## Niddah Daf 4b

###### Niddah 4b:1
[Niddah 4b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:1)

שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אָדָם טָהוֹר נִכְנַס לְשָׁם וּנְטָלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason is not **that** one does not presume that ritual impurity moved from place to place, but because **I say** that **a ritually pure man entered there and took it** off the shelf and placed it onto the ground, avoiding the impure garment it would have hit had it fallen. When there is no such explanation, the principle that one presumes impurity moved from place to place does apply, e.g., in the case of the basket where the carcass of a creeping animal was found inside.


###### Niddah 4b:2
[Niddah 4b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:2)

הָכָא נָמֵי נֵימָא: עוֹרֵב אֲתָא וּשְׁדָא! אָדָם דִּבְכַוָּנָה — אָמְרִינַן, עוֹרֵב דְּשֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה — לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Here, too, let us say** that **a raven,** which often touches creeping animals, **came and threw** the creeping animal into the basket when it was in the second corner, after the produce had been emptied from it. The Gemara rejects this claim: In the case of **a person, who** acts **with intent, we** can **say** that perhaps a person moved the loaf from the shelf onto the ground. By contrast, with regard to **a raven, which** does **not** act **with intent, we** do **not say** that perhaps it committed such a purposeful act.


###### Niddah 4b:3
[Niddah 4b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:3)

מִכְּדִי הַאי כִּכָּר סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד הוּא, וְכֹל סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — סְפֵקָהּ טָמֵא, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל, בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the ruling of the *Tosefta*: **Now** the status of **this loaf** found on the ground **is** one of **uncertain impurity** found **in a private domain, and** the guiding principle in **any** case of **uncertainty** involving **impurity in a private domain** is that the item with **uncertain** status is deemed **impure.** If so, shouldn’t the loaf be deemed impure? The Gemara answers: No, **as** this **is an entity that lacks consciousness** in order for it **to be asked, and** the guiding principle is that with regard to **any entity that lacks consciousness** in order for it **to be asked, whether** it is found **in a public domain or in a private domain,** the item with **uncertain** status is deemed **pure.**


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

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָכָא בְּטוּמְאָה דְרַבָּנַן. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי ״מַדָּף״, כְּדִכְתִיב ״עָלֶה נִדָּף״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: That principle, that in any case of uncertainty involving impurity in a private domain the item with uncertain status is deemed impure, applies to a case of impurity by Torah law, whereas **here** we are dealing **with ritual impurity by rabbinic law.** The Gemara adds: The language of the *Tosefta* **is also precise, as it teaches:** There was a loaf resting on top of a shelf, and there was an item of light impurity [*madaf* ] lying underneath it. The term ***madaf*** is similar to that **which is written: “A driven leaf [*niddaf* ]”** (Leviticus 26:36), i.e., a light item. Likewise, the *Tosefta* is referring to a light, or rabbinic, impurity.


###### Niddah 4b:5
[Niddah 4b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:5)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְּדִבְרֵי זֶה, לֹא כְּדִבְרֵי שַׁמַּאי — שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה סְיָיג לִדְבָרָיו, וְלֹא כְּדִבְרֵי הִלֵּל — שֶׁהִפְרִיז עַל מִדּוֹתָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And the Rabbis say:** The *halakha* is **neither in accordance with the statement of this** *tanna* nor in accordance with the statement of that *tanna*. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **And the Rabbis say:** The *halakha* is **neither in accordance with the statement of this** *tanna* **nor in accordance with** the statement of **that** *tanna*. It is **not accordance with the statement of Shammai,** who rules that her time is sufficient and she does not need to be concerned that her menstrual flow started earlier, **as he did not enact** any **safeguard for his statement. And** is it **not in accordance with the statement of Hillel,** who rules that she assumes ritual impurity status retroactive to the time of her most recent examination, **as** he **went beyond [*hifriz*] his bounds** with his safeguard.


###### Niddah 4b:6
[Niddah 4b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:6)

אֶלָּא, מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis continue: **Rather,** a twenty-four-hour **period reduces** the time **from examination to examination,** i.e., if her most recent self-examination took place more than twenty-four hours earlier, she need concern herself with ritual impurity only for the twenty-four-hour period prior to discerning the blood. **And from examination to examination reduces** the time **from** a twenty-four-hour **period,** i.e., if she examined herself in the course of the previous day and discovered no blood, she was definitely pure prior to the examination.


###### Niddah 4b:7
[Niddah 4b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:7)

מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, כֵּיצַד? בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּאֶחָד בַּשַּׁבָּת וּמָצָאת טְהוֹרָה, וְיָשְׁבָה שֵׁנִי וּשְׁלִישִׁי וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, וְלִרְבִיעִי בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טְמֵאָה — אֵין אוֹמְרִים תְּטַמֵּא מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, אֶלָּא מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* elaborates: A twenty-four-hour **period reduces** the time **from examination to examination, how so?** A woman **examined herself on Sunday and found** that she was **ritually pure, and** then **she sat** through **Monday and Tuesday and did not examine** herself. **And** then **on Wednesday she examined herself and found** that she was **impure.** In such a case **we do not say** that **she should be impure** retroactively **from** the time of this **examination** extending back **until** the time of her most recent **examination. Rather,** she is impure retroactively **for** a twenty-four-hour **period.**


###### Niddah 4b:8
[Niddah 4b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:8)

וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מֵעֵת לְעֵת, כֵּיצַד? בָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּשָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּמָצָאת טְהוֹרָה, וְיָשְׁבָה לָהּ שְׁנִיָּה וּשְׁלִישִׁית וְלֹא בָּדְקָה, וְלִרְבִיעִית בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טְמֵאָה — אֵין אוֹמְרִים תְּטַמֵּא מֵעֵת לְעֵת, אֶלָּא מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: And **from examination to examination reduces** the time **from** a twenty-four-hour **period, how so?** A woman **examined herself** in **the first hour** of a day **and found** that she was **ritually pure, and** then **she sat** through the **second and third** hours of the day **and did not examine** herself. **And** then **at the fourth** hour **she examined herself and found** that she was **impure.** In such a case **we do not say** that **she should be impure** retroactively **for** a twenty-four-hour **period. Rather,** she is impure retroactively **from** the time of this **examination** extending back **until** the time of her most recent **examination,** three hours earlier.


###### Niddah 4b:9
[Niddah 4b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:9)

פְּשִׁיטָא! כֵּיוָן דְּבָדְקָה עַצְמָהּ בְּשָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּמָצָאת טְהוֹרָה, לָא מְטַמֵּינַן לַהּ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, תְּנָא נָמֵי מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: This *halakha* is **obvious. Since she examined herself at the first hour and found** that she was **pure,** there is **no** reason **to render her impure** retroactively **for** a twenty-four-hour **period.** Why does the *baraita* state such an obvious *halakha*? The Gemara answers: Since the *baraita* taught that according to the Rabbis a twenty-four-hour **period reduces** the time **from examination to examination,** it **also taught** the parallel case, that **from examination to examination reduces** the time **from** a twenty-four-hour **period,** despite the fact that this *halakha* is obvious.


###### Niddah 4b:10
[Niddah 4b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:10)

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? אִשָּׁה מַרְגֶּשֶׁת בְּעַצְמָהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִם כֵּן, תְּהֵא דַּיָּה שְׁעָתָהּ! וְרַבָּה לְחַדּוֹדֵי לְאַבָּיֵי הוּא דְּבָעֵי. אֶלָּא מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba says: What** is the **reason** for the opinion **of the Rabbis? A woman** can **sense within herself** if she is experiencing a flow of blood. **Abaye said to** Rabba: **If so, her time should be sufficient,** as there should be no concern that her flow began earlier. The Gemara explains: **And Rabba** did not in fact mean this explanation seriously; rather, he **wanted to hone** the mind of **Abaye.** The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **what** is the real **reason** for the opinion **of the Rabbis?**


###### Niddah 4b:11
[Niddah 4b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:11)

כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֲכָמִים תִּקְּנוּ לָהֶן לִבְנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיְּהוּ בּוֹדְקוֹת עַצְמָן שַׁחֲרִית וְעַרְבִית, שַׁחֲרִית — לְהַכְשִׁיר טְהָרוֹת שֶׁל לַיְלָה, וְעַרְבִית — לְהַכְשִׁיר טְהָרוֹת שֶׁל יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel says: The Sages instituted that the Jewish women should examine themselves** twice each day, **morning and evening.** The **morning** examination is in order **to render fit** the **ritually pure** items **of the night,** i.e., any items that she touched the night before. **And** the **evening** examination is in order **to render fit** the **pure** items that she touched **during the day.**


###### Niddah 4b:12
[Niddah 4b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:12)

וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְלֹא בָּדְקָה — הִפְסִידָה עוֹנָה. מַאי ״עוֹנָה״? עוֹנָה יְתֵירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its explanation: **And this** woman, **since she did not examine** herself in accordance with the rabbinic enactment, **she loses** the status of the ritually pure items she touched over the **period [*ona*]** of a day or a night. The Gemara asks: **What** is meant by: **Period** of a day or a night? Doesn’t her retroactive impurity status extend back for a twenty-four-hour period? The Gemara answers: It means **an additional period** of a day or a night, i.e., twenty-four hours in total.


###### Niddah 4b:13
[Niddah 4b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: וְהָא זִימְנִין מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת בְּמֵעֵת לְעֵת! הִשְׁווּ חֲכָמִים מִדּוֹתֵיהֶן, שֶׁלֹּא תַּחְלוֹק בְּמֵעֵת לְעֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says to Rava: But** occasionally **you find three periods** of day or night within a twenty-four-hour period. For example, if she examined herself on Monday afternoon and finds blood, then the twenty-four-hour period extending back to Sunday afternoon includes three periods of day or night: Monday day, Sunday night and Sunday day from the time of her most recent examination, as these twenty-four hours do not fit precisely into two such periods. The Gemara answers: **The Sages rendered their measures equal, so** that **one should not differentiate** between cases. In other words, they wanted to issue a uniform ruling that applies universally **and** therefore they established a set twenty-four-hour **period** of retroactive impurity, regardless of the circumstances.


###### Niddah 4b:14
[Niddah 4b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:14)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that they established the set twenty-four-hour period **so that the sinner should not profit** from his transgression. If the extent of retroactive impurity would be fixed at one additional period of day or night, a woman who remembers and examines herself in the early morning would be impure retroactively for a full twenty-four hours, back to early morning the previous day, whereas one who waits until noon would be impure only for the period of the morning and the previous night.


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

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאִתְּנִיסָה, וְלָא בְּדַקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between** these two answers? The Gemara answers: The difference **between** them is in a case **where she was prevented** by outside circumstances **and did not perform an examination.** According to the second answer she would not be considered a sinner and therefore she would be impure only for an additional period of a day or night. By contrast, according to the first answer her impure status would span twenty-four hours regardless of the circumstances.


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

כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת [וְכוּ׳]. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי דּוֹסָא הִיא, וְלָא רַבָּנַן? דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַרְבַּע נָשִׁים דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן — בְּתוּלָה, מְעוּבֶּרֶת, מְנִיקָה, וּזְקֵנָה. רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת דַּיָּה שְׁעָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: For **any woman who has a fixed** menstrual **cycle,** and she examined herself at that time and discovered blood, her time is sufficient, and she transmits impurity only from that time onward. The Gemara asks: **Shall we say** that the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Dosa, and not** in accordance with **the** opinion of **the Rabbis? As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says: There are four** categories of **women** for whom the *halakha* is that **their time is sufficient: A virgin,** i.e., a girl who has never experienced menstruation, **a pregnant woman, a nursing** mother, **and an elderly woman. Rabbi Dosa says:** For **every woman who has a fixed** menstrual **cycle,** and she examined herself at that time and discovered blood, **her time is sufficient,** and it is only from that stage that she transmits ritual impurity.


###### Niddah 4b:17
[Niddah 4b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:17)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי דּוֹסָא אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ, וּמַתְנִיתִין בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **You** may **even say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Dosa only in** the case of a woman who discovers blood at an irregular time, **not at the fixed time of her** menstrual **cycle. But** if she discovers blood **at the fixed time of her** menstrual **cycle, they agree with him** that her time is sufficient and there is no retroactive impurity. **And the mishna** is referring to a woman who discovers blood **at the fixed time of her** menstrual **cycle, and** therefore **everyone agrees** that her time is sufficient.


###### Niddah 4b:18
[Niddah 4b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:18)

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי דּוֹסָא אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ אֲמַר? מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת — כִּתְמָהּ טָמֵא לְמַפְרֵעַ, שֶׁאִם תִּרְאֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ — מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **By inference,** one can conclude **that Rabbi Dosa says** that her time is sufficient **even** if she discovers blood **not at the fixed time of her** menstrual **cycle.** If so, **who** is the *tanna* who **taught** the following *baraita*? **As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a woman who has a fixed** menstrual **cycle** who finds a blood stain, **her** blood **stain** is **impure retroactively** from when the garment in question was laundered. The reason is **that if she sees** a flow of menstrual blood **not at the fixed time of her** menstrual **cycle,** it renders her impure retroactively **for** a twenty-four-hour **period.** Therefore, the blood stain likewise renders her retroactively impure.


###### Niddah 4b:19
[Niddah 4b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/4b:19)

נֵימָא רַבָּנַן הִיא, וְלָא רַבִּי דּוֹסָא? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי דּוֹסָא, עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי דּוֹסָא עֲלַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ מוֹדֵי לְהוּ, וּמַתְנִיתִין בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ וְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא הִיא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes its question: **Shall we say** that this *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis and not** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Dosa?** The Gemara answers: **You** may **even say** that it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Dosa,** as one can claim that **Rabbi Dosa disagrees with the Rabbis only** in a case where a woman sees menstrual blood **at the fixed time of her** menstrual **cycle. But** if she sees blood **not at the fixed time of her** menstrual **cycle, he agrees** with them that she is impure retroactively. **And** according to this answer **the mishna,** which deals with a woman who discovers blood **at the fixed time of her** menstrual **cycle, is** only in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Dosa,** in contrast to the earlier claim.