## Niddah Daf 5a

###### Niddah 5a:1
[Niddah 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/5a:1)

וּבָרַיְיתָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as for the ruling of **the *baraita*,** that a woman who discovers menstrual blood not at her fixed time for menstruation is impure retroactively, this is a *halakha* with which **everyone agrees.**


###### Niddah 5a:2
[Niddah 5a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/5a:2)

וְלוֹקְמָא אִיפְּכָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But let** us **interpret** the mishna in the **opposite** manner. Why interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa and the *baraita* in accordance with everyone, when we can give precedence to the mishna, which is more authoritative, by interpreting it in accordance with all opinions, as was first explained, and the *baraita* only in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


###### Niddah 5a:3
[Niddah 5a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/5a:3)

כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא לְאוֹקוֹמֵי לְקוּלָּא וּלְחוּמְרָא — לְחוּמְרָא מוֹקְמִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Since there is** a way **to interpret** it **as a leniency,** i.e., that all agree that blood discovered at the fixed time of menstruation renders items impure only from that point onward, **and** it can also be interpreted in a manner that leads **to a stringency,** i.e., everyone agrees that blood discovered not at her fixed time for menstruation causes retroactive impurity, and furthermore the Rabbis hold that this is the *halakha* even when blood is discovered at her fixed time of menstruation, **we interpret** it the way that leads **to a stringency.**


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

קָתָנֵי: שֶׁאִם תִּרְאֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת וִסְתָּהּ מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת. טַעְמָא דְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת הוּא, דִּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן בֵּין כִּתְמָהּ לִרְאִיָּיתָהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **is taught** in the *baraita*: If a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle finds a blood stain, her blood stain is retroactively impure. The reason is **that if she sees** a flow of menstrual blood **not at the fixed time of her** menstrual **cycle,** it renders her ritually impure retroactively **for** a twenty-four-hour **period.** The Gemara analyzes this statement: The **reason** for this ruling is **that** she is **a woman who has a fixed** menstrual **cycle;** therefore, **the Rabbis distinguish between her** blood **stain,** which causes retroactive impurity like a sighting not at her fixed time, **and her sighting** of her menstrual flow at its fixed time, which does not cause retroactive impurity.


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

הָא שְׁאָר נָשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן — כִּתְמָן כִּרְאִיָּיתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It can be inferred from here that in the case of those **other women,** e.g., a pregnant or elderly woman, **with regard to** whom **the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient** and their menstrual flow never causes retroactive impurity, the same *halakha* applies to **their** blood **stains as** to **their sighting** of their menstrual flow, i.e., the stains do not cause retroactive impurity.


###### Niddah 5a:6
[Niddah 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/5a:6)

מַנִּי? רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס הִיא, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס: כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים כִּתְמָן טָמֵא לְמַפְרֵעַ, וְנָשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן — כִּתְמָן כִּרְאִיָּיתָן, חוּץ מִתִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ סְדִינִין שֶׁלָּהּ מְלוּכְלָכִין בְּדָם — אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In accordance with **whose** opinion is this *baraita* taught? The Gemara answers: **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, as Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus:** The *halakha* **with regard to all women** is that **their** blood **stains are impure retroactively. But** any **women with regard to** whom **the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, their** blood **stains** share the same ruling **as their sighting** of their menstrual flow, i.e., they do not cause retroactive impurity. This is the *halakha* **except** for the case of **a young girl whose time to see** the flow of menstrual blood **has not arrived.** With regard to her, **even if her sheets are soiled with blood one** need **not be concerned for it,** i.e., her blood stains do not cause any impurity at all, even from that point onward.


###### Niddah 5a:7
[Niddah 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/5a:7)

וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא כֶּתֶם כְּלָל? וְהָתַנְיָא: כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים כִּתְמָן טָמֵא, וְנָשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן — כִּתְמָן טָמֵא. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: נָשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן — אֵין לָהֶן כֶּתֶם. מַאי לָאו אֵין לָהֶן כֶּתֶם כְּלָל? לָא, אֵין לָהֶן כֶּתֶם לְמַפְרֵעַ, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהֶן כֶּתֶם מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** does **Rabbi Ḥanina** ben Antigonus **hold** that a blood **stain** causes ritual impurity **at all? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The *halakha* with regard to **all women** is that **their** blood **stains are impure. And** similarly, **women with regard to** whom **the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, their** blood **stains are** also **impure. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says:** The *halakha* of **women with regard to** whom **the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient,** is that **they do not have** the ritual impurity of a blood **stain. What, is it not** correct to say that this means **they have no** impurity caused by a blood **stain at all?** The Gemara answers: **No,** it means that **they do not have** impurity caused by a blood **stain retroactively, but they do have** the impurity caused by a blood **stain from here onward.**


###### Niddah 5a:8
[Niddah 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/5a:8)

מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר אֲפִילּוּ לְמַפְרֵעַ? אִין, רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּמַחְמֵיר גַּבֵּי כְתָמִים. דְּתַנְיָא: כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים — כִּתְמָן טָמֵא לְמַפְרֵעַ, וְנָשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן — כִּתְמָן טָמֵא לְמַפְרֵעַ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From the fact that** Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus holds that a blood stain imparts ritual impurity from that point onward, does this not indicate that **the first *tanna* holds** that it causes ritual impurity **even retroactively?** The Gemara answers: **Yes,** the ruling of the first *tanna* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who is stringent with regard to** blood **stains. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The *halakha* with regard to **all women** is that **their** blood **stains are impure retroactively. And** similarly, **women with regard to** whom **the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient, their** blood **stains are** also **impure retroactively.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Niddah 5a:9
[Niddah 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/5a:9)

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: נָשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן, כִּתְמָן כִּרְאִיָּיתָן, וְתִינוֹקֶת שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת — יֵשׁ לָהּ כֶּתֶם, וְשֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת — אֵין לָהּ כֶּתֶם. וְאֵימָתַי הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת? מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעוּ יְמֵי הַנְּעוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says:** The *halakha* of **women with regard to** whom **the Sages stated: Their time is sufficient,** is that **their** blood **stains** share the same ruling **as their sighting** of their menstrual flow, i.e., they cause ritual impurity from that point onward. **And** in the case of **a young girl, if her time to see** the flow of menstrual blood **has arrived,** then **she has** impurity status when she finds a blood **stain. But if her time to see** the flow of menstrual blood **has not** yet **arrived, she does not have** impurity status when she finds a blood **stain.** The Gemara asks: **And when** does a young girl **arrive** at **her time to see** the flow of menstrual blood? The Gemara answers: **When the days of** her **young womanhood have arrived.**


###### Niddah 5a:10
[Niddah 5a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/5a:10)

וְהַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּעֵדִים כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֵד שֶׁלִּפְנֵי תַשְׁמִישׁ אֵינוֹ מְמַעֵט כִּפְקִידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And** with regard to a woman **who engages in intercourse while** using **examination cloths,** with which she ascertains whether the menstrual flow began, since the halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination, it reduces the time from a twenty-four-hour period and reduces the time from examination to examination. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The **examination cloth** with **which** she examined herself **before intercourse does not reduce** the time from a twenty-four-hour period **like** a regular **examination.**


###### Niddah 5a:11
[Niddah 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/5a:11)

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁמְּהוּמָּה לְבֵיתָהּ. וְכִי מְהוּמָּה לְבֵיתָהּ מַאי הָוֵי? מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁמְּהוּמָּה לְבֵיתָהּ — אֵינָהּ מַכְנֶסֶת לְחוֹרִין וְלִסְדָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion of Shmuel? **Rav Ketina says: Since she is excited [*shemehuma*]** and hurried **for** intercourse with **her husband,** it is not considered a proper examination. The Gemara asks: **And** even **if she is excited for** intercourse with **her husband, what of it?** Why does that invalidate her examination? The Gemara answers: **Since she is excited** and hurried **for** intercourse with **her husband, she does not insert** the examination cloth **into** her **recesses and folds.**


###### Niddah 5a:12
[Niddah 5a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/5a:12)

תְּנַן: הַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּעֵדִים, הֲרֵי זוֹ כִּפְקִידָה. מַאי לָאו חַד לִפְנֵי תַשְׁמִישׁ וְחַד לְאַחַר תַּשְׁמִישׁ? לָא, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי לְאַחַר תַּשְׁמִישׁ, וְאֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לָהּ. כְּדִתְנַן: דֶּרֶךְ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים, אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **We learned** in the mishna: And a woman **who engages in intercourse while** using **examination cloths,** the halakhic status of that act **is like that of an examination.** The mishna refers to examination cloths in the plural. **What, is it not** speaking of **one** cloth used **before intercourse and one** cloth used **after intercourse?** The Gemara answers: **No, this** cloth **and that** cloth are both used **after intercourse; and** the reason why the mishna uses the plural is that **one** cloth is **for his** use **and one** is **for her** use. **As we learned** in a mishna (14a): It is the **custom of Jewish women to engage in intercourse** with their husbands **with two examination cloths, one for his** use **and one for her** use.


###### Niddah 5a:13
[Niddah 5a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/5a:13)

הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא חַד לִפְנֵי תַשְׁמִישׁ וְחַד לְאַחַר תַּשְׁמִישׁ — אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁמְּהוּמָּה לְבֵיתָהּ לָא בָּדְקָה שַׁפִּיר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הֲרֵי זוֹ כִּפְקִידָה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי לְאַחַר תַּשְׁמִישׁ — פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is this? Granted, if you say** that the mishna is referring to **one** cloth used **before intercourse and one** used **after intercourse,** it **was necessary** for the mishna to mention both examinations, as it might **enter your mind to say** that **since she is excited** and hurried **for** intercourse with **her husband, she did not examine** herself **properly.** Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that her examination with a cloth before intercourse **is** considered **as** a halakhically valid **examination. But if you say** that **this** cloth **and that** cloth are his and her cloths used **after intercourse,** isn’t it **obvious** that they are treated as halakhic examinations? Why is this ruling necessary?


###### Niddah 5a:14
[Niddah 5a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/5a:14)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, שֶׁמָּא תִּרְאֶה טִפַּת דָּם כְּחַרְדָּל וּתְחַפֶּנָּה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *halakha* that the examinations performed after intercourse count as valid examinations is necessary, **lest you say** that **perhaps** she might **see a drop of blood corresponding** to the size of **a mustard seed and** a drop of **semen covered it.** In other words, it is possible that she discharged a tiny amount of menstrual blood that went undetected, as it was covered by a drop of semen. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that one does not need to be concerned for this possibility.


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

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שְׁתֵּי בְדִיקוֹת אַצְרְכוּהָ רַבָּנַן, חַד לִפְנֵי תַשְׁמִישׁ וְחַד לְאַחַר תַּשְׁמִישׁ, וְכִי קָתָנֵי ״הֲרֵי זוֹ כִּפְקִידָה״ — אַלְּאַחַר תַּשְׁמִישׁ, וְהָא ״הַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת״ קָתָנֵי! תְּנִי: ״וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: The mishna is referring only to her examinations, but the reason the mishna mentions two examinations is not to give them the status of valid examinations, but to teach that they are both obligatory. As **the Sages required her** to perform **two examinations: One before intercourse and one after intercourse. And when** the mishna **teaches:** The halakhic status of that act **is like that of an examination,** it is referring specifically **to** the examination performed **after intercourse.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** the mishna **teaches:** A woman **who engages** in intercourse while using examination cloths. This formulation indicates that the examination is voluntary and is not mandated by the Sages. The Gemara explains that one should emend the text of the mishna so that it **teaches: And** a woman must **engage** in intercourse while using examination cloths.


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

מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יָד מֵעֵת לְעֵת, הַשְׁתָּא מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֶטֶת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using examination cloths, as the halakhic status of that act is like that of an examination, **it reduces** the time **from** a twenty-four-hour **period,** and reduces the time from examination to examination. The Gemara asks: **Now** that the mishna teaches that this examination **reduces** time **from** a twenty-four-hour **period,**