The mishna states that a woman during her ziva days has a presumptive status of pure. The gemara brings four different opinions regarding the relevance of this status – what is the mishna saying? The last explanation is that one cannot establish a regular cycle if it comes out during her ziva days. Rav Papa asks if maybe in any case one needs to be concerned she may bleed if it comes out during ziva days, even if she can’t establish it as a regular cycle. He tries to answer his own question but Rav Huna rejects his answer.
Niddah 39
12.01.2019 | ג׳ בכסלו תש״פ
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Niddah 39
יָשְׁבָה לָהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, שָׁגְגָה, נֶאֶנְסָה, הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה.
If a woman sat and did not examine herself every morning and evening to determine whether she emitted blood and is impure, it makes no difference whether she failed to examine herself unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself; she remains ritually pure. She is rendered impure only if she examined herself and was found to have emitted blood.
הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא, וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַדָּמִים.
By contrast, if the time of her menstrual cycle arrived, when she is required to examine herself, and she did not examine herself, that woman is ritually impure, as it is typical for a woman to discharge blood at that time. Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding from danger, and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself on that day, that woman is pure, because fear drives away blood. There is therefore no concern that she might have emitted blood.
אֲבָל יְמֵי הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה, וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה.
But with regard to the seven clean days of the zav and the zava, and with regard to a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge during her days of ziva, if she fails to examine herself on those days, these women have a presumptive status of ritual impurity, as they already experienced a discharge.
גְּמָ’ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״יָשְׁבָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה״ — מִכְּלָל דִּלְכַתְּחִלָּה בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that throughout the eleven days of ziva that follow the seven days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Yehuda says: This serves to say that she does not require an examination during these days. The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If she sat and did not examine herself she remains ritually pure, it can be inferred that she requires examination ab initio.
סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לִימֵי נִדָּה, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל אַחַד עָשָׂר בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה, וְלָא בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה, אֲבָל בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ — בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה. יָשְׁבָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, שָׁגְגָה, נֶאֶנְסָה, הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה.
The Gemara explains: In the latter clause we arrive at the case of a woman who is in the days of menstruation, not in the days of ziva. And this is what the mishna is saying: For all the eleven days of ziva that follow the days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity and she does not require examination. But during the days of her menstruation she requires examination. Nevertheless, if she sat and did not examine herself, whether unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself, she remains ritually pure.
רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ. הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ, אֲבָל בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה קָיְימָא.
Rav Ḥisda said a different answer: The first clause of the mishna is necessary only for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: With regard to a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, she is forbidden to engage in intercourse, lest she emit blood during intercourse. The mishna is teaching that this statement applies only during the days of her menstruation, but during the days of her ziva even Rabbi Meir concedes that she stands in her presumptive status of purity and may engage in intercourse with her husband.
אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: יוֹצִיא וְלֹא יַחְזִיר עוֹלָמִית? דִּלְמָא אָתְיָא לְקַלְקוֹלֵאּ בִּימֵי נִדָּה.
The Gemara asks: If so, that even according to Rabbi Meir there are days in which a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, why did Rabbi Meir say that her husband must divorce her and he may never take her back, even if she eventually develops a fixed menstrual cycle? Let them engage in intercourse during the eleven days of ziva. The Gemara answers: He must divorce her lest the matter lead to failure during the days of menstruation, i.e., in case they come to engage in intercourse during the days of menstruation, when she might experience regular menstrual bleeding.
הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה״ — מִכְּלָל דִּבְאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת עָסְקִינַן! חַסּוֹרֵי מִחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: כׇּל אַחַד עָשָׂר בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה, וְשַׁרְיָא לְבַעְלָהּ, וּבִימֵי נִדָּה אֲסוּרָה.
The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, that woman is ritually impure, it can be inferred that we are dealing with a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara explains: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: For all the eleven days of ziva that follow the days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity and she is permitted to her husband, but during the days of menstruation she is prohibited to her husband.
בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת מוּתֶּרֶת, וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. יָשְׁבָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, שָׁגְגָה, נֶאֶנְסָה, הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה. הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְמֵאָה.
In what case is this statement said? In the case of a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, where there is a concern she might experience bleeding during any of the days of menstruation. But in the case of a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, she is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, and she requires examination. Nevertheless, if she sat and did not examine herself, whether unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself, she remains ritually pure. If the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is impure.
הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי מֵאִיר! כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם לֹא הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְמֵאָה, שֶׁרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁחֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַדָּמִים.
The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the last clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it can be inferred that the first clause is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara explains that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and this is what it is saying: If she was not in hiding and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is impure, as Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is pure, as fear drives away blood.
רָבָא אָמַר: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת.
Rava says a different explanation of the first clause of the mishna: The mishna is coming to say that if a woman experiences bleeding during the eleven days of ziva, as she previously had the presumptive status of purity she does not impart impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period to any ritually pure items she touched. It is assumed that she did not emit any blood before this emission.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַנִּדָּה, וְהַזָּבָה, וְהַשּׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם, וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת — כּוּלָּן מְטַמְּאוֹת מֵעֵת לְעֵת. תְּיוּבְתָּא!
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to a menstruating woman, and a zava, and a woman who observes a day for a day, and a woman who gave birth, they all impart impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. A woman who observes a day for a day is one who experiences bleeding for one or two days during her days of ziva, and the baraita teaches that even such a woman imparts impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. If so, this is a conclusive refutation of Rava’s explanation.
רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי הָא שְׁמַעְתְּתָא.
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says another explanation of the first clause of the mishna in the name of Shmuel: The mishna is coming to say that a woman does not fix a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her ziva. In other words, a sighting during these days does not combine with sightings during the previous two periods of ziva to establish a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara relates that this statement was recited before Rav Yosef, who said: I did not hear this halakha from Shmuel.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ נִיהֲלַן, וְאַהָא אֲמַרְתְּ לַן: הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר (יוֹם), וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין לְשַׁמֵּשׁ. שִׁינְּתָה פַּעֲמַיִם לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין.
Abaye said to him: But you yourself told us this halakha, and it was with regard to that mishna you told it to us, as we learned in a mishna (63b): If the woman was accustomed to see an emission of blood on the fifteenth day, so that this was her fixed menstrual cycle, and she deviated from her cycle to see an emission on the twentieth day, then on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse due to the concern that she might have an emission on either day. If she deviated from her cycle twice, to see an emission on the twentieth day, then on both this day and that day it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. If she deviates a third time to see on the twentieth she has established for herself a new fixed menstrual cycle.
וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁנָא אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִטְבִילָתָהּ, שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם לִרְאִיָּתָהּ, דְּהָתָם בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ קָאֵי לַהּ, אֲבָל חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִרְאִיָּתָהּ, דְּבִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ קָאֵי — לָא קָבְעָה.
Abaye continues: And you said to us with regard to this mishna that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this halakha only with regard to a woman who normally experiences bleeding fifteen days from her immersion, which are twenty-two days from her sighting of menstrual blood. This means that there, she stands in her days of menstruation. But if she normally experiences bleeding fifteen days from her sighting of menstrual blood, so that she stands in her days of ziva, she has not fixed a menstrual cycle, and the previous cycle is uprooted even if she deviates from it only once.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה מִדִּסְקַרְתָּא, מִקְבָּע לָא קָבְעָה, מֵיחָשׁ מַהוּ דְּנֵיחוּשׁ לַהּ?
§ With regard to the ruling that a woman’s menstrual cycle cannot be fixed during her days of ziva, Rav Pappa said: I said this halakha before Rav Yehuda of Diskarta, and I asked him for a clarification of the following matter: Granted, she does not fix a menstrual cycle during the days of ziva, and there is no need for three deviations to uproot her cycle; rather, it is uprooted by even one deviation. But what is the halakha with regard to whether we should be concerned that she might experience bleeding? In other words, if she normally experiences bleeding on a particular day during her days of ziva, must she avoid engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband on that day out of concern that she might emit blood?
אִישְׁתִּיק וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵי. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״נֶחְזֵי אֲנַן״, הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה לְיוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין.
Rav Yehuda of Diskarta was silent and did not say anything to Rav Pappa. Therefore, Rav Pappa said: Let us see and try to resolve this ourselves. The mishna cited above states: If the woman was accustomed to see an emission of blood on the fifteenth day, and she deviated from her cycle to see an emission on the twentieth day, then on both this day and that day it is prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁנָא אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִטְבִילָתָהּ, שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם לִרְאִיָּיתָהּ,
And with regard to this mishna, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this halakha only with regard to a woman who normally experiences bleeding fifteen days from her immersion, which are twenty-two days from her sighting of menstrual blood, which means that there, she stands in her days of menstruation.
וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁבְעָה; דְּכִי הָדְרִי וְאָתוּ עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּי — קָיְימָא לַהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ, וְקָתָנֵי: זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין — אַלְמָא דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לַהּ.
And when the mishna states that she deviated from her cycle and experienced bleeding on the twentieth day, it means she experienced bleeding twenty days from her immersion, i.e., twenty-seven days from her previous sighting, not twenty-two. This means that when twenty-two days again elapse from when she usually experiences bleeding, she stands within what is now the eleven days of her ziva. And the mishna teaches that both this, the twenty-second day, and that, the twenty-seventh day, are prohibited, despite the fact that the twenty-second day now stands during her days of ziva. Evidently, we are concerned for an emission of blood during the days of ziva if she is accustomed to experiencing bleeding on that day.
וְקָסָבַר רַב פָּפָּא: עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין — מֵעֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין מָנֵינַן, נִדָּה וּפִתְחָהּ — מֵעֶשְׂרִין וְשִׁבְעָה מָנֵינַן.
The Gemara elaborates: And Rav Pappa holds that we count twenty-two days of her menstrual cycle from twenty-two days, i.e., from when she usually begins to menstruate, whereas we count the beginning of the days of menstruation from day twenty-seven, when she actually experiences bleeding. Consequently, the twenty-second day of her normal menstrual cycle falls during the days of ziva, according to the actual day of menstruation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין נָמֵי מֵעֶשְׂרִין וְשִׁבְעָה מָנֵינַן, דְּכִי הָדְרִי וְאָתוּ עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין — קָיְימָא לַהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: From where do you know this is the correct reckoning of her days? Perhaps one also counts those twenty-two days from day twenty-seven, such that when twenty-two days again arrive from day twenty-seven, she stands within her days of menstruation. Accordingly, there is no proof from the mishna with regard to a sighting during the days of ziva.
וְהָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא; דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הַאי תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּרָמְיָא יוֹמָא וְכָבְשָׁה יוֹמָא, וְרָמְיָא יוֹמָא וְכָבְשָׁה יוֹמָא, וְכָבְשָׁה תְּרֵי יוֹמֵי וְרָמְיָא חַד יוֹמָא,
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, adds: And so too, it is reasonable that the twenty-two days are counted from when she actually experiences bleeding. As if you do not say so, then consider the case of this chicken that normally lays an egg on one day and withholds an egg the next day, and lays an egg on the third day and withholds an egg on the fourth day. And the chicken deviated from its routine, so that after laying eggs on the first day and third day, it withheld an egg for two days and then laid an egg on one day, i.e., on the sixth day.
כִּי הָדְרָה נָקְטָה — כְּדִלְקַמֵּיהּ נָקְטָה, אוֹ כִּדְמֵעִיקָּרָא נָקְטָה? עַל כׇּרְחָךְ כְּדִלְקַמֵּיהּ נָקְטָה.
When this chicken again takes hold of its previous routine and starts laying an egg on one day and withholding an egg on the next, does it take hold of the order of the routine ahead of it, i.e., will it withhold an egg on the next day, or does it take hold of its routine as it was from the outset, so that it will lay an egg on the seventh day, as if there had been no deviation? Perforce it takes hold of the order of the routine ahead of it. Likewise, a woman who deviated from her normal menstrual cycle counts the days of her cycle according to the order of the cycle ahead of her, i.e., from the time that she experiences bleeding.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ, וְאֵין אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ — הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?
Rav Pappa said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: But if so, a question arises with regard to that which Reish Lakish said: A woman fixes a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her ziva, but a woman does not fix a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her menstruation, i.e., when she is already a menstruating woman. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A woman fixes a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her menstruation. One could ask: What are the circumstances of this dispute? Rabbi Yoḥanan cannot be referring to a case where all her sightings occurred while she was a menstruating woman, as everyone agrees that a woman’s menstrual cycle is not fixed in such a situation (see 11a).
לָאו כְּגוֹן דַּחֲזַאי רֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְחַמְשָׁא בְּיַרְחָא, וְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְחַמְשָׁא בְּיַרְחָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא חֲזַאי בְּחַמְשָׁא בְּיַרְחָא, וּבְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא לָא חֲזַאי,
Rather, is it not referring to a case where she saw blood on the first of the month; and then again on the fifth of that same month, when she was a menstruating woman; and subsequently she saw blood on the first of the next month and then again on the fifth of that month; and now in the third month she saw blood on the fifth of the month but on the first of the month she did not see blood? In such a situation, the woman experienced an emission of blood on the fifth of the month for three consecutive months.
וְקָאָמַר: אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ, אַלְמָא מֵרֵישׁ יַרְחָא מָנֵינָא!
Rav Pappa concludes: And it is with regard to this case that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A woman fixes a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her menstruation. Although she was not actually a menstruating woman before she experienced bleeding on the fifth day of the third month, this is nevertheless considered a sighting during her days of menstruation. Evidently, one counts her menstrual cycle from the first of the month, despite the fact that she did not actually experience bleeding. Likewise, with regard to the case involving twenty-two days, one counts from when she generally experiences bleeding, not from the day she emitted blood in practice.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּגוֹן דַּחֲזַאי רֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְעֶשְׂרִין וְחַמְשָׁה בְּיַרְחָא, וְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא, דְּאָמְרִינַן דָּמֵי יַתִּירִי הוּא דְּאִתּוֹסַפוּ בַּהּ.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: These are not the circumstances of the dispute. Rather, this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The dispute is referring to a case where she saw blood on the first of the month; and then again on the first of the next month, and then again on the twenty-fifth day of that month; and again on the first of the next month, which occurs during her days of menstruation. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that although she is in her days of menstruation, this sighting on the first of the third month serves to fix her menstrual cycle, as we say with regard to the sighting on the twenty-fifth day of the previous month that it is extra blood that gathered inside her. Therefore, it does not negate her regular cycle.
וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין וְכֹל נָחוֹתֵי יַמָּא, אַמְרוּהָ כְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
The Gemara notes: And likewise, when Ravin and all the sea-farers came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and transmitted statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan, they said this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan in accordance with the explanation of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.
.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ בְּנוֹת כּוּתִים.
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Talia Haykin
Denver, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Niddah 39
יָשְׁבָה לָהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, שָׁגְגָה, נֶאֶנְסָה, הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה.
If a woman sat and did not examine herself every morning and evening to determine whether she emitted blood and is impure, it makes no difference whether she failed to examine herself unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself; she remains ritually pure. She is rendered impure only if she examined herself and was found to have emitted blood.
הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא, וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַדָּמִים.
By contrast, if the time of her menstrual cycle arrived, when she is required to examine herself, and she did not examine herself, that woman is ritually impure, as it is typical for a woman to discharge blood at that time. Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding from danger, and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself on that day, that woman is pure, because fear drives away blood. There is therefore no concern that she might have emitted blood.
אֲבָל יְמֵי הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה, וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה.
But with regard to the seven clean days of the zav and the zava, and with regard to a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge during her days of ziva, if she fails to examine herself on those days, these women have a presumptive status of ritual impurity, as they already experienced a discharge.
גְּמָ’ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״יָשְׁבָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה״ — מִכְּלָל דִּלְכַתְּחִלָּה בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that throughout the eleven days of ziva that follow the seven days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Yehuda says: This serves to say that she does not require an examination during these days. The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If she sat and did not examine herself she remains ritually pure, it can be inferred that she requires examination ab initio.
סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לִימֵי נִדָּה, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל אַחַד עָשָׂר בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה, וְלָא בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה, אֲבָל בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ — בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה. יָשְׁבָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, שָׁגְגָה, נֶאֶנְסָה, הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה.
The Gemara explains: In the latter clause we arrive at the case of a woman who is in the days of menstruation, not in the days of ziva. And this is what the mishna is saying: For all the eleven days of ziva that follow the days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity and she does not require examination. But during the days of her menstruation she requires examination. Nevertheless, if she sat and did not examine herself, whether unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself, she remains ritually pure.
רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ. הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ, אֲבָל בִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה קָיְימָא.
Rav Ḥisda said a different answer: The first clause of the mishna is necessary only for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: With regard to a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, she is forbidden to engage in intercourse, lest she emit blood during intercourse. The mishna is teaching that this statement applies only during the days of her menstruation, but during the days of her ziva even Rabbi Meir concedes that she stands in her presumptive status of purity and may engage in intercourse with her husband.
אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: יוֹצִיא וְלֹא יַחְזִיר עוֹלָמִית? דִּלְמָא אָתְיָא לְקַלְקוֹלֵאּ בִּימֵי נִדָּה.
The Gemara asks: If so, that even according to Rabbi Meir there are days in which a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, why did Rabbi Meir say that her husband must divorce her and he may never take her back, even if she eventually develops a fixed menstrual cycle? Let them engage in intercourse during the eleven days of ziva. The Gemara answers: He must divorce her lest the matter lead to failure during the days of menstruation, i.e., in case they come to engage in intercourse during the days of menstruation, when she might experience regular menstrual bleeding.
הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה״ — מִכְּלָל דִּבְאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת עָסְקִינַן! חַסּוֹרֵי מִחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: כׇּל אַחַד עָשָׂר בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה, וְשַׁרְיָא לְבַעְלָהּ, וּבִימֵי נִדָּה אֲסוּרָה.
The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, that woman is ritually impure, it can be inferred that we are dealing with a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara explains: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: For all the eleven days of ziva that follow the days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity and she is permitted to her husband, but during the days of menstruation she is prohibited to her husband.
בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת מוּתֶּרֶת, וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. יָשְׁבָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, שָׁגְגָה, נֶאֶנְסָה, הֵזִידָה וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה. הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְמֵאָה.
In what case is this statement said? In the case of a woman who does not have a fixed menstrual cycle, where there is a concern she might experience bleeding during any of the days of menstruation. But in the case of a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle, she is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, and she requires examination. Nevertheless, if she sat and did not examine herself, whether unwittingly or due to circumstances beyond her control, or even if she acted intentionally and did not examine herself, she remains ritually pure. If the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is impure.
הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי מֵאִיר! כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם לֹא הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְמֵאָה, שֶׁרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁחֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַדָּמִים.
The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the last clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it can be inferred that the first clause is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara explains that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and this is what it is saying: If she was not in hiding and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is impure, as Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she is pure, as fear drives away blood.
רָבָא אָמַר: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת.
Rava says a different explanation of the first clause of the mishna: The mishna is coming to say that if a woman experiences bleeding during the eleven days of ziva, as she previously had the presumptive status of purity she does not impart impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period to any ritually pure items she touched. It is assumed that she did not emit any blood before this emission.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַנִּדָּה, וְהַזָּבָה, וְהַשּׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם, וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת — כּוּלָּן מְטַמְּאוֹת מֵעֵת לְעֵת. תְּיוּבְתָּא!
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to a menstruating woman, and a zava, and a woman who observes a day for a day, and a woman who gave birth, they all impart impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. A woman who observes a day for a day is one who experiences bleeding for one or two days during her days of ziva, and the baraita teaches that even such a woman imparts impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. If so, this is a conclusive refutation of Rava’s explanation.
רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי הָא שְׁמַעְתְּתָא.
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says another explanation of the first clause of the mishna in the name of Shmuel: The mishna is coming to say that a woman does not fix a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her ziva. In other words, a sighting during these days does not combine with sightings during the previous two periods of ziva to establish a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara relates that this statement was recited before Rav Yosef, who said: I did not hear this halakha from Shmuel.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ נִיהֲלַן, וְאַהָא אֲמַרְתְּ לַן: הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר (יוֹם), וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין לְשַׁמֵּשׁ. שִׁינְּתָה פַּעֲמַיִם לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין.
Abaye said to him: But you yourself told us this halakha, and it was with regard to that mishna you told it to us, as we learned in a mishna (63b): If the woman was accustomed to see an emission of blood on the fifteenth day, so that this was her fixed menstrual cycle, and she deviated from her cycle to see an emission on the twentieth day, then on both this day, the fifteenth, and that day, the twentieth, it is prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse due to the concern that she might have an emission on either day. If she deviated from her cycle twice, to see an emission on the twentieth day, then on both this day and that day it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. If she deviates a third time to see on the twentieth she has established for herself a new fixed menstrual cycle.
וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁנָא אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִטְבִילָתָהּ, שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם לִרְאִיָּתָהּ, דְּהָתָם בִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ קָאֵי לַהּ, אֲבָל חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִרְאִיָּתָהּ, דְּבִימֵי זִיבָתָהּ קָאֵי — לָא קָבְעָה.
Abaye continues: And you said to us with regard to this mishna that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this halakha only with regard to a woman who normally experiences bleeding fifteen days from her immersion, which are twenty-two days from her sighting of menstrual blood. This means that there, she stands in her days of menstruation. But if she normally experiences bleeding fifteen days from her sighting of menstrual blood, so that she stands in her days of ziva, she has not fixed a menstrual cycle, and the previous cycle is uprooted even if she deviates from it only once.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה מִדִּסְקַרְתָּא, מִקְבָּע לָא קָבְעָה, מֵיחָשׁ מַהוּ דְּנֵיחוּשׁ לַהּ?
§ With regard to the ruling that a woman’s menstrual cycle cannot be fixed during her days of ziva, Rav Pappa said: I said this halakha before Rav Yehuda of Diskarta, and I asked him for a clarification of the following matter: Granted, she does not fix a menstrual cycle during the days of ziva, and there is no need for three deviations to uproot her cycle; rather, it is uprooted by even one deviation. But what is the halakha with regard to whether we should be concerned that she might experience bleeding? In other words, if she normally experiences bleeding on a particular day during her days of ziva, must she avoid engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband on that day out of concern that she might emit blood?
אִישְׁתִּיק וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵי. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״נֶחְזֵי אֲנַן״, הָיְתָה לְמוּדָה לִהְיוֹת רוֹאָה לְיוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים — זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין.
Rav Yehuda of Diskarta was silent and did not say anything to Rav Pappa. Therefore, Rav Pappa said: Let us see and try to resolve this ourselves. The mishna cited above states: If the woman was accustomed to see an emission of blood on the fifteenth day, and she deviated from her cycle to see an emission on the twentieth day, then on both this day and that day it is prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁנָא אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִטְבִילָתָהּ, שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם לִרְאִיָּיתָהּ,
And with regard to this mishna, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught this halakha only with regard to a woman who normally experiences bleeding fifteen days from her immersion, which are twenty-two days from her sighting of menstrual blood, which means that there, she stands in her days of menstruation.
וְשִׁינְּתָה לְיוֹם עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁבְעָה; דְּכִי הָדְרִי וְאָתוּ עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּי — קָיְימָא לַהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ, וְקָתָנֵי: זֶה וָזֶה אֲסוּרִין — אַלְמָא דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לַהּ.
And when the mishna states that she deviated from her cycle and experienced bleeding on the twentieth day, it means she experienced bleeding twenty days from her immersion, i.e., twenty-seven days from her previous sighting, not twenty-two. This means that when twenty-two days again elapse from when she usually experiences bleeding, she stands within what is now the eleven days of her ziva. And the mishna teaches that both this, the twenty-second day, and that, the twenty-seventh day, are prohibited, despite the fact that the twenty-second day now stands during her days of ziva. Evidently, we are concerned for an emission of blood during the days of ziva if she is accustomed to experiencing bleeding on that day.
וְקָסָבַר רַב פָּפָּא: עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין — מֵעֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין מָנֵינַן, נִדָּה וּפִתְחָהּ — מֵעֶשְׂרִין וְשִׁבְעָה מָנֵינַן.
The Gemara elaborates: And Rav Pappa holds that we count twenty-two days of her menstrual cycle from twenty-two days, i.e., from when she usually begins to menstruate, whereas we count the beginning of the days of menstruation from day twenty-seven, when she actually experiences bleeding. Consequently, the twenty-second day of her normal menstrual cycle falls during the days of ziva, according to the actual day of menstruation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין נָמֵי מֵעֶשְׂרִין וְשִׁבְעָה מָנֵינַן, דְּכִי הָדְרִי וְאָתוּ עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין — קָיְימָא לַהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: From where do you know this is the correct reckoning of her days? Perhaps one also counts those twenty-two days from day twenty-seven, such that when twenty-two days again arrive from day twenty-seven, she stands within her days of menstruation. Accordingly, there is no proof from the mishna with regard to a sighting during the days of ziva.
וְהָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא; דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הַאי תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּרָמְיָא יוֹמָא וְכָבְשָׁה יוֹמָא, וְרָמְיָא יוֹמָא וְכָבְשָׁה יוֹמָא, וְכָבְשָׁה תְּרֵי יוֹמֵי וְרָמְיָא חַד יוֹמָא,
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, adds: And so too, it is reasonable that the twenty-two days are counted from when she actually experiences bleeding. As if you do not say so, then consider the case of this chicken that normally lays an egg on one day and withholds an egg the next day, and lays an egg on the third day and withholds an egg on the fourth day. And the chicken deviated from its routine, so that after laying eggs on the first day and third day, it withheld an egg for two days and then laid an egg on one day, i.e., on the sixth day.
כִּי הָדְרָה נָקְטָה — כְּדִלְקַמֵּיהּ נָקְטָה, אוֹ כִּדְמֵעִיקָּרָא נָקְטָה? עַל כׇּרְחָךְ כְּדִלְקַמֵּיהּ נָקְטָה.
When this chicken again takes hold of its previous routine and starts laying an egg on one day and withholding an egg on the next, does it take hold of the order of the routine ahead of it, i.e., will it withhold an egg on the next day, or does it take hold of its routine as it was from the outset, so that it will lay an egg on the seventh day, as if there had been no deviation? Perforce it takes hold of the order of the routine ahead of it. Likewise, a woman who deviated from her normal menstrual cycle counts the days of her cycle according to the order of the cycle ahead of her, i.e., from the time that she experiences bleeding.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי זִיבָתָהּ, וְאֵין אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ — הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?
Rav Pappa said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: But if so, a question arises with regard to that which Reish Lakish said: A woman fixes a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her ziva, but a woman does not fix a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her menstruation, i.e., when she is already a menstruating woman. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A woman fixes a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her menstruation. One could ask: What are the circumstances of this dispute? Rabbi Yoḥanan cannot be referring to a case where all her sightings occurred while she was a menstruating woman, as everyone agrees that a woman’s menstrual cycle is not fixed in such a situation (see 11a).
לָאו כְּגוֹן דַּחֲזַאי רֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְחַמְשָׁא בְּיַרְחָא, וְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְחַמְשָׁא בְּיַרְחָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא חֲזַאי בְּחַמְשָׁא בְּיַרְחָא, וּבְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא לָא חֲזַאי,
Rather, is it not referring to a case where she saw blood on the first of the month; and then again on the fifth of that same month, when she was a menstruating woman; and subsequently she saw blood on the first of the next month and then again on the fifth of that month; and now in the third month she saw blood on the fifth of the month but on the first of the month she did not see blood? In such a situation, the woman experienced an emission of blood on the fifth of the month for three consecutive months.
וְקָאָמַר: אִשָּׁה קוֹבַעַת לָהּ וֶסֶת בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדּוּתָהּ, אַלְמָא מֵרֵישׁ יַרְחָא מָנֵינָא!
Rav Pappa concludes: And it is with regard to this case that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A woman fixes a menstrual cycle for herself during the days of her menstruation. Although she was not actually a menstruating woman before she experienced bleeding on the fifth day of the third month, this is nevertheless considered a sighting during her days of menstruation. Evidently, one counts her menstrual cycle from the first of the month, despite the fact that she did not actually experience bleeding. Likewise, with regard to the case involving twenty-two days, one counts from when she generally experiences bleeding, not from the day she emitted blood in practice.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּגוֹן דַּחֲזַאי רֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא, וְעֶשְׂרִין וְחַמְשָׁה בְּיַרְחָא, וְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא, דְּאָמְרִינַן דָּמֵי יַתִּירִי הוּא דְּאִתּוֹסַפוּ בַּהּ.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: These are not the circumstances of the dispute. Rather, this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The dispute is referring to a case where she saw blood on the first of the month; and then again on the first of the next month, and then again on the twenty-fifth day of that month; and again on the first of the next month, which occurs during her days of menstruation. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that although she is in her days of menstruation, this sighting on the first of the third month serves to fix her menstrual cycle, as we say with regard to the sighting on the twenty-fifth day of the previous month that it is extra blood that gathered inside her. Therefore, it does not negate her regular cycle.
וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין וְכֹל נָחוֹתֵי יַמָּא, אַמְרוּהָ כְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
The Gemara notes: And likewise, when Ravin and all the sea-farers came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and transmitted statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan, they said this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan in accordance with the explanation of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.
.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ בְּנוֹת כּוּתִים.
Follow
