## Niddah Daf 15a

###### Niddah 15a:1
[Niddah 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:1)

שֶׁמָּא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Perhaps you say in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, that** the woman **transmits impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse,** just as she retroactively transmits impurity to any pure items she touched in the preceding twenty-four-hour period? The Sages of Usha **said to** Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok: **We have not heard** this opinion of Rabbi Akiva, i.e., we do not accept it as *halakha*, and therefore we would like to know what this period of: After time passed, is.


###### Niddah 15a:2
[Niddah 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:2)

אָמַר לָהֶם: כָּךְ פֵּרְשׁוּ חֲכָמִים בְּיַבְנֶה: לֹא שָׁהֲתָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּרֵד מִן הַמִּטָּה וְתָדִיחַ אֶת פָּנֶיהָ — תּוֹךְ זְמַן הוּא זֶה, וּטְמֵאִין מִסָּפֵק, וּפְטוּרִין מִקׇּרְבָּן, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, **said to them: This** is how **the Sages of Yavne explained** it: As long as the woman **did not wait** before examining herself after intercourse for a period of time **equivalent to** the time in **which she may descend from the bed and rinse her face, this is** considered **within** the period of **time** referred to in the mishna as: After time passed. **And** if blood is found on the cloth she used to examine herself during this period, they are both **impure** for seven days **due to uncertainty, and they are exempt from** bringing a sin **offering,** as this offering is brought only for an unwitting sin that was definitely committed. **But they are** each **obligated to** bring **a provisional guilt offering.**


###### Niddah 15a:3
[Niddah 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:3)

שָׁהֲתָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּרֵד מִן הַמִּטָּה וְתָדִיחַ אֶת פָּנֶיהָ — אַחַר הַזְּמַן הוּא זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **she waited** before examining herself after intercourse for a period of time **equivalent to** the time in **which she may descend from the bed and rinse her face, this is** considered: **After time,** i.e., after the time frame referred to in the mishna as: After time passed.


###### Niddah 15a:4
[Niddah 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:4)

וְכֵן כְּשֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, בּוֹעֲלָהּ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם מַגָּע, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם בּוֹעֵל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אַף מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם בּוֹעֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי אוֹמֵר: בַּעְלָהּ נִכְנַס לַהֵיכָל וּמַקְטִיר קְטוֹרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In this case, **and likewise** in a case **when she waited for** a twenty-four-hour **period or from examination to examination,** i.e., she examined herself before intercourse and was pure, and then examined herself within twenty-four hours after intercourse and was impure, **the man with whom she engaged in intercourse becomes impure** until evening **due to contact** with a menstruating woman, **but he does not become impure** for seven days **as one who engaged in intercourse** with a menstruating woman. **Rabbi Akiva says: He even becomes impure** for seven days **as one who engaged in intercourse** with a menstruating woman. **Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, says:** In such a case, not only is **her husband** not impure for seven days, but he is not even deemed impure until evening by rabbinic law. Therefore, if he is a priest **he may enter the Sanctuary and burn incense.**


###### Niddah 15a:5
[Niddah 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:5)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא, הַיְינוּ דִּמְטַהֲרִי רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty with Rav Ashi’s interpretation of the mishna according to this *baraita*: **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rav Ḥisda,** who maintains that the period of: After time passed, during which if the woman found blood on her cloth the man with whom she engaged in intercourse is rendered impure for seven days, is equivalent to the time it takes for her to extend her hand and examine herself, **this is** the reason **that the Rabbis deem** him **pure** if she discovered blood after this period has passed.


###### Niddah 15a:6
[Niddah 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:6)

אֶלָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, אַמַּאי מְטַהֲרִי רַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to** the opinion of **Rav Ashi,** who holds that if she has a cloth in her hand then she renders the man with whom she engaged in intercourse impure if she discovers blood within the amount of time it takes for her to descend from the bed and rinse or clean her pubic area with the cloth she is holding in her hand, **why do the Rabbis deem** him **pure** if the amount of time that has passed is the time it takes for her to descend and clean her pubic area? She should still render him impure during that time span.


###### Niddah 15a:7
[Niddah 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:7)

וְכִי תֵימָא: דְּאֵין עֵד בְּיָדָהּ, הַאי ״עֵד בְּיָדָהּ״ וְ״אֵין עֵד בְּיָדָהּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that the *baraita* is dealing with a case **where** the **cloth is not in her hand,** and for this reason the time period that it is referring to is after the amount of time it would take for the woman to extend her hand and examine herself, this cannot be the case, as if so, the *tanna* of the *baraita* **should have** taught two cases: **A cloth is in her hand, and: A cloth is not in her hand,** to differentiate between the situations. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this *baraita* poses **a difficulty** to the opinion of Rav Ashi.


###### Niddah 15a:8
[Niddah 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:8)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי אוֹמֵר: בַּעְלָהּ נִכְנָס לַהֵיכָל וּמַקְטִיר קְטוֹרֶת. וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָוֵה נוֹגֵעַ בְּמֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁבְּנִדָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* teaches that **Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, says:** If the examination took place following this period called: After time passed, **her husband** is not ritually impure at all, and therefore if he is a priest he **may enter the Sanctuary and burn incense.** The Gemara asks: **And let him derive that** the husband is impure because **he is one who touched a menstruating woman during** the twenty-four-hour **period** before she discovered blood, as the Sages decreed that pure items touched by a menstruating woman in the twenty-four hours before she noticed the bleeding are impure retroactively.


###### Niddah 15a:9
[Niddah 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:9)

הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּשַׁמַּאי, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, **who said** the ruling, holds **like Shammai, who said** in a mishna (2a): For **all women, their time is sufficient,** i.e., women who discern the emergence of menstrual blood do not need to be concerned that the flow of blood began before they noticed it, and they assume ritual impurity status only from that moment.


###### Niddah 15a:10
[Niddah 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:10)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָוֵה בַּעַל קֶרִי! בְּשֶׁלֹּא גָּמַר בִּיאָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: **And let him derive** that the husband is impure **because he is one who experienced a seminal emission.** The Gemara answers that he is referring **to** a case where the husband **did not complete his** act of **intercourse.**


###### Niddah 15a:11
[Niddah 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:11)

וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם, אָמַר רַב לְמַפְרֵעַ, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva in** the case of a woman who **sees** a blood **stain,** that she transmits seven-day impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse. The Gemara cites a dispute of *amora’im* in this regard. **Rav says** that she renders the man with whom she engaged in intercourse impure **retroactively, and** this **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who maintains that a woman who sees a blood stain renders pure items impure retroactively (see 5a).


###### Niddah 15a:12
[Niddah 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:12)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא, וְרַבָּנַן הִיא. מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel says** that she does not render him impure retroactively, but only if he engages in intercourse with her **from now and onward,** i.e., after she sees the blood stain, **and** this **is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who hold that a woman who sees a blood stain renders pure items impure only from that moment onward. The Gemara raises a difficulty with the opinion of Shmuel: Why does the mishna find it necessary to state that she renders him impure **from now and onward?** Isn’t it **obvious?**


###### Niddah 15a:13
[Niddah 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:13)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וּמֵעֵת לְעֵת דְּרַבָּנַן, וּכְתָמִים דְּרַבָּנַן — מָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת לֹא מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ, אַף כְּתָמִים — לֹא מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that it was necessary for the mishna to state this ruling, **lest you say: Since** the woman’s retroactive impurity for a twenty-four-hour **period** is a decree that applies **by rabbinic law, and** the impurity of blood **stains** also applies **by rabbinic law,** one might claim as follows: **Just as** her retroactive impurity of a twenty-four-hour **period does not render impure the man with whom she engaged in intercourse, so too,** her blood **stains** should **not render impure the man with whom she engaged in intercourse.** Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that she does render him impure from that point onward.


###### Niddah 15a:14
[Niddah 15a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:14)

וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! הָתָם — אֵין ״שׁוֹר שָׁחוּט לְפָנֶיךָ״, הָכָא — יֵשׁ ״שׁוֹר שָׁחוּט לְפָנֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** perhaps one can **say** that **indeed,** she does not transmit impurity to him? The Gemara explains that there is a difference between the two types of rabbinic impurity: **There,** with regard to retroactive impurity, it is **not** a case of: The **slaughtered ox is before you,** i.e., the evidence of impurity did not exist at the time, as she had yet to experience menstruation. Therefore, the Sages did not apply the stringency of retroactive impurity to the husband. By contrast, **here,** with regard to the impurity of blood stains, it **is** a case of: The **slaughtered ox is before you,** as blood has appeared on the cloth.


###### Niddah 15a:15
[Niddah 15a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:15)

וְכֵן אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לְמַפְרֵעַ, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא, וְרַבָּנַן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And Reish Lakish similarly says,** like Rav, that the woman transmits impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse **retroactively, and** this **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.** But **Rabbi Yoḥanan says,** like Shmuel: She renders him impure **from now and onward,** i.e., after she sees the blood stain, **and** this **is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


###### Niddah 15a:16
[Niddah 15a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:16)

**מַתְנִי'** כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה לְבַעְלֵיהֶן, הַבָּאִין מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ — נְשֵׁיהֶן לָהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **All women have the presumptive status of purity for their husbands,** and therefore one is not required to ascertain whether his wife is ritually pure before engaging in intercourse with her. Even with regard to husbands **returning from a journey,** if their wives were ritually pure when they left, **their wives have the presumptive status of purity for them.**


###### Niddah 15a:17
[Niddah 15a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:17)

**גְּמָ'** לְמָה לֵיהּ לְמִתְנֵי ״הַבָּאִין מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ״? סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּמָתָא, דְּרָמְיָא אַנַּפְשַׁהּ וּבָדְקָה, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בְּמָתָא, דְּלָא רָמְיָא אַנַּפְשַׁהּ — לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Why** does the *tanna* of the mishna need **to teach** the *halakha* of husbands **returning from a journey?** In what manner are they different from other husbands? The Gemara explains that it might **enter your mind to say: This statement,** that women have the presumptive status of purity, applies only in a case **where** the husband **is in the city** of his residence, **as** the woman **takes upon herself** the responsibility of being ready for her husband at all times, **and** therefore **she examines** herself. **But** in a case **where** the husband **is not in the city, since she does not take upon herself** the responsibility of being constantly ready for him, perhaps she should **not** have the presumptive status of purity. Therefore, the *tanna* of the mishna **teaches us** that even in this case she has a presumptive status of purity.


###### Niddah 15a:18
[Niddah 15a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:18)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה: וְהוּא שֶׁבָּא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי עוֹנָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that in this regard, **Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: And** this *halakha* that the wife of a husband returning from a journey has a presumptive status of purity **is** applicable only in a case **where** the husband **came and found** that his wife was **within the days of her** projected **period,** i.e., within thirty days of her previous menstruation. In this case he may assume that she has not yet experienced a new period, and therefore he may rely on her presumptive status of purity. But if he arrived after thirty days had elapsed from her previous menstruation, it is assumed that she experienced menstruation at the usual time and therefore it is not permitted for him to engage in intercourse with her unless she examined herself and found herself pure.


###### Niddah 15a:19
[Niddah 15a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:19)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת — אָסוּר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the presumptive status of purity of wives, **Rav Huna says:** The Sages **taught** this *halakha* **only** in the case of a woman **who does not have** a fixed menstrual **cycle. But** with regard to a woman **who does have** a fixed menstrual **cycle, it is prohibited** for her husband **to engage in intercourse** with her.


###### Niddah 15a:20
[Niddah 15a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:20)

כְּלַפֵּי לְיָיא? אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא! אֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת — אֵימָא חֲזַאי, יֵשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת — וֶסֶת קְבִיעַ לַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t it the opposite? On the contrary;** the **reverse** claim **stands to reason:** If the wife **does not have** a fixed **cycle,** one can **say** that perhaps **she saw** blood, and therefore she should be forbidden to him; whereas if **she has** a fixed **cycle,** since **her cycle is fixed for her** she knows when she will become impure and is presumed to be pure beforehand.


###### Niddah 15a:21
[Niddah 15a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:21)

אֶלָּא, אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ (שעת) [עֵת] וִסְתָּהּ, אֲבָל הִגִּיעַ (שעת) [עֵת] וִסְתָּהּ — אֲסוּרָה. קָסָבַר: וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** Rav Huna’s differentiation **was stated,** it **was stated like this: Rav Huna says:** The Sages **taught** this *halakha* **only** in a case **when the** projected **time of** the woman’s **period had not arrived** before her husband returned from his journey. **But** if **the** projected **time of her period had arrived, she is forbidden** to him. Rav Huna **maintains** that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods** applies **by Torah law,** as this is a *halakha* transmitted to Moses from Sinai. If a woman did not examine herself at this time she is presumed to have experienced bleeding, even if she did not sense the emission of blood, though there is no formal obligation to examine herself at this time. Accordingly, a husband returning home from a journey cannot rely on the assumption that his wife has examined herself at the projected time of her period, unless he positively establishes that she has done so.


###### Niddah 15a:22
[Niddah 15a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:22)

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ נָמֵי מוּתֶּרֶת, קָסָבַר: וְסָתוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Even** if **the** projected **time of her period had arrived, she is permitted** to her husband. Rabba bar bar Ḥana **maintains** that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods** applies **by rabbinic law,** and therefore she is not considered to have experienced bleeding, though by rabbinic law she must still examine herself to ascertain that she is pure.


###### Niddah 15a:23
[Niddah 15a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/15a:23)

רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי הָכִי, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi teaches** the opinions of Rav Huna and Rabba bar bar Ḥana **like this: Rav Huna says:**