## Niddah Daf 15b

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

לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לָהּ וֶסֶת לְיָמִים, אֶלָּא יֵשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת לְיָמִים וְלִקְפִיצוֹת, כֵּיוָן דִּבְמַעֲשֶׂה תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא — אֵימָא לָא קְפִיץ וְלָא חֲזַאי, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת לְיָמִים — אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **taught** this *halakha*, that a woman has a presumptive status of purity to her husband, **only** in a case **where she does not have** a menstrual **cycle of days** alone, **but has** a menstrual **cycle** that is determined both **by** fixed **days and by** physical actions she might perform, such as **jumps.** The reason is that **since** the **matter is** also **dependent on** a particular **action,** one can **say** that **she did not jump and** therefore **she did not see** blood, and consequently she is presumed to be pure. **But** with regard to a woman who **has** a menstrual **cycle of days** alone, and the projected day of her period arrived, **it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse** with her husband.


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

קָסָבַר וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Rav Huna **maintains** that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods** applies **by Torah law.** Since she has an uncertain status of impurity by Torah law when the projected day of her period arrives, it is permitted for her to engage in intercourse with her husband only after an examination.


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

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת לְיָמִים — מוּתֶּרֶת, קָסָבַר וְסָתוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Even** if **she has** a menstrual **cycle of days** alone, **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.** Consequently, she is not considered to have experienced bleeding, though by rabbinic law she should have examined herself to ascertain if she was pure.


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

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת — בַּעְלָהּ מְחַשֵּׁב יְמֵי וִסְתָּהּ, וּבָא עָלֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** With regard to **a woman who has** a fixed menstrual **cycle,** and her husband was away for seven days after the expected onset of her period, at which point he returned home, **her husband calculates the days of her cycle; and** if in the elapsed time it was possible for her to immerse and purify herself, he can presume that she did so, and **he may engage in intercourse with her** even without asking her whether she is pure.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יֵיבָא לְרַבִּי אַבָּא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲפִילּוּ יַלְדָּה דִּבְזִיזָא לְמִטְבַּל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shmuel bar Yeiva said to Rabbi Abba:** Did **Rabbi Yoḥanan state** this ruling **even** with regard to **a young girl, who is embarrassed to** go and **immerse** herself, in which case one can claim that if her husband was away she would not have gone to the ritual bath?


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ וַדַּאי רָאֲתָה מִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן?! אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָפֵק רָאֲתָה סָפֵק לֹא רָאֲתָה, וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר רָאֲתָה — אֵימָא טָבְלָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Abba **said to** Rav Shmuel bar Yeiva: **Is that to say** that Rabbi Yoḥanan applied this *halakha* to all cases? **Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that a woman who **definitely saw** blood is also permitted to her husband? You can **say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said** his ruling with regard to a case where **it is uncertain** whether the woman **saw** blood and **it is uncertain** whether **she did not see** blood, **and** therefore her husband may engage in intercourse with her, as one can reason as follows: **If you say** that **she saw** blood, one can still **say** that perhaps **she immersed.**


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

אֲבָל וַדַּאי רָאֲתָה — מִי יֵימַר דְּטָבְלָה? הָוֵה לֵיהּ סָפֵק וּוַדַּאי, וְאֵין סָפֵק מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if **she definitely saw** blood, it is not permitted for the husband to engage in intercourse with her. The reason is: **Who is to say that she immersed? It is** a conflict between **an uncertainty** as to whether or not she immersed, **and a certainty** that she saw blood, **and** there is a principle that **an uncertainty does not override a certainty.** In the case of a young girl, since it is uncertain whether she saw blood, and it is uncertain whether she immersed, she is permitted to her husband.


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

וְלָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: חָבֵר שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ מְגוּרָה מְלֵאָה פֵּירוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹמָן — הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת מְתוּקָּנִין. וְהָא הָכָא, וַדַּאי טֶבֶל, סָפֵק מְעוּשָּׂר סָפֵק אֵינוֹ מְעוּשָּׂר, וְקָאָתֵי סָפֵק וּמוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with this principle: **And** does an uncertainty **not** override a certainty? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **a *ḥaver* who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even** if the produce was there only **that day,** it has the **presumptive status** of produce that was ritually **prepared,** i.e., properly tithed. This is due to the presumption that the *ḥaver* tithed the produce himself or instructed others to do so. The Gemara infers: **And here,** the produce was **definitely untithed** at the outset, and there is **uncertainty** whether the *ḥaver* **tithed it,** and there is **uncertainty** whether **he did not tithe it. And** despite this conflict, **the uncertainty** whether it was tithed **comes and overrides the certainty** that it was untithed produce.


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

הָתָם וַדַּאי וּוַדַּאי הוּא, כִּדְרַב חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה, דְּאָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה: חֲזָקָה עַל חָבֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְתוּקָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: **There,** the conflict that leads to the question with regard to the produce’s status **is** between **certainty and certainty,** as the *ḥaver* certainly tithed the produce. This presumption is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a; as Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said:** There is **a presumption with regard to a *ḥaver* that he does not release an item from his possession that is not** ritually **prepared.**


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

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: סָפֵק וְסָפֵק הוּא, וְכִדְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מַעֲרִים אָדָם עַל תְּבוּאָתוֹ וּמַכְנִיסָהּ בַּמּוֹץ שֶׁלָּהּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that in that case the conflict **is** between **uncertainty and uncertainty,** as it is possible that there was never an obligation to tithe this produce, **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Oshaya. As Rabbi Oshaya said: A person can employ artifice** to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing **with his grain, and bring it into** his courtyard **in its chaff, so that his animal may eat** from it, **and** this grain **is exempt from tithe.** Although the obligation to tithe produce applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one’s animal untithed produce that was brought into one’s home before being fully processed. Consequently, the case involving produce is a conflict between two uncertain factors, as it is uncertain whether or not the owner was obligated to tithe the produce in the first place, and even if he was required to do so, it is uncertain whether or not he tithed it.


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

וְאַכַּתִּי אֵין סָפֵק מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי? וְהָתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁפְחָתוֹ שֶׁל מַסִּיק אֶחָד בְּרִימּוֹן, שֶׁהֵטִילָה נֵפֶל לְבוֹר, וּבָא כֹּהֵן וְהֵצִיץ בּוֹ לֵידַע אִם זָכָר אִם נְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And still,** is it correct that **an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: There was **an incident involving the maidservant of a certain olive gatherer [*massik*] in** the city of **Rimon, who cast a non-viable newborn into a pit, and a priest came and looked** into the pit **to ascertain whether** the baby was **male** or **whether** it was **female,** as the length of time of a woman’s ritual impurity after childbirth, even if she gave birth to a non-viable newborn, depends on whether the child was male or female (see Leviticus, chapter 12).


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

וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְטִהֲרוּהוּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחוּלְדָּה וּבַרְדְּלָס מְצוּיִים שָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the **incident came before the Sages** to rule whether or not the priest contracted ritual impurity while standing over the corpse, **and they deemed him ritually pure.** The basis for this ruling was: **Due to** the fact **that martens and hyenas are common there,** it is likely that the body was dragged away before the priest arrived at the pit.


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

וְהָא הָכָא, דְּוַדַּאי הֵטִילָה נֵפֶל, סָפֵק גְּרָרוּהוּ סָפֵק לֹא גְּרָרוּהוּ, וְקָאָתֵי סָפֵק וּמוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the challenge from this *baraita*: **And here, where it is certain** that the maidservant **cast** the **non-viable newborn** into the pit, and it is **uncertain** whether an animal **dragged it** away and it is **uncertain** whether **no** animal **dragged it** away, the Sages nevertheless ruled that **an uncertainty comes and overrides a certainty.**


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

לָא תֵּימָא ״הֵטִילָה נֵפֶל לְבוֹר״, אֶלָּא אֵימָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this challenge: **Do not say** in the *baraita* **that** the woman certainly **cast a non-viable newborn into a pit; rather, say**