Niddah 24

Chapter 24

א א"ל סודני לא דמגניא באפיה אמר רב כהנא שאלתינהו לאינשי ביתיה דרב פפא ודרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע כי אתו רבנן מבי רב מצרכי לכו בדיקה ואמרו לי לא ולישיילינהו לדידהו דילמא אינהו קא מחמירי אנפשייהו

1 — The other replied: Brewer,1 no; because [otherwise]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., (cf. Tosaf.) if it had been necessary for the husband to rouse her and to wait until she has collected her thoughts and was in a condition to reply (contra Rashi). ');">2 she would become repulsive to him. R. Kahana stated, 'I asked the women folk of the house of R. Papa and of R. Huna son of R. Joshua, "Do the Rabbis on coming home from the schoolhouse require you to undergo an examination"? And they answered me in the negative'. But why did he3 not ask4 the Rabbis themselves? — Because it is possible that they imposed additional restrictions upon themselves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this could be ascertained only by enquiring from the women. Had the enquiry been addressed to the Rabbis themselves they might have given the lenient ruling which applied to all, while R. Kahana was anxious to adopt any additional restrictions which the Rabbis may have imposed upon themselves. ');">5 Our Rabbis taught: A woman who has no settled period is forbidden marital intercourse and is entitled neither to a kethubah6 nor to a usufruct<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the melog (v. Glos.) property which she brought to her husband. Her husband is entitled to the usufruct despite the fact that she is deprived of her kethubah. ');">7

ב ת"ר אשה שאין לה וסת אסורה לשמש ואין לה לא כתובה ולא פירות ולא מזונות ולא בלאות ויוציא ולא מחזיר עולמית דברי ר"מ

2 nor to maintenance,8 nor to her worn-out clothes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though a woman as a rule is entitled to take with her when divorced whatever is left of the clothes she brought to her husband on marriage as melog property (cf. Keth. 79b). ');">9

ג רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר משמשת בשני עדים הן עותוה הן תקנוה משום אבא חנן אמרו אוי לו לבעלה

3 Her husband, furthermore, must divorce her and may never marry her again; so R. Meir. R. Hanina b. Antigonus ruled: She must use two testing-rags when she has marital intercourse; they render her unfit10 and they also render her fit.11 In the name of Abba Hanan it was stated: Woe to her husband.12 'She is forbidden marital intercourse', because she might13

ד אסורה לשמש דילמא מקלקלת ליה ואין לה כתובה כיון דלא חזיא לביאה לית לה כתובה

4 cause him moral injury. 'And is entitled neither to a kethubah', since she is unfit for cohabitation she is not entitled to a kethubah. 'Nor to usufruct nor to maintenance nor to her worn-out clothes' because the provisions14 embodied in the agreed terms of a kethubah are subject to the same laws as the kethubah itself.15

ה ולא פירות ולא מזונות ולא בלאות תנאי כתובה ככתובה דמו

ו ויוציא ולא יחזיר עולמית פשיטא לא צריכא דהדרה ואתקנה מהו דתימא ליהדרה קמ"ל דזימנין דאזלא ומנסבא ומתקנא

6 'Her husband, furthermore, must divorce her and may never marry her again'. Is not this obvious?16 — It was necessary in the case where she was subsequently cured.17

ז ואמר אילו הייתי יודע שכך היה אפילו הייתם נותנין לי מאה מנה לא הייתי מגרשה ונמצא גט בטל ובניה ממזרין

7 As it might have been presumed that [in such a case] he may remarry her we were informed [that this is forbidden], because it may sometimes happen that having proceeded to marry another man she would be cured and [her first husband] would then say, 'Had I known that to be the case I would not have divorced her even if you had given me a hundred maneh', and the get would thus be annulled and her children would be bastards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the ruling that he may never again marry her, even if she subsequently acquired a settled period. On the basis of this ruling the husband is duly cautioned when divorce is arranged that his act is definite and final and, consequently, any subsequent plea of his 'Had I known etc.' has no validity whatsoever (cf. Git. 46a). ');">18

ח משום אבא חנן אמרו אוי לו לבעלה איכא דאמרי לר"מ אמר ליה דבעי לאגבויה כתובתה איכא דאמרי לרבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס קא"ל דמקלקלת ליה

8 'In the name of Abba Hanan it was stated: Woe to her husband'. Some explain: He said this in opposition to R. Meir,19 because [Abba Hanan maintains that] she must be allowed to collect her kethubah. Others there are who explain: He said it in opposition to R. Hanina b. Antigonus,20 because [Abba Hanan maintains that intercourse is always forbidden] since thereby she might21 cause her husband to sin. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Hanina b. Antigonus. But in what case? If it is one where the woman is engaged in the handling of clean things, has not Samuel [it may be objected] said it once?22 And if it is one where she was not engaged in the handling of clean things, did he not say [it may again be objected] that as far as her husband is concerned she requires no examination, for did not R. Zera in fact state in the name of R. Abba b. Jeremiah who had it from Samuel, 'A woman who had no settled period may not perform marital intercourse before she examines herself', and it has been explained to refer to one who was engaged in the handling of clean things?23

ט אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס ובמאי אי בעסוקה בטהרות הא אמרה שמואל חדא זימנא

9 — He who taught the one did not teach the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It refers indeed to the case where the woman was engaged in handling clean things: but Samuel having given his ruling only once, Rab Judah applied it to the ruling of R. Hanina b. Antigonus, while R. Abba quoted it as an independent ruling. ');">24

י ואי בשאינה עסוקה בטהרות הא אמר כל לבעלה לא בעיא בדיקה דא"ר זירא א"ר אבא בר ירמיה אמר שמואל אשה שאין לה וסת אסורה לשמש עד שתבדוק ואוקימנא לה בעסוקה בטהרות מאן דמתני הא לא מתני הא

יא <big>הדרן עלך שמאי אומר</big>

Previous Chapter Next Chapter