa. ');">⁴⁸</span> applied only where the woman was still<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the discharge appeared. ');">⁴⁹</span> 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</span> 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</span> she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the zibah period is one during which a discharge is unusual. ');">⁵²</span> need not consider the possibility of a discharge,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And intercourse should, therefore, be permitted when the next similar date arrives. ');">⁵³</span> hence we were informed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By R. Papa. ');">⁵⁴</span> [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 what<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we did not know before. ');">⁵⁵</span> does he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papa. ');">⁵⁶</span> 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&nbsp;… 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</span> — It might have been presumed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If only our Mishnah were available and not R. Papa's ruling. ');">⁵⁸</span> that one occurence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A change of date ');">⁵⁹</span> is required for the abolition of one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Discharge on a certain date. ');">⁶⁰</span> two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Changes. ');">⁶¹</span> for two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Discharges on similar dates. ');">⁶²</span> and three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Changes. ');">⁶¹</span> for three,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Discharges on similar dates. ');">⁶²</span> hence we were informed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By R. Papa. ');">⁶³</span> [that even for two occurrences<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Discharges on similar dates. ');">⁶⁴</span> only ones is required].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To release a woman from the restrictions of a settled period. ');">⁶⁵</span> It was taught in agreement with R. Papa:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one change of date suffices to release a woman from the restrictions of a settled period that had been established by two occurrences. ');">⁶⁶</span> If a woman had a habit of observing her menstrual discharge on the twentieth day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a month. ');">⁶⁷</span> and this was changed to the thirtieth, intercourse is forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the next month. ');">⁶⁸</span> on both days. If the twentieth day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the next month. ');">⁶⁸</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And must consequently abstain from intercourse. ');">⁶⁹</span> If the thirtieth day arrived and she observed a discharge, the twentieth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the next month. ');">⁶⁸</span> arrived and she observed none, the thirtieth arrived and she observed none and the twentieth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the next month. ');">⁶⁸</span> arrived and she observed one, the thirtieth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the next month. ');">⁶⁸</span> 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</span>