Niddah 31
והא לידע אם זכר אם נקבה קתני
But was it not stated, 'To ascertain whether it was male or female'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that it was definitely a child and that the only doubt was as to its sex. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ה"ק
— It is this that was meant: And a priest came and gazed into it to ascertain whether she had aborted an inflated object or a premature child and, if some ground could be found for assuming that she aborted a premature child, to ascertain whether it was male or female. And if you prefer I might reply: Since weasels and martens are commonly found there they had certainly dragged it away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is a case of a certainty against a certainty. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ואיבעית אימא
R. Nahman: [Is the examination at] regular menstrual periods Pentateuchal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if a woman failed to make the examination at the proper time she is deemed to be unclean (on the ground that the discharge had appeared at its usual time) even though she observed no blood when she examined herself some time later (since it might have dropped on the ground and been lost). ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
בעו מיניה מרב נחמן
The latter replied: Since our colleague Huna citing Rab ruled, If a woman who has a settled period did not make an examination when that period arrived but later on<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. at the first examination after the settled period. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
וסתות דאורייתא או דרבנן
observed a discharge, she must take into consideration the possibility [of a discharge] on the date of the settled period,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it was due prior to the period of twenty-four hours immediately preceding the observation. Her uncleanness in such a case extends backward to the time of the settled period. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
אמר להו
and also the possibility of [twenty-four hours retrospective uncleanness] on account of her observation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If less than twenty-four hours intervened between the time of the settled period and the observation. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
מדאמר הונא חברין משמיה דרב אשה שיש לה וסת והגיע שעת וסתה ולא בדקה ולבסוף ראתה חוששת לוסתה וחוששת לראייתה אלמא וסתות דאורייתא
Thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the possibility of a discharge at the time of the settled period is taken into consideration presumably even where no subsequent discharge had been observed. It is now assumed that 'discharge' was mentioned only on account of the second clause, 'the possibility … on account of her observation'. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
איתמר
is that she had 'observed a discharge,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being assumed that as she discovered a discharge on examination she might also have discovered one if she had made an examination at the time of her settled period. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ושמואל אמר
It was stated: If a woman had a settled period, and when the time of that period arrived she did not make the examination and later she did make one, Rab ruled: If on examination she found that she was unclean she is unclean but if she found that she was clean she remains clean. Samuel, however, ruled, Even if on examination she found herself clean she is deemed unclean, since the guest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Euphemism, sc. the regular menstrual discharge. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
בוסתות גופייהו קמיפלגי דמ"ס וסתות דאורייתא ומר סבר וסתות דרבנן
maintaining that it is only Rabbinical?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut. But how could this be reconciled with the first version of R. Nahman supra according to which Rab is of the opinion that the examination is Pentateuchal? ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
תבדק
refers to a woman who examined herself within the period of the duration of her menstruation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As she nevertheless discovered no discharge, it may safely be assumed that there was none even earlier when the regular menstruation period had begun. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
אף אנן נמי תנינא דתנן ר"מ אומר
refers to a woman who did not examine herself within the period of the duration of her menstruation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But did so later on. As it is quite likely that earlier, during the period of menstruation, there was a discharge, the woman must well be deemed unclean. An old ed. inserts here: 'And there are others who say that one Master spoke of one particular case and the other spoke of another particular case and there is in fact no difference of opinion between them' (v. Maharsha and marginal gloss). ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
אם יש לה וסת חוששת לוסתה
R. Shesheth observed: [The discussion here] is analogous to that of the following Tannas: [For it was taught:] R. Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that the examination is Pentateuchal. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
רשב"ג סבר
ruled: Let her be examined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though her period of menstruation had passed. If on examination she finds herself to be clean she is regarded as clean (despite the possibility of an earlier discharge) and if she finds herself unclean, the uncleanness is retrospective from the time her settled period was due. ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
ואמר ליה רבי
differ on the same principle as the following Tannas. For it was taught: R. Meir ruled, She<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman who failed to make the examination at the time of her regular period. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
צריכה ב' עדים על כל תשמיש ותשמיש או תשמש לאור הנר
ruled, Let her be examined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though her period of menstruation had passed. If on examination she finds herself to be clean she is regarded as clean (despite the possibility of an earlier discharge) and if she finds herself unclean, the uncleanness is retrospective from the time her settled period was due. ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
דיה בשני עדים כל הלילה:
when the time of her regular period arrived and she did not examine herself, she is nevertheless clean, because fear suspends the menstrual flow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 39a. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> The reason then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why she is regarded as clean. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> is that there was fear, but if there had been no fear she would have been deemed unclean. Thus it clearly follows [that the necessity for an examination at] regular periods is Pentateuchal. May it be assumed that the following Tannas also differ on the same principle? For it was taught: If a woman observed some blood [that might be] due to a wound,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In her womb. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> even if this occurred during her usual period of menstruation, she is deemed to be clean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood being attributed to the wound. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> so R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Rabbi ruled: If she has a regular period<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she has no regular period Rabbi, for the reason given in prev. n., agrees with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the blood was observed on the day the period was due to commence. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> must take her period into consideration.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. she is regarded as unclean, since it is possible that some particle of menstrual blood was mixed up with that of the wound. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> Now do they not differ on this principle, one Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> holding that [the examinations at] the regular periods are Pentateuchal, while the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> holds that they are only Rabbinical? — Rabina replied: No; both may agree that [the examinations at] the regular periods are only Rabbinical, but it is on the question whether the interior of the uterus is unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'as to the source, the place thereof is unclean'. And, therefore, capable of imparting uncleanness to any clean blood that passes through it. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> that they differ. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds that the woman is clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. she is not subject to the major uncleanness of menstruation which extends over seven days. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> but the blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though coming from a wound. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> is unclean because it comes through the uterus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it contracts an uncleanness (a 'father of uncleanness') which causes it to impart a one day's uncleanness to a human being, so that any object touched by the woman on that day becomes unclean. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> and Rabbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Relaxing the law. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> in effect said to him: If<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By regarding the blood as unclean. ');"><sup>54</sup></span> you take into consideration the possibility of her usual menstrual flow, the woman also should be unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For seven days, as any other menstruant. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> and if<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since you exempt the woman from menstrual uncleanness. ');"><sup>56</sup></span> you do not take into consideration the possibility of her usual menstrual flow, [the blood also should be clean since] the interior of the uterus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the source of its place'. ');"><sup>57</sup></span> is clean. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: A WOMAN NEEDS TWO<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Previously unused. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> TESTING-RAGS FOR EVERY INTERCOURSE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One is used before, and the other after and both are preserved until the morning when they are to be examined in daylight. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> OR SHE MUST PERFORM IT IN THE LIGHT OF A LAMP.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the testing-rag may be immediately examined. ');"><sup>60</sup></span> BETH HILLEL RULED: TWO TESTING-RAGS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of which is used prior to the first intercourse and the other after the last. ');"><sup>61</sup></span> SUFFICE HER FOR THE WHOLE NIGHT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being sufficient to determine whether she is menstrually unclean and whether she is to convey uncleanness to any clean object she may have handled. (So Rashi; cf., however, Tosaf. and Tosaf. Asheri for a different interpretation.) ');"><sup>62</sup></span>