## Niddah Daf 16a

###### Niddah 16a:1
[Niddah 16a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:1)

כְּמִין נֵפֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that she cast an item **similar to a non-viable newborn** into a pit. Perhaps it was not a non-viable newborn; it might simply have been congealed blood, which does not transmit impurity. Therefore, this is a conflict between uncertainty and uncertainty. It is unclear whether there was anything in the pit that could have rendered the priest ritually impure, and even if there was, it might already have been dragged away.


###### Niddah 16a:2
[Niddah 16a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:2)

וְהָא ״לֵידַע אִם זָכָר אִם נְקֵבָה״ קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But isn’t it taught** in the *baraita*: And a priest came and looked into the pit **to ascertain whether** it was **male** or **whether** it was **female?** This indicates that the only uncertainty was with regard to its sex; it was certainly a non-viable newborn.


###### Niddah 16a:3
[Niddah 16a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:3)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: וּבָא כֹּהֵן וְהֵצִיץ בּוֹ, לֵידַע אִם נֵפֶל הִפִּילָה אִם רוּחַ הִפִּילָה, וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר נֵפֶל הִפִּילָה — לֵידַע אִם זָכָר אִם נְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **this** is what the *baraita* **is saying: And a priest came and glanced at** the baby **to ascertain whether** the woman **discharged a non-viable newborn,** or **whether she discharged an amorphous mass. And if you say** that **she discharged a non-viable newborn,** he sought **to ascertain whether** it was **male** or **whether** it was **female.**


###### Niddah 16a:4
[Niddah 16a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:4)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, כֵּיוָן דְּחוּלְדָּה וּבַרְדְּלָס מְצוּיִים שָׁם — וַדַּאי גְּרָרוּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that this was not a conflict between certainty and uncertainty; rather, it was between two certainties. **Since martens and hyenas are common there, they certainly dragged it** away immediately. Consequently, the ruling in this case does not contradict the principle that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.


###### Niddah 16a:5
[Niddah 16a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:5)

בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב נַחְמָן: וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אוֹ דְרַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the issue of a woman’s examination at the projected time of her period. The Sages **asked Rav Naḥman:** Does the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods,** and in turn the obligation for her to perform an examination at that time, apply **by Torah law?** If so, if a woman did not examine herself she is ritually impure, even if she later examined herself and did not find any blood, as it is assumed that she emitted blood without her seeing it. **Or** perhaps the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods, and in turn the obligation for her to perform an examination at that time, applies **by rabbinic law?** If so, a woman who did not examine herself at the time and did not sense the emission of blood can still examine herself after that time and would be ritually pure.


###### Niddah 16a:6
[Niddah 16a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:6)

אֲמַר לְהוּ מִדְּאָמַר הוּנָא חַבְרִין מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת, וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, וּלְבַסּוֹף רָאֲתָה — חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוִסְתָּהּ, וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לִרְאִיָּיתָהּ. אַלְמָא וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to them:** A resolution can be found for your dilemma **from that which Huna our colleague said in the name of Rav:** With regard to **a woman who has** a fixed menstrual **cycle, and the** projected **time of her period arrived and she did not examine herself, and ultimately,** when she did examine herself, **she saw** blood, the *halakha* is that **she must be concerned for** ritual impurity from the projected time of **her period** and that therefore any pure items she touched since then are impure. **And** additionally, **she must be concerned** for ritual impurity with regard to the twenty-four hours prior **to her seeing** the blood, and any items she touched during those twenty-four hours are impure, even if she saw the blood a short while after the projected time of her period. **Evidently,** the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods** applies **by Torah law,** which is why the *halakha* is stringent.


###### Niddah 16a:7
[Niddah 16a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:7)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: טַעְמָא דְּרָאֲתָה, הָא לֹא רָאֲתָה — אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין, אַלְמָא וְסָתוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that **this is what** Rav Naḥman **said to** the other Sages: The **reason** for Rav’s ruling that pure items she touched are retroactively considered impure is **that** she ultimately **saw** blood, from which it may be inferred that if **she did not see** blood, one is **not concerned** about the status of pure items that she touched from the projected time of her period, despite the fact that she neglected to examine herself at the time. **Evidently,** the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods** applies **by rabbinic law.**


###### Niddah 16a:8
[Niddah 16a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:8)

אִיתְּמַר: אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת, וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, וּלְבַסּוֹף בָּדְקָה — אָמַר רַב: בָּדְקָה וּמָצָאת טְמֵאָה — טְמֵאָה, טְהוֹרָה — טְהוֹרָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בָּדְקָה וּמָצָאת טְהוֹרָה נָמֵי טְמֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹרַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ בָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Since the Gemara mentioned Rav’s ruling it cites the dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to this *halakha*. It **was stated** that these *amora’im* disagree about **a woman who has** a fixed menstrual **cycle, and the** projected **time of her period arrived and she did not examine herself, and ultimately she examined** herself. **Rav says:** If **she examined** herself at this later time **and found** that she was **ritually impure, she is impure;** and if she found that she was **pure, she is pure. And Shmuel says: Even** if **she** later **examined** herself **and found** that she was **pure, she is impure.** This is **because** the **manner** of women, i.e., a women’s menstrual period, **comes at its** usual **time.**


###### Niddah 16a:9
[Niddah 16a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:9)

לֵימָא, בִּוְסָתוֹת קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמָר סָבַר דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say** that Rav and Shmuel **disagree with regard to** the concern for impurity of women at the pro-jected time of their **periods? As** one **Sage,** Shmuel, who rules that the woman is impure in both cases, **holds** that this concern for impurity applies **by Torah law, and** one **Sage,** Rav, who says that if her subsequent examination came out clean then she remains pure, **holds** that this concern for impurity applies **by rabbinic law.**


###### Niddah 16a:10
[Niddah 16a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:10)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, כָּאן — שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כְּשִׁיעוּר וֶסֶת, כָּאן — שֶׁלֹּא בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כְּשִׁיעוּר וֶסֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira says:** It is possible **that everyone,** even Rav, agrees that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods** applies **by Torah law,** and the reason Rav deems the woman pure in this case is that **here** it is a situation **where she examined herself within the period of time** needed for the onset of **menstruation,** i.e., very close to the projected time of her period, and therefore it is assumed that if there was blood at the projected time of her period she would have seen it upon this examination. By contrast, **there,** in other cases of subsequent examinations, **she did not examine herself within the period of time** needed for the onset of **menstruation.**


###### Niddah 16a:11
[Niddah 16a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:11)

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: בִּוְסָתוֹת גּוּפַיְיהוּ קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמַר סָבַר: וְסָתוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says:** Actually, Rav and Shmuel **disagree with regard to** the matter of the projected time of their **periods itself, as** one **Sage,** Shmuel, **holds** that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods** applies **by Torah law, and** one **Sage,** Rav, **holds** that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods** applies **by rabbinic law.**


###### Niddah 16a:12
[Niddah 16a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:12)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּתַנָּאֵי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: טְמֵאָה נִדָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to discuss this dispute between Rav and Shmuel. **Rav Sheshet says:** This disagreement between Rav and Shmuel is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*: Rabbi Eliezer says** that a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle but who did not examine herself at the projected time of her period **is ritually impure as a menstruating woman,** which indicates that in his opinion the examination at the projected time of a woman’s period applies by Torah law.


###### Niddah 16a:13
[Niddah 16a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:13)

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: תִּבָּדֵק, וְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי כִּי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: טְמֵאָה נִדָּה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: תִּבָּדֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehoshua says** that **she should be examined** now, despite the elapsed time, and if the examination came out clean she is pure retroactively as well. Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that this examination applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara adds: **And** the dispute of **these *tanna’im* is parallel to** the dispute of **those *tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Meir says: She is ritually impure as a menstruating woman, and the Rabbis say: She should be examined** now.


###### Niddah 16a:14
[Niddah 16a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:14)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה בְּמַחֲבֵא וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁחֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַדָּמִים. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא חֲרָדָה, הָא לֵיכָּא חֲרָדָה — טְמֵאָה, אַלְמָא וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: We, too, learn** likewise in a mishna, **as we learned** in a mishna (39a): **Rabbi Meir says: If** a woman **was in hiding** from danger, **and the** projected **time of her period arrived and she did not examine** herself, nevertheless she is **ritually pure, as** it may be assumed that she did not experience bleeding because **fear dispels** the flow of menstrual **blood,** and therefore there is no concern that she might have emitted blood without sensing it. By inference, **the reason** she is pure is **that there is fear** of danger; **but** if **there is no fear** upon this woman, **she is impure. Evidently,** Rabbi Meir maintains that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods** applies **by Torah law.**


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

לֵימָא הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי בְּהָא נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: הָרוֹאָה דָּם מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה, אֲפִילּוּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ — טְהוֹרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Shall we say** that **these** following ***tanna’im* also disagree with regard to this** matter of whether the examination at the projected time of a woman’s period is required by Torah law? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a woman **who sees blood due to a wound** in her pubic area, **even** if she saw the blood **during the days of her menstruation,** including the projected time of her period, **she is pure,** as it is assumed that the blood came from the wound; this is **the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.**


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

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת — חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוִסְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says** that if the woman does not have a fixed menstrual cycle then the blood can be attributed to the wound. But **if she has** a fixed menstrual **cycle,** and she saw blood on the projected day of her period, even if the blood was from the wound **she must be concerned that** blood from **her period** might be mixed with this blood from the wound, and must therefore observe impurity status.


###### Niddah 16a:17
[Niddah 16a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:17)

מַאי לַָאו, בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר וְסָתוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמַר סָבַר וְסָתוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies its suggestion: **What, is it not** the case that these Sages **disagree with regard to this** matter, i.e., **that** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods** applies **by Torah law,** and though she can examine herself and ascertain that she is pure, if she did not she is presumed impure, and therefore he is stringent in the case of a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle; **and** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods** applies **by rabbinic law,** and consequently he rules leniently even with regard to a woman who has a fixed cycle?


###### Niddah 16a:18
[Niddah 16a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:18)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא וְסָתוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן, וְהָכָא בְּמָקוֹר מְקוֹמוֹ טָמֵא קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina says: No;** they do not necessarily disagree with regard to this point, as it is possible **that everyone,** even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, agrees that the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their **periods** applies **by rabbinic law, and here they disagree** as **to** whether **the location of** a woman’s **source,** i.e., her uterus, **is impure,** and therefore any blood that passes through there is impure, even if it is blood from a wound.


###### Niddah 16a:19
[Niddah 16a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:19)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: אִשָּׁה טְהוֹרָה וְדָם טָמֵא, דְּקָאָתֵי דֶּרֶךְ מָקוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds** that the **woman** herself **is pure** from the seven-day impurity status of a menstruating woman, as the requirement of an examination upon the projected time of her period applies by rabbinic law, **but** the **blood is impure,** even if it is from a wound, **as it came through** her **source,** and was thereby rendered impure. Consequently, the blood renders the woman impure until the evening.


###### Niddah 16a:20
[Niddah 16a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:20)

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי: אִי חָיְישַׁתְּ לְוֶסֶת, אִשָּׁה נָמֵי טְמֵאָה, וְאִי לָא חָיְישַׁתְּ לְוֶסֶת, מָקוֹר מְקוֹמוֹ טָהוֹר הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said to** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: **If you are concerned** due **to** the possibility that this is blood of her menstrual **period,** then the **woman** should **also** be **impure** as a menstruating woman. **And if you are not concerned** due **to** the possibility that this is blood of her menstrual **period,** then her **source** does not transmit impurity to the blood that passes through **its location,** as that blood **is pure.**


###### Niddah 16a:21
[Niddah 16a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/16a:21)

**מַתְנִי'** בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עֵדִים עַל כׇּל תַּשְׁמִישׁ וְתַשְׁמִישׁ, אוֹ תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: דַּיָּהּ בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Beit Shammai say:** A woman is **required** to examine herself with **two cloths,** once before and once after **each and every** act of **intercourse** in which she engages throughout the night, and she must inspect them for blood the following morning, **or** she must **engage in intercourse by the light of a lamp** and inspect the cloths before and after each act of intercourse. **Beit Hillel say:** She is not required to examine herself between each act of intercourse. Rather, it is **sufficient** for her to examine herself **with two cloths throughout the night,** once before the first act of intercourse and once after the final act of intercourse.