Niddah 29

Chapter 29

א שמא כרבי עקיבא אתם אומרים שמטמאה את בועלה אמרו לו לא שמענו

1 'Are you perchance of the same opinion as R. Akiba that the woman1 carries uncleanness to the man who had intercourse with her?'2 'We', they answered him, 'have not heard his ruling'.3

ב אמר להם כך פרשו חכמים ביבנה לא שהתה כדי שתרד מן המטה ותדיח את פניה תוך זמן הוא זה וטמאין מספק ופטורין מקרבן וחייבין באשם תלוי

2 '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,4 this5

ג שהתה כדי שתרד מן המטה ותדיח את פניה אחר הזמן הוא זה

3 is regarded as 'within the time limit' and both are unclean on account of the doubt,6

ד וכן כששהתה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה בועלה מטמא משום מגע ואינו מטמא משום בועל רבי עקיבא אומר אף מטמא משום בועל רבי יהודה בנו של רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אומר בעלה נכנס להיכל ומקטיר קטורת

4 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,7 this8 is regarded as being 'after the time',9 Similarly if she delayed10 for twenty-four hours11

ה בשלמא לרב חסדא היינו דמטהרי רבנן

5 or for a period between her previous and her present examination,12

ו אלא לרב אשי אמאי מטהרי רבנן

6 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. ');">13

ז וכי תימא דאין עד בידה האי עד בידה ואין עד בידה מיבעי ליה קשיא

7 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. ');">14 R. Akiba ruled: He also contracts uncleanness on the ground of his intercourse.15 R. Judah son of R. Johanan b. Zakkai ruled: Her husband may enter the Temple and burn incense.16

ח רבי יהודה בנו של רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אומר בעלה נכנס להיכל ומקטיר קטורת ותיפוק ליה דהוה נוגע במעת לעת שבנדה

8 Now according to R. Hisda17 one can well see why the Rabbis declare the man clean, but according to R. Ashi18 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 hand19

ט הוא דאמר כשמאי דאמר כל הנשים דיין שעתן

9 [it could be retorted:] Should not then20 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? ');">21

י ותיפוק ליה דהוה בעל קרי בשלא גמר ביאתו

10 — This is a difficulty. '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 imposed22

יא ומודים חכמים לרבי עקיבא ברואה כתם אמר רב למפרע ורבי מאיר היא

11 on the ground that the man came in contact with a menstruant during the twenty-four hours of her retrospective uncleanness? — He23 holds the same view as Shammai who ruled: For all women it suffices to reckon their period of uncleanness from the time of their discovering the flow.24 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? ');">21

יב ושמואל אמר מכאן ולהבא ורבנן היא מכאן ולהבא פשיטא

12 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). ');">25 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.26 Samuel, however, explained: [She conveys UNCLEANNESS] from now27

יג מהו דתימא הואיל ומעת לעת דרבנן וכתמים דרבנן מה מעת לעת לא מטמאה את בועלה אף כתמים לא מטמאה את בועלה קא משמע לן

13 onwards and the ruling is that of the Rabbis. 'From now onwards'! Would not this28 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 times29

יד ואימא הכי נמי התם אין שור שחוט לפניך הכא יש שור שחוט לפניך

14 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 stain29 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. ');">30

טו וכן אמר ריש לקיש למפרע ורבי מאיר היא רבי יוחנן אמר מכאן ולהבא ורבנן היא

15 — [No, since] in the former case there is no slaughtered ox in your presence31 but here there is a slaughtered ox in your presence.32 Resh Lakish also explained in the same way33 [that uncleanness is conveyed] retrospectively and that the ruling is that of R. Meir. R. Johanan explained: [The uncleanness is conveyed] from now onwards and the ruling is that of the Rabbis.

טז <big>מתני׳</big> כל הנשים בחזקת טהרה לבעליהן הבאין מן הדרך נשיהן להן בחזקת טהרה

16 MISHNAH. 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. ');">34 FOR THOSE WHO RETURN FROM A JOURNEY THEIR WIVES ARE IN THE CONDITION OF PRESUMPTIVE CLEANNESS.

יז <big>גמ׳</big> למה ליה למתני הבאין מן הדרך סד"א הני מילי היכא דאיתיה במתא דרמיא אנפשה ובדקה אבל היכא דליתא במתא דלא רמיא אנפשה לא קא משמע לן

17 GEMARA. What need was there35 to state,36 THOSE THAT RETURN FROM A JOURNEY? — It might have been presumed that this37

יח אמר ריש לקיש משום רבי יהודה נשיאה והוא שבא ומצאה בתוך ימי עונתה

18 applies only to a husband who was in the town, since in such a case the woman thinks of her duties38 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'ah39

יט אמר רב הונא ל"ש אלא שאין לה וסת אבל יש לה וסת אסור לשמש

19 observed: But this40 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. ');">41 R. Huna observed: This42

כ כלפי לייא אדרבה איפכא מסתברא אין לה וסת אימא חזאי יש לה וסת וסת קביע לה

20 was learnt only of a woman who had no settled period, but if she had a settled period intercourse with her is forbidden.43 Topsy turvy!44 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, This45

כא אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב הונא ל"ש אלא שלא הגיע שעת וסתה אבל הגיע שעת וסתה אסורה קסבר וסתות דאורייתא

21 was learnt only in the case of a woman the time of whose settled period had not arrived46 but if that time had arrived47 she is forbidden,43 for he47

כב רבה בר בר חנה אמר אפילו הגיע שעת וסתה נמי מותרת קסבר וסתות דרבנן

22 is of the opinion that [the laws of] settled periods48 are Pentateuchal. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: Even if the time of her settled period has arrived she is also permitted,49 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. ');">50

כג רב אשי מתני הכי אמר רב הונא

23 R. Ashi reported thus: R. Huna said,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter