Niddah 29
אמר להם כך פרשו חכמים ביבנה
'Thus', he said to them, 'did the Sages at Jamnia enunciate the ruling: If the woman did not delay more than the time in which she can descend from the bed and wash her face,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the time elapsed was no longer than that during which she can examine herself while still in bed. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
וכן כששהתה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה בועלה מטמא משום מגע ואינו מטמא משום בועל
and exempt from bringing a sacrifice but they are subject to the obligation of a suspensive guilt-offering. If she delayed for such a time during which she could descend from the bed and wash her face,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A period of time which is longer than the former (cf. supra n. 1). ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
אלא לרב אשי אמאי מטהרי רבנן
the man who had intercourse with her is unclean on account of his contact,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the woman. Such a contact with a menstruant within the twenty-four hours' period only subjects him to one day's uncleanness until nightfall and the uncleanness is only Rabbinical and of an uncertain character. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
וכי תימא
but not on account of his intercourse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With a menstruant; sc. the uncleanness, even in its uncertain character, does not extend over seven days as would have been the case with one who had intercourse with a confirmed menstruant. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
רבי יהודה בנו של רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אומר
Now according to R. Hisda<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who explained supra that the interval within which SHE CAN DESCEND FROM THE BED is regarded as the 'interval after this interval'. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
בעלה נכנס להיכל ומקטיר קטורת
one can well see why the Rabbis declare the man clean, but according to R. Ashi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintained supra that 'the former and the latter represent the same length of time'. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ותיפוק ליה דהוה נוגע במעת לעת שבנדה
why do the Rabbis declare him clean? And should you reply that this is a case where she did not have the rag in her hand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that after she descended from the bed she spent some more time in taking up the rag. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
הוא דאמר כשמאי דאמר
[it could be retorted:] Should not then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to avoid the possible mistake that even within the shorter interval, when the woman had the rag in her hand, the Rabbis hold the man to be clean. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
כל הנשים דיין שעתן
a distinction have been made explicitly between the case where the woman had a rag in her hand and where she had no rag in her hand?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it should. Since no such distinction, however, is made it is obvious, is it not, that the Rabbis hold the man to be clean even if the discharge was discovered after the interval in which the woman can descend from the bed with the rag in her hand? ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
בשלא גמר ביאתו
'R. Judah son of R. Johanan b. Zakkai ruled: Her husband may enter the Temple and burn incense'. But why should not a prohibition be imposed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and let (the prohibition) be inferred'. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
למפרע ורבי מאיר היא
But should not a prohibition be imposed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it should. Since no such distinction, however, is made it is obvious, is it not, that the Rabbis hold the man to be clean even if the discharge was discovered after the interval in which the woman can descend from the bed with the rag in her hand? ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ושמואל אמר
on the ground that the man has experienced an emission of semen? — This is a case where his intercourse was not consummated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba, however, maintains that the first stage of intercourse with a menstruant is regarded as its consummation, and consequently uncleanness is conveyed even in such a case (Rashi). ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
מכאן ולהבא ורבנן היא
THE SAGES, HOWEVER, AGREE WITH R. AKIBA THAT ONE WHO OBSERVED A BLOODSTAIN. Rab explained: [She conveys UNCLEANNESS] retrospectively and the ruling is that of R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in regard to bloodstains adopts (supra 5a and infra 52b) the more restrictive view. ');"><sup>26</sup></span>
מהו דתימא
onwards and the ruling is that of the Rabbis. 'From now onwards'! Would not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Rabbis agree she conveys uncleanness after the discovery of a stain (cf. prev. n.). ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
הואיל ומעת לעת דרבנן וכתמים דרבנן מה מעת לעת לא מטמאה את בועלה אף כתמים לא מטמאה את בועלה קא משמע לן
be obvious? — It might have been presumed that, since retrospective uncleanness for a period of twenty-four hours is only a Rabbinical measure and the uncleanness of bloodstains at all times<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after discovery. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
ואימא הכי נמי
is also only a Rabbinical measure, as during the twenty-four hours' period a woman does not convey uncleanness to the man who had intercourse with her so also in the case of a stain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after discovery. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
התם אין שור שחוט לפניך הכא יש שור שחוט לפניך
does she not convey uncleanness to the man who had intercourse with her, hence we were informed [that she does convey uncleanness to the man]. Might it not, however, be suggested that the law is so indeed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That she does not convey uncleanness to the one who had intercourse with her after the discovery of a bloodstain just as she does not render him unclean retrospectively during the twenty-four hours prior to her having observed a discharge. ');"><sup>30</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל הנשים בחזקת טהרה לבעליהן
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ALL WOMEN ARE IN THE CONDITION OF PRESUMPTIVE CLEANNESS FOR THEIR HUSBANDS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of intercourse; sc. no examination is required for the purpose. It is necessary only for determining the condition of any clean objects the woman may have handled. ');"><sup>34</sup></span>
הני מילי היכא דאיתיה במתא דרמיא אנפשה ובדקה אבל היכא דליתא במתא דלא רמיא אנפשה לא קא משמע לן
THOSE THAT RETURN FROM A JOURNEY? — It might have been presumed that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the first clause. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
והוא שבא ומצאה בתוך ימי עונתה
and duly examines herself, but not to a husband who was not in town since the question of [marital] duty does not occur to her, hence we were informed [that the law applies to the latter case also). Resh Lakish in the name of R. Judah Nesi'ah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Prince, R. Judah II. ');"><sup>39</sup></span>
ל"ש אלא שאין לה וסת
applies only where the husband came and found her within her usually clean period.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., within thirty days after her last observation of a discharge. After the thirty days, since most women have monthly periods, intercourse must be preceded by an examination. ');"><sup>41</sup></span>
אין לה וסת אימא חזאי יש לה וסת וסת קביע לה
Does not, on the contrary, the reverse stand to reason, since in the case of a woman who has no settled period it might well be assumed that she experienced a discharge, but where she has a settled period [she should be presumed to be clean] since her period was fixed? — Rather, if the statement was at all made it was made in the following terms: R. Huna said, This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'within her usually clean period' no examination is required. ');"><sup>45</sup></span>
רבה בר בר חנה אמר
is of the opinion that [the laws of] settled periods<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that when the date of a settled period arrives the woman is presumed to be in a state of doubtful uncleanness. ');"><sup>48</sup></span>
אפילו הגיע שעת וסתה נמי מותרת קסבר
are Pentateuchal. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: Even if the time of her settled period has arrived she is also permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No previous examination being required. ');"><sup>49</sup></span>
וסתות דרבנן
for he is of the opinion that [the laws relating to] settled period are only Rabbinical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the Rabbis required a woman to examine herself when the date of her settled period arrives in order to ascertain whether there was a discharge or not. If, however, her husband was out of town and on his return it was unknown to him whether she did or did not examine herself she is not to be regarded as being in a condition of doubtful uncleanness. ');"><sup>50</sup></span>