כיון דמגופה קחזיא לא אמרינן אוקמה אחזקתה since it is her nature to see blood flow from her body at regular intervals, we do not say: Establish her in her presumptive status of ritual purity. Her body is constantly changing, and therefore she has no such presumptive status.

ומאי שנא ממקוה דתנן מקוה שנמדד ונמצא חסר כל טהרות שנעשו על גביו למפרע בין בר"ה בין ברה"י טמאות With regard to the opinions of both Shammai and Hillel, the Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that of a ritual bath? As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 2:2): In the case of a ritual bath that was known to have contained the requisite forty se’a, which was then measured and found lacking in its quantity of water, all pure items that had been rendered pure in it, i.e., any impure items that had been purified through immersion in this ritual bath, retroactive to when the ritual bath was last measured, whether this ritual bath is found in the private domain or in the public domain, are impure.

לשמאי קשיא למפרע The Gemara explains: According to the opinion of Shammai, the mishna poses a difficulty from its statement that the change in the ritual bath’s status is assumed retroactive to the time when it was last measured, as he maintains that a menstruating woman’s status changes only at the present moment, not retroactive to the last time she examined herself.

להלל קשיא ודאי דאילו מעת לעת שבנדה תולין לא אוכלין ולא שורפין ואילו הכא טומאה ודאי According to the opinion of Hillel, the mishna also poses a difficulty with regard to its ruling that the items purified in the ritual bath are deemed impure with certainty, whereas a menstruating women does not assume retroactive impurity with certainty. In other words, although according to the Rabbis there is a twenty-four-hour period of retroactive ritual impurity in the case of a menstruating woman, and according to Hillel the retroactive impurity extends back to her most recent examination, nevertheless any teruma that she touched during that period is not deemed definitely impure to the extent that it must be burned. Rather, the impure status of the items she touched is uncertain and the status of the teruma is suspended, i.e., one may neither eat it nor burn it. Whereas here, in the case of the ritual bath, any item purified in it is retroactively deemed definitely impure.

התם משום דאיכא למימר העמד טמא על חזקתו ואימא לא טבל אדרבה העמד מקוה על חזקתו ואימא לא חסר הרי חסר לפניך The Gemara answers: There, in the case of a ritual bath, it is different, since it can be said: Establish the impure item in its presumptive status and say that it was not properly immersed. In other words, the presumptive status of the item as ritually impure is in keeping with the current deficient state of the ritual bath. The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, one should establish the ritual bath in its presumptive state of validity and say that the ritual bath was not previously lacking the requisite measure of water. The Gemara responds: There is no presumptive state of validity, as the ritual bath is lacking before you, i.e., at present, and this offsets the presumptive status that it was full.

הכא נמי הרי דם לפניך השתא הוא דחזאי הכא נמי השתא הוא דחסר The Gemara raises a difficulty: Here too, in the case of a menstruating woman, she is one who has experienced a discharge of blood before you, i.e., at present. Just as the ritual bath’s presumptive status of validity is offset by its present lack of the requisite measure of water, so too the woman’s previous presumptive status of ritual purity is offset by her present state of impurity due to menstruation. The Gemara answers: In the case of the menstruating woman, it is possible that it is only now that she saw the first emission of her menstrual blood. The Gemara retorts: One can say the same with regard to the ritual bath: Here too, it is only now that it became lacking in the requisite measure of water.

הכי השתא התם איכא למימר חסר ואתא חסר ואתא הכא מי איכא למימר חזאי ואתא חזאי ואתא ומאי קושיא דלמא הגס הגס חזיתיה The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the ritual bath, it can be said that the water slowly trickled out and consequently the amount of water was continuously diminishing. Therefore, it is possible that the ritual bath lost its valid status long ago without anyone realizing. By contrast, here, with regard to a menstruating woman, can it be said that she was continuously seeing menstrual blood? The Gemara responds: And what is the difficulty? The same possibility does in fact exist in the case of a menstruating woman, as perhaps she saw the blood depart bit [hagas] by bit.

התם איכא תרתי לריעותא הכא איכא חדא לריעותא The Gemara states a different answer: There, in the case of the ritual bath, there are two factors that weaken the suggestion that the items are ritually pure: First, the ritual bath is lacking at present; second, the item has a presumptive status of impurity. Here, by contrast, there is only one factor that weakens the possibility that the items touched by the currently menstruating woman were rendered ritually impure, i.e., that she is currently experiencing a menstrual flow. Therefore, according to Shammai she assumes impurity status only from that moment onward, and according to Hillel her retroactive impurity status applies only as an uncertainty.

ומאי שנא מחבית דתנן היה בודק את החבית להיות מפריש עליה תרומה והולך ואח"כ נמצא חומץ כל ג' ימים (הראשונים) ודאי § The Gemara asks: And according to Shammai, who holds that her time is sufficient and there is no retroactive impurity, what is different in the case of a barrel? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 2:8): If someone would inspect the contents of a barrel to see if it still contained enough wine to continually mentally separate teruma from it, i.e., to exempt other untithed wine of his until all the wine in this barrel will be teruma, and afterward the contents of the barrel were found to have turned to vinegar, which cannot be set aside as teruma for untithed wine, then for all of the first three days following his most recent inspection, it is definitely considered to have been wine. Therefore, any of the untithed wine for which teruma was separated during those days is tithed.

מכאן ואילך ספק קשיא לשמאי The baraita continues: From that point forward, i.e., more than three days after the most recent inspection, it is uncertain whether it had already turned to vinegar, and consequently any untithed wine for which teruma was separated during those days remains uncertainly tithed. This poses a difficulty for Shammai, who maintains that there is no such retroactive consideration in the case of a menstruating woman.

התם משום דאיכא למימר העמד טבל על חזקתו ואימר לא נתקן אדרבה העמד יין על חזקתו ואימר לא החמיץ The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the barrel, it is different, since it can be said: Establish the untithed produce in its presumptive status, as when it first grew it was definitely untithed, and say it was not amended, i.e., exempted, and its status continues to be untithed produce. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, one should establish the wine in its presumptive status, and say that it had not turned to vinegar.

הרי החמיץ לפניך הכא נמי הרי דם לפניך השתא הוא דחזאי התם נמי השתא הוא דהחמיץ The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is impossible, as it is turned to vinegar before you, i.e., at present. The Gemara replies: Here too, in the case of a menstruating woman, one who has experienced a discharge of blood is before you, at present, so what is the difference? The Gemara explains: With regard to the woman, it is possible that it is only now that she saw the beginning of her menstrual blood. The Gemara responds: There too, it is possible that it is only now that it turned to vinegar, but not earlier.

הכי השתא התם איכא למימר החמיץ ואתא החמיץ ואתא הכא מי איכא למימר חזאי ואתא חזאי ואתא ומאי קושיא דלמא הגס הגס חזיתיה The Gemara again answers: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the wine, it can be said that it was continuously turning to vinegar. Therefore, it is possible that the wine turned to vinegar much earlier without anyone realizing. By contrast, in the case of the menstruating woman, can it be said that she was continuously seeing menstrual blood? Once again, the Gemara responds: And what is the difficulty? The same possibility does in fact exist in the case of a menstruating woman, as perhaps she saw the blood depart bit by bit.

התם איכא תרתי לריעותא הכא איכא חדא לריעותא The Gemara provides a different answer: There, in the case of the barrel, there are two factors that weaken the suggestion that the wine is tithed: First, it is vinegar at present; second, the wine has a presumptive status that it is untithed. Here, by contrast, there is only one factor that weakens the possibility that the items touched by the menstruating woman were rendered ritually impure, i.e., that she is currently experiencing a menstrual flow.

ורמי חבית אמקוה מאי שנא הכא ודאי ומ"ש הכא ספק § And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the halakha of the barrel and that of the ritual bath: What is different here, in the case of the ritual bath, where the items are definitely impure, and what is different there, with regard to the barrel, where it is only uncertain that the produce remains untithed? In both cases the current situation, that the ritual bath is deficient and the contents of the barrel have turned to vinegar, should lead to a definite status.

א"ר חנינא מסורא מאן תנא חבית ר"ש היא דלגבי מקוה נמי ספקא משוי ליה The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura says: Who is the tanna who taught the halakha of the barrel? It is Rabbi Shimon, who, with regard to a ritual bath also considers it as a matter of uncertainty, rather than as definitely impure. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the two halakhot.

דתנן מקוה שנמדד ונמצא חסר כל הטהרות שנעשו על גביו למפרע בין בר"ה בין ברה"י טמאות As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 2:2): In the case of a ritual bath that was known to have contained the requisite forty se’a, which was then measured and found lacking in its quantity of water, all pure items that had been rendered pure in it, i.e., any impure items that had been purified through immersion in this ritual bath, retroactive to when the ritual bath was last measured, whether this ritual bath is located in the private domain or in the public domain, are impure.

ר"ש אומר בר"ה טהורות ברה"י תולין The mishna continues: Rabbi Shimon says: If the impure items were immersed in a ritual bath that was in the public domain, they are deemed pure. But if they were immersed in a ritual bath that was in a private domain, the status of any teruma that touched them is suspended, i.e., it is neither consumed nor burned. Rabbi Shimon holds that even in the case of a ritual bath, the items are not retroactively deemed definitely impure. Rather the status is uncertain, just as in the case of the barrel.

ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מסוטה The Gemara explains their reasoning: And both tanna’im derived their respective opinions only from the case of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota], who is forbidden to engage in intercourse with her husband just like a definite adulteress.

רבנן סברי כי סוטה מה סוטה ספק היא ועשאוה כודאי הכא נמי ספק ועשאוה כודאי The Rabbis hold: This case of a ritual bath is like the case of a sota. Just as in the case of a sota it is uncertain whether she was actually unfaithful, and nevertheless the Torah rendered her like one who definitely committed adultery in that she is forbidden to her husband until she drinks the water of a sota; here too, in the case of a ritual bath, it is uncertain whether it was lacking the requisite measure of water and yet the Torah rendered it as though it was definitely lacking water, to the extent that teruma that touched an item that had been immersed in it must be burned.

אי מסוטה אימא כי סוטה מה סוטה ברה"ר טהור הכא נמי ברה"ר טהור The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the halakhot of the ritual bath are derived from those of a sota, then one can say that it should be like the halakha of a sota in another respect: Just as a sota who is suspected of having been unfaithful in a public domain is considered pure, i.e., she does not undergo to rite of a sota, here too, any impure item that was immersed in a currently deficient ritual bath that is situated in a public domain should be considered pure.

הכי השתא התם משום סתירה הוא וסתירה ברה"ר ליכא הכא משום חסר הוא מה לי חסר ברה"ר מה לי חסר ברה"י The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? One cannot apply the halakha of a sota in a public domain to any other case. There, the reason why a sota is treated as having definitely been unfaithful is due to her seclusion with another man. And as a proper seclusion in the public domain is not possible, she does not assume the status of a sota. By contrast, here, in the case of the ritual bath, the uncertainty is due to the lack of the requisite measure of water in the ritual bath. If so, what difference is it to me if the ritual bath is lacking in a public domain or if it is lacking in a private domain?

וכי תימא הא כל ספק טומאה ברה"ר טהור כיון דאיכא תרתי לריעותא כודאי טומאה דמי The Gemara comments: And if you would say that the guiding principle in any case of uncertainty involving impurity in a public domain is that it is ritually pure, and therefore all items immersed in a ritual bath situated in the public domain should be pure even if there is uncertainty about its status of purity, that suggestion can be rejected, as follows: Since there are two factors that weaken the possibility that the items are ritually pure: First, the ritual bath is currently lacking, and second, the item has a presumptive status of impurity, it is therefore considered as an item of definite impurity.

ורבי שמעון סבר כי סוטה מה סוטה ברה"ר טהור הכא נמי ברה"ר טהור After analyzing the reasoning of the Rabbis, the Gemara turns to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Shimon holds: This case of a ritual bath is just like the case of a sota. Just as a sota who is suspected of having been unfaithful in a public domain is considered pure, here too, any impure item that was immersed in a currently deficient ritual bath that is situated in a public domain is considered pure.

אי מסוטה אימא כי סוטה מה סוטה ברה"י טמאה ודאי הכא נמי ברה"י טמאה ודאי The Gemara asks: If the halakhot of the ritual bath are derived from those of a sota, then one can say that it should be like the halakha of a sota in another respect: Just as a sota who secluded herself with the man in a private domain is deemed definitely impure, i.e., she is forbidden to her husband until she undergoes the rite of the sota, here too, any ritually impure item that was immersed in a currently deficient ritual bath situated in a private domain should be considered definitely impure. If so, any teruma that comes in contact with the immersed vessel should be burned. Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon rule that its status is suspended and it is neither consumed nor burned?

הכי השתא התם יש רגלים לדבר שהרי קינא לה ונסתרה הכא מאי רגלים לדבר איכא The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of a sota, there is a basis for the matter. She is considered definitely impure, as her husband issued a warning to her about this particular man and she then secluded herself with him. By contrast, here, in the case of a ritual bath, what basis for the matter is there? Why should one assume impurity with certainty?

ואי בעית אימא היינו טעמא דרבי שמעון גמר סוף טומאה מתחלת טומאה And if you wish, say instead that this is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: He does not base his ruling on the case of a sota; rather, he derives the end of impurity from the beginning of impurity, i.e., he derives the halakha of the immersion of an impure item into a ritual bath from the halakha of the initial contraction of ritual impurity.

מה תחלת טומאה ספק נגע ספק לא נגע ברה"ר טהור אף סוף טומאה ספק טבל ספק לא טבל ברה"ר טהור The Gemara explains: Just as with regard to the beginning of impurity, if there is uncertainty whether or not a pure item came into contact with a source of impurity, if this occurred in the public domain it is considered ritually pure; so too in the case of the end of impurity, if there is uncertainty whether or not the impure item was immersed in a ritual bath with the requisite amount of water, the halakha is that if the ritual bath is located in the public domain, the item is considered pure.

ורבנן הכי השתא התם גברא בחזקת טהרה קאי מספקא לא מחתינן ליה לטומאה הכא גברא בחזקת טומאה קאי מספקא לא מפקינן ליה מטומאתו The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis respond to this claim? They would respond: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the beginning of impurity, the man who might have touched an impure item remains with the presumptive status of ritual purity. Consequently, we do not lower his status to one who has contracted ritual impurity merely due to uncertainty. Here, in the case of the ritual bath, the man who immerses in that ritual bath has the presumptive status of ritual impurity. Therefore, we do not remove him from his status of ritual impurity due to uncertainty.

ומאי שנא ממבוי דתנן השרץ שנמצא במבוי מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את המבוי הזה ולא היה בו שרץ או עד שעת הכיבוד § The Gemara returns to its analysis of the mishna. Shammai said: For all women, their time is sufficient, i.e., women who discern that menstrual blood emerged do not need to be concerned that perhaps the flow of blood began before they noticed it. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that of an alleyway? As we learned in a mishna (66a): With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal that is found in an alleyway, it renders any item in the alleyway ritually impure retroactively to the time that a person can say: I examined this alleyway and there was no carcass of a creeping animal in it, or until the time of the last sweeping of the alleyway.

התם נמי כיון דאיכא שרצים דגופיה ושרצים דאתו מעלמא כתרתי לריעותא דמי The Gemara answers: There too, one can explain: Since there are two types of carcasses of creeping animals that are likely to be found in the alleyway, creeping animals from the alleyway itself and creeping animals that came from the world at large, it is compared to a case where there are two factors that weaken the possibility that the items are ritually pure. Therefore, even Shammai agrees that in such a case the impurity extends retroactively back in time.

ואב"א היינו טעמא דשמאי הואיל ואשה מרגשת בעצמה והלל כסבורה הרגשת מי רגלים היא And if you wish, say instead that this is the reason for the opinion of Shammai: Since a women senses within herself if she is experiencing a flow of blood, if she felt the flow only at present, it is certain that she did not experience a flow previously. And Hillel holds that she might have experienced a flow earlier while she was urinating and she thought it was all the sensation of her flow of urine.

ולשמאי האיכא ישנה ישנה נמי אגב צערה מיתערא מידי דהוה אהרגשת מי רגלים The Gemara asks: And according to Shammai, isn’t there the case of a sleeping woman, who would not sense her flow of menstrual blood? The Gemara answers: A sleeping woman would also sense her flow, and due to her discomfort she would awaken, just as it is with the sensation of the need to urinate.

והאיכא שוטה מודה שמאי בשוטה הא כל הנשים קתני כל הנשים פקחות The Gemara raises another difficulty with regard to the opinion of Shammai: But there is the case of a mentally incompetent woman, who does not properly understand what she is sensing. She might have previously experienced a flow of menstrual blood that she did not notice. The Gemara answers: Shammai concedes in the case of a mentally incompetent woman that she is impure retroactively. The Gemara asks: But the mishna explicitly teaches that Shammai mentioned all women, which apparently includes even the mentally incompetent. The Gemara answers: When the mishna teaches: All women, it is referring to all mentally competent women.

וליתני נשים לאפוקי מדרבי אליעזר דא"ר אליעזר ארבע נשים ותו לא קמ"ל כל הנשים The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, let the mishna teach that Shammai’s opinion applies to: Women, rather than referring to all women. The Gemara answers: The inclusive statement: All women, serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As Rabbi Eliezer said in a mishna (7a): There are four women with regard to whom the halakha is that their time is sufficient. This indicates that there are only four, and no more. Therefore, the mishna teaches us: All women, to include all mentally competent women, not only the four mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer.

והאיכא כתמים לימא תנן כתמים דלא כשמאי אמר אביי מודה שמאי בכתמים מ"ט בצפור לא נתעסקה בשוק של טבחים לא עברה האי דם מהיכא אתי The Gemara raises yet another difficulty against the opinion of Shammai: But there is the case of blood stains. The mishna teaches (66a) that a woman who finds a blood stain is impure retroactive to the last time she examined her clothing and found them clean. Shall we say that we learned the mishna with regard to stains not in accordance with the opinion of Shammai? Abaye said: Shammai concedes in the case of stains. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The reason is that she neither engaged in handling a slaughtered bird nor did she pass through a marketplace of butchers. If so, from where could this blood stain on her clothing have come? Since it must be from her last menstrual flow, Shammai agrees that she is impure retroactively.

אי בעית אימא היינו טעמיה דשמאי דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי והלל כותלי בית הרחם העמידוהו ושמאי כותלי בית הרחם לא מוקמי דם The Gemara suggests another analysis: Or if you wish, say that this is the reason for the opinion of Shammai: She is impure only from that point onward, as, if it is so that there was any menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset, i.e., at the earlier time. The Gemara explains why Hillel maintains that there is ritual impurity retroactively, in light of this analysis: And as for Hillel, he holds that the walls of the womb, i.e., the walls of the vaginal canal, held back the menstrual blood from leaving the body entirely, and therefore there might have been a previous emission from the uterus into the vaginal canal that was not visible on the outside. The Gemara asks: And how does Shammai respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Shammai maintains that the walls of the womb do not hold back blood.

משמשת במוך מאי איכא למימר אמר אביי מודה שמאי במשמשת במוך The Gemara asks: With regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive absorbent cloth in the form of a wad that she inserts in her vagina at the opening of her womb so as not to become pregnant, what is there to say? In other words, how does Shammai explain why there is no retroactive impurity status in such a case, as it cannot be claimed that any previous menstrual blood would have flowed out earlier. Abaye says: Shammai concedes with regard to a woman who engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive cloth that she is impure retroactively.

רבא אמר מוך נמי אגב זיעה מכויץ כויץ ומודה רבא במוך דחוק Rava says: Here as well, in a case where a woman engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive absorbent cloth, any previous menstrual blood would have flowed out, as the absorbent cloth does not hermetically seal the womb. The reason is that the cloth wrinkles due to perspiration, leaving space for blood to pass through. The Gemara adds: And nevertheless Rava concedes to Abaye that Shammai agrees that she is retroactively impure in a case where a woman engages in intercourse while using a tightly packed absorbent cloth.

ומאי איכא בין הני לישני להאיך לישנא § The Gemara suggested that the reasoning for Shammai’s opinion is that the woman would have felt any previous menstrual flow, or that any prior menstrual blood would have flowed out previously. Yet, earlier the Gemara suggested that his reason was that the woman retains her presumptive status of ritual purity. With regard to the explanations given for the opinion of Shammai, the Gemara asks: What difference is there between these versions and that version suggested earlier?

איכא בינייהו למרמי חבית ומקוה ומבוי להאיך לישנא איכא למרמינהו להני לישני ליכא למרמי The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to the possibility of raising a contradiction between Shammai’s ruling here and the cases of a barrel, a ritual bath, and an alleyway. According to that version, that Shammai’s reasoning is based upon the principle that an item retains its presumptive status, there is room to raise these contradictions, as the Gemara explained. By contrast, according to these other versions, that the woman would have felt any previous menstrual flow or that any prior menstrual blood would have flowed out previously, there is no room to raise such contradictions, as those rulings do not contradict the halakha here, where a unique factor is relevant.

ומאי איכא בין האי לישנא להאיך לישנא לאביי איכא מוך The Gemara further asks: And what difference is there between this version, that any prior menstrual blood would have flowed out, and that version, that she would have felt any previous menstrual flow? The Gemara answers: According to Abaye, who maintains that Shammai agrees that a woman who engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive cloth is impure retroactively, there is a difference in a case where the woman engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive cloth. If Shammai’s reasoning is that a woman senses the emission of blood, in this case too it is assumed that she did not emit blood earlier. By contrast, if his reasoning is that any prior menstrual blood would have come out at the outset, it is possible that the cloth blocked the emission of blood, and she already emitted blood. Consequently, she is impure retroactively.

לרבא איכא מוך דחוק According to Rava, who maintains that blood can emerge even if the woman engages in intercourse while using a contraceptive absorbent cloth, there is a difference between the two interpretations in a case where she engages in intercourse while using a tightly packed absorbent cloth, as such a cloth will prevent the blood from flowing out, but it does not affect her ability to sense an emission.

תניא כי האי לישנא דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי אמר לו הלל לשמאי אי אתה מודה בקופה שנשתמשו בה טהרות בזוית זו ונמצא שרץ בזוית אחרת שטהרות הראשונות טמאות אמר לו אבל It is taught in a mishna (Teharot 4:4) in accordance with this version, i.e., that Shammai’s reasoning is that if it is so, that there was menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset: Hillel said to Shammai: Don’t you concede to the following halakha: In the case of a basket that was used as a container for ritually pure items, and those items were placed in one corner, and subsequently the carcass of a creeping animal was found in a different corner of the basket, the halakha is that the items initially considered ritually pure are now retroactively considered impure? Shammai said to him: Indeed, that is correct.

ומה הפרש בין זו לזו לזו יש לה שולים לזו אין לה שולים Hillel continues: And if so, what difference is there between this case of the pure items stored in the basket, which are now considered retroactively impure, and that case of the ritually pure woman who experiences a menstrual flow, who is impure only from that point onward? Shammai answers: This one, the basket, has a base on which it rests, and therefore the creeping animal might have been there earlier unseen. That one, the menstruating woman, has no base, i.e., there is nothing to impede her menstrual blood from flowing out. Shammai’s response indicates that she is not retroactively impure because if she had experienced a previous menstruation it would have flowed at that stage.

רבא אמר טעמא דשמאי משום בטול פריה ורביה תניא נמי הכי אמר לו שמאי להלל א"כ בטלת בנות ישראל מפריה ורביה § Rava says: The reason for the opinion of Shammai that a woman who experiences menstruation is not deemed ritually impure retroactively is due to the dereliction of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. If woman is always deemed retroactively impure, she and her husband might abstain from engaging in sexual intercourse out of fear that she is already impure even if she has not yet experienced bleeding. The Gemara adds that this explanation is also taught in a baraita: Shammai said to Hillel: If it is so, that a woman is rendered retroactively impure as you claim, you will have caused the Jewish women to be derelict in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.

ומאן דתני האי לישנא הא תניא כי האיך לישנא דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי התם הלל הוא דקטעי הוא סבר טעמא דשמאי דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי וקא מקשי ליה קופה The Gemara asks: But according to the one who taught this version, i.e., Rava, there is a difficulty: Isn’t it taught in the aforementioned mishna in accordance with that other version, that Shammai’s reasoning is that if it is so, that there was any menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset? The Gemara answers: There, in that mishna, it is Hillel who erred. He thought the reason of Shammai is that if it is so, that there was any menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset. And therefore, he raises a difficulty against Shammai’s opinion from the case of the basket.

ואמר ליה שמאי טעמא דידי משום בטול פריה ורביה ולמאי דקטעית נמי דקמקשית קופה לזו יש לה שולים ולזו אין לה שולים And Shammai said to Hillel: You are mistaken. My reasoning is actually due to the dereliction of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. But even according to your erroneous reasoning that led you to raise a difficulty from the case of the basket, I have an answer for that as well: This basket has a base, and therefore the creeping animal could have been there earlier, unseen; but that menstruating woman has no base.

ולמאן דתני האי לישנא הא תניא כי האיך לישנא משום בטול פריה ורביה The Gemara asks the reverse question: And according to the one who teaches this other version, that Shammai’s reasoning is that if there was previous menstrual blood it would have come out at the outset, isn’t it taught in a baraita in accordance with that other version, that Shammai’s reasoning is due to the dereliction of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply?

הכי קאמר ליה הלל לשמאי אין טעמא קאמרת דאם איתא דהוה דם מעיקרא הוה אתי ומיהו עשה סייג לדבריך דמאי שנא מכל התורה כולה דעבדינן סייג The Gemara answers: That baraita was recorded at a later point in their discussion, as this is what Hillel is saying to Shammai: Yes, the reason that you say for your opinion has merit, that if it is so, that there was any menstrual blood previously, it would have come out at the outset. Nevertheless, you should enact a safeguard for your statement and render her retroactively impure, as in what way is this case different from the rest of the entire Torah, where the Sages enact safeguards?

אמר ליה א"כ בטלת בנות ישראל מפריה ורביה והלל מפריה ורביה מי קאמינא לטהרות הוא דקאמינא Shammai said to Hillel: If so, i.e., if she is considered impure retroactively as a safeguard, you will have caused the Jewish women to be derelict in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. The Gemara asks: And how does Hillel respond to Shammai’s reasoning with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? The Gemara explains that Hillel would answer: Although I rule that she is retroactively impure, did I say that she is forbidden to her husband and must therefore abstain from the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? I said only that she renders impure any ritually pure items that she touched.

ושמאי לטהרות נמי לא דאם כן לבו נוקפו ופורש The Gemara asks: And how would Shammai reply to this? The Gemara answers: Shammai maintains that even a safeguard that renders ritually pure items impure should not be imposed. The reason is that if it were so, the heart of a scrupulous husband might strike him with pangs of conscience over sins that he could transgress and he would separate from his wife, out of fear that she is impure.

(שולי"ם בדוקי"ן מכוסי"ן בזוי"ת סימ"ן) איתמר קופה שנשתמשו בה טהרות בזוית זו ונמצא שרץ בזוית אחרת חזקיה אמר טהרות הראשונות טהורות רבי יוחנן אמר טהרות הראשונות טמאות והא (בית) שמאי והלל מודו בקופה דטהרות הראשונות טמאות The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the ensuing discussions: A base; examined; covered; in a corner. It was stated: If one has a basket that was used as a container for holding ritually pure produce, and those items were placed in one corner of the basket, and subsequently the carcass of a creeping animal was found in a different corner of the basket, Ḥizkiyya says: That produce initially considered ritually pure is still pure. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The produce initially considered ritually pure is now retroactively deemed impure. The Gemara asks: But how can Ḥizkiyya rule that it is pure? After all, don’t Shammai and Hillel agree in the case of the basket that the produce initially considered pure is now retroactively impure?

כי מודו שמאי והלל בקופה שיש לה שולים כי פליגי חזקיה ורבי יוחנן בקופה שאין לה שולים The Gemara answers: When do Shammai and Hillel agree that all the produce is retroactively impure? With regard to a basket that has a base. In such a case, the carcass of the creeping animal might have previously been in the basket and it went unnoticed when one removed the pure produce items. When Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree, it is with regard to a basket that has no base, i.e., both ends were open and the basket was used while it was lying on its side. In that situation, the contents of the basket are emptied by raising one end, which causes all items inside to fall out. Consequently, any creeping animal that was found subsequently must have entered the basket only after that produce was removed, which is why Ḥizkiyya rules that the produce remains pure.

אין לה שולים מ"ט דר' יוחנן אין לה שולים ויש לה אוגנים The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a case where the basket has no base, what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan for ruling that the produce is ritually impure? The Gemara answers: The basket has no base but it does have an inward-curved rim. Therefore, it is possible that the carcass of a small creeping animal might have been held back by the rim and remained inside the basket even after it was turned over. Rabbi Yoḥanan rules that the produce is retroactively impure, due to the possibility that the creeping animal might have been in the basket previously together with the initially pure produce.

והתניא המדלה עשרה דליים מים בזה אחר זה ונמצא שרץ באחד מהן הוא טמא וכולן טהורין ואמר ריש לקיש משום רבי ינאי לא שנו אלא שאין לה אוגנים אבל יש לה אוגנים כולן טמאין The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who draws ten pails of water one after another, i.e., he draws out water in one pail and from it he fills another ten pails with water, and the carcass of a creeping animal is found in one of them, that pail of water is ritually impure but all the rest of them are pure. And Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: This halakha was taught only in a case where the pail has no inward-curved rim. Consequently, its contents are entirely emptied each time it is overturned, which means that the creeping animal must have entered only this pail. But if the pail has a rim, all of the water that had been drawn is impure, as the creeping animal might have entered the pail earlier and the rim held it back each time the pail was overturned.

לימא חזקיה לית ליה דר' ינאי מיא שרקי פירי לא שרקי The Gemara explains the difficulty: Shall we say that Ḥizkiyya, who is not concerned that the rim of the basket might have held back the creeping animal, does not agree with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai? The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two cases: Water is slippery, whereas produce is not slippery. In order to pour water out of the pail it is not necessary to turn it over completely. Therefore, the rim might hold back a creeping animal. By contrast, a basket must have one end fully raised in order to empty out all the produce it contains. In such a case Rabbi Yannai would agree that nothing could have been held back, and therefore the emptied produce remains pure.

אי נמי מיא לא קפיד עלייהו פירי קפיד עלייהו Alternatively, there is a different reason why one does not overturn a pail of water entirely: In the case of water, one is not particular about it, i.e., he does not mind if some is left over. Therefore he does not overturn the pail completely. By contrast, in the case of produce one is particular about it, so he raises one end of the basket entirely to ensure that every last piece of produce is emptied. Consequently, in the case of produce Rabbi Yannai would agree that even if the basket has a rim, all the produce remains pure.

ואי בעית אימא כי מודו שמאי והלל בקופה שאינה בדוקה As an alternative to its previous resolution that Ḥizkiyya is discussing the case of a rimmed receptacle, the Gemara suggests another resolution of the apparent contradiction between Ḥizkiyya’s ruling and the opinions of Hillel and Shammai. And if you wish, say: When do Shammai and Hillel agree? In the case of a basket that was not examined. Since he did not examine the basket when he placed the pure produce there, a creeping animal might have already been inside. Consequently, they agree that the produce does not retain its presumptive state of purity but is considered retroactively impure.

כי פליגי חזקיה ור' יוחנן בקופה בדוקה מר סבר הא בדקה ומר סבר אימור עם סילוק ידו נפל When Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree, it is with regard to a basket that was examined. One Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds that since it was examined before the produce was placed inside and was found to be clean of creeping animals, it is reasonable to assume that the creeping animal entered only after the ritually pure produce was removed. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that one can say that it is possible that when he removed his hand after feeling around to examine the basket, the creeping animal fell in.

והא דומיא דאשה קתני ואשה בדוקה היא כיון דשכיחי בה דמים כשאינה בדוקה דמיא The Gemara asks: But isn’t the case of a basket taught as being similar to the case of a menstruating woman? Hillel had cited the case of the basket as a difficulty with regard to Shammai’s opinion in the case of a menstruating woman. And since a woman is considered fully examined, since she examines herself with examination cloths twice a day, the other case must also be referring to a basket that had been examined. The Gemara answers: Since blood is commonly found flowing from her, as women regularly experience menstrual flows, it is considered as though she were not examined.

ואיבעית אימא כי מודו שמאי והלל בקופה שאינה מכוסה כי פליגי חזקיה ורבי יוחנן בקופה מכוסה מכוסה היכי נפל כגון שתשמישה ע"י כסוי The Gemara suggests another resolution of the apparent contradiction between the ruling of Ḥizkiyya and the opinions of Hillel and Shammai. And if you wish, say: When Shammai and Hillel agree, it is with regard to a basket that is not covered. When do Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree? With regard to a basket that is covered. The Gemara asks: If the basket is covered, how did the creeping animal fall inside? The Gemara answers: For example, if the basket is used by removing its lid. Ḥizkiyya holds that the creeping animal must have fallen in after the produce was removed, because as long as the produce was inside one would be careful not to allow anything else inside. Rabbi Yoḥanan is concerned that perhaps while the basket was uncovered a creeping animal could have fallen inside without one noticing.

והא דומיא דאשה קתני ואשה מכוסה היא כיון דשכיחי בה דמים כשאין מכוסה דמיא The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t the case of a basket taught as being similar to the case of a menstruating woman? And just as a woman is considered covered, since no outside blood can enter her, so too in the case of a basket, it must be one where it is constantly covered. The Gemara explains: Since blood is commonly found flowing from her, as women regularly experience menstrual flows, it is considered as though she is not always covered.

ואיבעית אימא כי מודו שמאי והלל בזוית קופה כי פליגי חזקיה ורבי יוחנן בזוית בית והא קופה קאמר The Gemara suggests another resolution. And if you wish, say: When do Shammai and Hillel agree? In a case where the produce was stored in the corner of a basket. By contrast, when Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree, it is in a case where the produce was stored in the corner of a house. The Gemara expresses puzzlement at this suggestion: But the Gemara on 3b explicitly states that they are referring to a case of a basket.

ה"ק קופה שנשתמשו בה טהרות בזוית בית זו וטלטלוה בזוית אחרת ונמצא שרץ בזוית אחרת חזקיה סבר לא מחזקינן טומאה ממקום למקום ורבי יוחנן סבר מחזקינן The Gemara explains that this is what the Gemara on 3b is saying: If one has a basket that was used as a container for ritually pure produce in this corner of the house, and after the produce was removed it was subsequently carried to another corner, and the carcass of a creeping animal was found in the basket while it was in that other corner, Ḥizkiyya holds: The produce remains ritually pure, as we do not presume that ritual impurity moved from place to place. In other words, the impure creeping animal is not assumed to have moved from the first corner where the produce was kept. Instead, it fell inside while the basket was in the second corner, and therefore the produce that it previously contained remains pure. And Rabbi Yoḥanan holds: The produce is retroactively considered impure, as we do presume that ritual impurity, i.e., the carcass of the creeping animal in the basket, moved from place to place.

ומי מחזקינן והתנן נגע באחד בלילה ואינו יודע אם חי אם מת ולמחר השכים ומצאו מת ר"מ מטהר The Gemara asks a question with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: And do we presume that ritual impurity moved from place to place? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Teharot 5:7): If someone touched one other person at night, and he does not know whether the person he touched was alive or dead, and on the following day he arose and found him dead, and he is uncertain whether or not he contracted ritual impurity from contact with a corpse, Rabbi Meir deems him ritually pure. It is assumed that the deceased was still alive until the point that it is known with certainty that he was dead.

וחכמים מטמאין שכל הטמאות כשעת מציאתן And the Rabbis deem him ritually impure, as it is presumed that all ritually impure items had already been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered. Just as the deceased was found dead in the morning, so too, it is presumed that he was dead when he was touched in the middle of the night.

ותני עלה כשעת מציאתן ובמקום מציאתן The Gemara concludes its question: And it is taught with regard to this mishna: It is presumed that ritually impure items had been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered, but only in the place in which they were discovered. In other words, if the corpse had been found in a different spot than he was at night, it is not presumed that he was already dead in the first spot, and the man who touched him remains ritually pure. If so, how can Rabbi Yoḥanan maintain that we presume impurity moved from place to place?

וכי תימא הני מילי לשרוף אבל לתלות תלינן ומי תלינן And if you would say in response: This statement, that impurity is presumed only in the place in which it was discovered, applies specifically with regard to definite impure status, i.e., to burn teruma, but with regard to uncertain impurity, i.e., to suspend the status of teruma, we do in fact suspend its status and it may be neither burned nor eaten; is this distinction correct? Do we in fact suspend the status of ritually pure items in such a case, due to the concern that the dead man whom this individual touched might have already been dead in the first location?

והתנן מחט שנמצאת מלאה חלודה או שבורה טהורה שכל הטמאות כשעת מציאתן ואמאי לימא האי מעיקרא מחט מעלייתא היא והשתא הוא דהעלה חלודה But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Teharot 3:5): With regard to a previously impure needle that is found on top of teruma and it is full of rust or broken, and therefore no longer contracts or transmit ritual impurity, the teruma remains pure, as it is presumed that in all cases of impurity, the items in question had already been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered? But why should that be the case? Let us say that initially, when it had fallen onto the teruma, this needle was a proper, non-rusty and unbroken, needle, capable of contracting and transmitting ritual impurity, and it is only now that rust had formed on it. The status of the teruma should at least be held in suspension. Rather, it is evident that the teruma is considered definitely pure and is not held in suspension due to the possibility that it might have become impure from the nail at a previous time or, presumably, in a previous place.

ועוד תנן מצא שרץ שרוף על גבי הזיתים וכן מטלית המהומהם טהור שכל הטמאות כשעת מציאתן And furthermore, we learned in a mishna (Teharot 9:9): If one found the carcass of a burned creeping animal on top of a pile of olives, and that animal no longer transmits impurity as it is burned, and similarly if one finds a tattered rag of a zav, which likewise no longer transmits impurity, on top of a pile of olives, the olives are pure. The reason is that it is presumed in all cases of impurity, the items in question had already been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered. Once again, this demonstrates that when this presumption is applied, the item is considered definitely pure, and is not held in suspension due to uncertainty.

וכי תימא כשעת מציאתן בין לקולא בין לחומרא ובמקום מציאתן אבל שלא במקום מציאתן משרף לא שרפינן מתלא תלינן And if you would say that there is a difference between these last cases, where the items did not move, and the case of the basket that moved, this distinction is not correct. The suggestion is that in the last cases the items are treated entirely as if they had always been as they were at the time they were discovered, whether this leads to a leniency, as in the cases of the needle and the rag, and whether it leads to a stringency, in the case of one who touched someone at night, when he is considered to be definitely impure, but this is the halakha only with regard to the place where they were discovered, i.e., if they did not move. But with regard to a location that is not the place where they were discovered, we do suspect that ritual impurity moved from place to place, and therefore although we do not burn the teruma in question, we hold it in suspension.

והתנן ככר ע"ג הדף ומדף טמא מונח תחתיו אע"פ שאם נפלה א"א אלא א"כ נגעה טהורה שאני אומר אדם טהור נכנס לשם ונטלה The Gemara refutes this suggestion: But didn’t we learn in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 4:3): There was a loaf resting on top of a shelf, and there was an item of light impurity, e.g., a garment of a zav, which transmits impurity to food but not to people or vessels, lying underneath it, and the loaf was later found on the ground. Even though the situation was such that if the loaf fell to the ground it would be impossible for it to have done anything other than touch the impure garment on its way down, nevertheless the loaf is pure. The reason is that I say that a ritually pure man entered there and took it off the shelf and placed it onto the ground without it touching the impure garment.

עד שיאמר ברי לי שלא נכנס אדם שם וא"ר אלעזר לא נצרכה אלא למקום מדרון The baraita concludes: This ruling applies unless someone says: It is clear to me that no person entered there. And Rabbi Elazar says: This principle is necessary only when the top shelf is an inclined surface. In other words, even if it is very likely that the loaf rolled off the shelf and touched the garment on its way down to the ground, nevertheless it is assumed to be pure. This indicates that one does not presume that the loaf contracted impurity and then fell to the ground where it was found. Since such a possibility is not even entertained to the extent that the teruma is held in suspension, this demonstrates that in a case involving a movement from one place to another there is no presumption of ritual impurity at all.

התם כדקתני טעמא The Gemara explains that no proof can be cited from there, as that baraita explicitly teaches the reason for its ruling:

שאני אומר אדם טהור נכנס לשם ונטלה 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.

הכא נמי נימא עורב אתא ושדא אדם דבכונה אמרינן עורב דשלא בכונה לא אמרינן 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.

מכדי האי ככר ספק טומאה ברה"י הוא וכל ספק טומאה ברה"י ספקה טמא משום דהוי דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל וכל דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל בין ברה"ר בין ברשות היחיד ספקו טהור 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.

ואב"א הכא בטומאה דרבנן דיקא נמי דקתני מדף כדכתיב (ויקרא כו:לו) עלה נדף 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.

וחכ"א לא כדברי זה כו' ת"ר וחכ"א לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה לא כדברי שמאי שלא עשה סייג לדבריו ולא כדברי הלל שהפריז על מדותיו § 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.

אלא מעת לעת ממעטת על יד מפקידה לפקידה ומפקידה לפקידה ממעטת על יד מעת לעת 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.

מעת לעת ממעטת על יד מפקידה לפקידה כיצד בדקה עצמה באחד בשבת ומצאת טהורה וישבה שני ושלישי ולא בדקה ולרביעי בדקה ומצאה טמאה אין אומרים תטמא מפקידה לפקידה אלא מעת לעת 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.

ומפקידה לפקידה ממעטת על יד מעת לעת כיצד בדקה עצמה בשעה ראשונה ומצאת טהורה וישבה לה שניה ושלישית ולא בדקה ולרביעית בדקה ומצאה טמאה אין אומרים תטמא מעת לעת אלא מפקידה לפקידה 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.

פשיטא כיון דבדקה עצמה בשעה ראשונה ומצאת טהורה לא מטמינן לה מעת לעת איידי דתנא מעל"ע ממעטת על יד מפקידה לפקידה תנא נמי מפקידה לפקידה ממעטת על יד מעת לעת 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.

אמר רבה מאי טעמייהו דרבנן אשה מרגשת בעצמה א"ל אביי אם כן תהא דיה שעתה ורבה לחדודי לאביי הוא דבעי אלא מאי טעמייהו דרבנן 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?

כי הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חכמים תקנו להן לבנות ישראל שיהו בודקות עצמן שחרית וערבית שחרית להכשיר טהרות של לילה וערבית להכשיר טהרות של יום 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.

וזו הואיל ולא בדקה הפסידה עונה מאי עונה עונה יתירה 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.

א"ל רב פפא לרבא והא זימנין משכחת לה ג' עונות במעת לעת השוו חכמים מדותיהן שלא תחלוק במעת לעת 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.

איבעית אימא שלא יהא חוטא נשכר 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.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאתניסה ולא בדקה 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.

כל אשה שיש לה וסת [וכו'] לימא מתני' ר' דוסא היא ולא רבנן דתניא ר"א אומר ארבע נשים דיין שעתן בתולה מעוברת מניקה וזקנה ר' דוסא אומר כל אשה שיש לה וסת דיה שעתה § 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.

אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דר' דוסא אלא שלא בשעת וסתה אבל בשעת וסתה מודו ליה ומתניתין בשעת וסתה ודברי הכל 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.

מכלל דר' דוסא אפילו שלא בשעת וסתה אמר מאן תנא להא דת"ר אשה שיש לה וסת כתמה טמא למפרע שאם תראה שלא בשעת וסתה מטמאה מעת לעת 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.

נימא רבנן היא ולא רבי דוסא אפילו תימא רבי דוסא ע"כ לא פליג רבי דוסא עלייהו דרבנן אלא בשעת וסתה אבל שלא בשעת וסתה מודי להו ומתניתין בשעת וסתה ור' דוסא היא 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.

וברייתא דברי הכל 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.

ולוקמא איפכא 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.

כיון דאיכא לאוקומי לקולא ולחומרא לחומרא מוקמינן 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.

קתני שאם תראה שלא בשעת וסתה מטמאה מעת לעת טעמא דאשה שיש לה וסת הוא דפליגי רבנן בין כתמה לראייתה § 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.

הא שאר נשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן כראייתן 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.

מני רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס היא דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס כל הנשים כתמן טמא למפרע ונשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן כראייתן חוץ מתינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות שאפילו סדינין שלה מלוכלכין בדם אין חוששין לה 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.

ומי אית ליה לרבי חנינא כתם כלל והתניא כל הנשים כתמן טמא ונשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן טמא ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר נשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן אין להן כתם מאי לאו אין להן כתם כלל לא אין להן כתם למפרע אבל יש להן כתם מכאן ולהבא 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.

מכלל דתנא קמא סבר אפי' למפרע אין ר"מ היא דמחמיר גבי כתמים דתניא כל הנשים כתמן טמא למפרע ונשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן טמא למפרע דר"מ 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.

רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר נשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן כראייתן ותינוקת שהגיע זמנה לראות יש לה כתם ושלא הגיע זמנה לראות אין לה כתם ואימתי הגיע זמנה לראות משהגיעו ימי הנעורים 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.

והמשמשת בעדים כו' אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל עד שלפני תשמיש אינו ממעט כפקידה § 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.

מ"ט אמר רב קטינא מתוך שמהומה לביתה וכי מהומה לביתה מאי הוי מתוך שמהומה לביתה אינה מכנסת לחורין ולסדקין 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.

תנן המשמשת בעדים הרי זו כפקידה מאי לאו חד לפני תשמיש וחד לאחר תשמיש לא אידי ואידי לאחר תשמיש ואחד לו ואחד לה כדתנן דרך בנות ישראל משמשות בשני עדים אחד לו ואחד לה 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.

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא חד לפני תשמיש וחד לאחר תשמיש איצטריך סד"א מתוך שמהומה לביתה לא בדקה שפיר קמ"ל הרי זו כפקידה אלא אי אמרת אידי ואידי לאחר תשמיש פשיטא 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?

מהו דתימא שמא תראה טפת דם כחרדל ותחפנה שכבת זרע קמ"ל 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.

ואיבעית אימא שתי בדיקות אצרכוה רבנן חד לפני תשמיש וחד לאחר תשמיש וכי קתני הרי זו כפקיד' אלאחר תשמיש והא המשמשת קתני תני ומשמשת 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.

ממעטת על יד מעת לעת השתא מעת לעת ממעטת § 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,

מפקידה לפקידה מיבעיא is it necessary to teach that an examination reduces the time from examination to examination, which is less than twenty-four hours?

מהו דתימא מעת לעת חשו בה רבנן לפסידא דטהרות אבל מפקידה לפקידה לא קמ"ל The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary, lest you say that with regard to the significant passage of a twenty-four-hour period the Sages are concerned for the possible loss of ritually pure items, but with regard to the smaller period from examination to examination, the Sages are not concerned for the loss of pure items, and therefore the use of an examination cloth should not reduce the time of possible impurity between that and her next examination. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it does reduce this time.

כיצד דיה שעתה וכו' למה לי למיתני היתה יושבת במטה ועסקה בטהרות ליתני היתה עסוקה בטהרות ופרשה וראתה § The mishna teaches with regard to a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle: Her time is sufficient, how so? If the woman was sitting in a bed and engaged in handling ritually pure items, and she left the bed and saw blood, she is impure and those items are pure. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach: If the woman was sitting in a bed and engaged in handling pure items? Let the mishna teach the same ruling without mentioning the bed: If she was engaged in handling pure items and she left and saw blood. The detail that she was sitting in a bed is apparently superfluous.

הא קמ"ל טעמא דדיה שעתה הא מעת לעת מטה נמי מטמיא מסייע ליה לזעירי דאמר זעירי מעת לעת שבנדה עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים The Gemara answers: This detail teaches us that the reason why the bed is not rendered impure is that her time is sufficient and there is no retroactive impurity. It can be inferred that in a case where she is impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, her bed is also rendered impure. This supports the opinion of Ze’eiri, as Ze’eiri said: The level of impurity of the retroactive twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman renders impure a bed upon which she lies and a chair upon which she sits, to the extent that they transmit impurity to a person who comes in contact with them, to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing.

מכדי האי מטה דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל הוא וכל דבר שאין בו דעת לישאל ספקו טהור תרגמה זעירי כשחברותיה נושאות אותה במטה דהויא ליה יד חברותיה This Gemara raises a difficulty: Now, this bed upon which she sat is an entity that lacks consciousness in order for it to be asked, and the principle with regard to any entity that lacks consciousness in order for it to be asked is that the item with uncertain status is deemed pure. The Gemara explains: Ze’eiri interpreted his ruling as applying specifically to a case where her friends are carrying her in the bed, where the bed is considered as the extended hand of her friends. In other words, it is part of an entity that has consciousness in order for it to be asked, and therefore the item with uncertain status is deemed impure.

והשתא דא"ר יוחנן ספק טומאה הבאה בידי אדם נשאלין עליה אפי' בכלי מונח ע"ג קרקע כמי שיש בו דעת לישאל אע"פ שאין חברותיה נושאות אותה במטה The Gemara provides another answer: And now that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In a case of uncertain ritual impurity that comes about by the hand of a person, i.e., through his involvement, the owner of the vessel must consult a Sage about it, i.e., it is considered an entity that has consciousness in order for it to be asked, as in such a case even with regard to a vessel that is placed upon the ground, which is certainly incapable of providing an answer if asked, its halakhic status is like that of an item that has consciousness in order for it to be asked. With this statement in mind, one can explain that according to Ze’eiri a menstruating woman transmits impurity to a bed even though her friends are not carrying her in the bed. Rather, as the bed’s ritual impurity was caused by the hand of a person, it has the halakhic status of an item that has consciousness in order for it to be asked.

גופא א"ר יוחנן ספק טומאה הבאה בידי אדם נשאלים עליה אפי' בכלי המונח על גבי קרקע כמי שיש בו דעת לישאל § The Gemara discusses the matter of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement itself. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In a case of uncertain ritual impurity that comes about by the hand of man, its owner must consult a Sage about it, i.e., it is ritually impure, as in such a case even with regard to a vessel that is placed upon the ground, its halakhic status is like that of an item that has consciousness in order for it to be asked.

מיתיבי היה מתעטף בטליתו וטהרות וטומאות בצדו וטהרות וטומאות למעלה מראשו ספק נגע ספק לא נגע טהור ואם אי אפשר אא"כ נגע טמא The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 4:1): If a man who contracted ritual impurity was wrapping himself in his cloak and there were pure items beside him; or if he was pure and there were impure items beside him as he was wrapping his cloak; or if there were pure items and impure items above his head at the time and there is uncertainty whether he touched the impure items with his cloak and then touched the pure items with his cloak, and uncertainty whether it did not touch them, the halakha is that the pure items remain pure. But if it is impossible for him to have wrapped himself unless his cloak had touched the impure items in the process, then those previously pure items become impure.

רשב"ג אומר אומרים לו שנה ושונה אמרו לו אין שונים בטהרות The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that we say to him: Repeat your action. And he repeats the action of wrapping himself with his cloak, and it can then be determined whether or not the cloak and the other items came in contact with each other. The Rabbis said to him: We do not rely on repeated actions with regard to the determination of ritually pure items. Since the second action may not exactly mimic the first, it cannot be relied upon to determine ritual purity status.

אמאי הא ספק טומאה הבאה בידי אדם הוא The Gemara explains the objection: But according to the Rabbis, why is the halakha that the items in question remain pure? Isn’t this a case of uncertain ritual impurity that comes about by the hand of man, which, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, is considered as having consciousness in order for it to be asked? If so, these items should be ritually impure.

בר מיניה דההיא דתני רב הושעיא ברשות היחיד ספקו טמא ברשות הרבים טהור The Gemara answers: Except for that one, i.e., do not raise a difficulty from that baraita, since it is referring to a specific case. As Rav Hoshaya teaches with regard to an item whose purity status is uncertain: When it is in the private domain, the item with uncertain status is deemed impure; when it is in the public domain, it is deemed pure. The baraita is referring to an item located in the public domain. Consequently, even if it is considered as having consciousness in order to be asked, nevertheless it is pure, as its uncertainty occurred in the public domain.

גופא אמר זעירי מעת לעת שבנדה עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים § The Gemara analyzes the matter of Ze’eiri’s ruling itself. Ze’eiri says: The level of impurity assumed during the retroactive twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman renders a bed upon which she lies and a chair upon which she sits impure to the extent that they transmit impurity to a person who comes in contact with them to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing.

איני והא כי אתא אבימי מבי חוזאי אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה מעת לעת שבנדה משכבה ומושבה כמגעה מאי לאו מה מגעה לא מטמא אדם אף משכבה לא מטמא אדם The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Avimi came from Bei Ḥozai, he came and brought the following baraita with him: The level of impurity during the retroactive twenty-four-hour period of a menstruating woman renders her bed upon which she lies and her chair upon which she sits impure like the impurity level caused by her touch. The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not correct to say that this means that just as an item rendered impure by her touch does not render another person impure, so too, her bed does not render another person impure?

אמר רבא ותסברא קל וחומר הוא ומה כלי חרס המוקף צמיד פתיל הניצול באוהל המת אינו ניצול במעת לעת שבנדה משכבות ומושבות שאינן ניצולין באהל המת אינו דין שאין ניצולין במעת לעת שבנדה Rava says: And how can you understand it in that manner? There is an a fortiori inference here: And if an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover, which is spared from impurity when it is in a tent that has a corpse in it, is nevertheless not spared from impurity if the woman moved it during the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman and is impure as though she moved it after she experienced bleeding; so too, with regard to beds and chairs, which are not spared from impurity in a tent that has a corpse in it, is it not logical that they are also not spared from impurity when used during the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman and are impure as though she used them after she experienced bleeding?

והא אבימי מבי חוזאי מתניתא קאמר אימא משכבה ומושבה The Gemara asks: But Avimi from Bei Ḥozai cited a baraita that apparently does not accept Rava’s a fortiori inference. The Gemara answers: One can say that the baraita does not mean that her bed and chair are rendered impure with the light level of impurity caused by her touch, but rather: Her bed upon which she lies and her chair upon which she sits

כמגע עצמה מה מגע עצמה מטמא אדם לטמא בגדים אף משכבה ומושבה מטמא אדם לטמא בגדים are like her touch itself. Just as her touch transmits impurity to a person who comes in contact with them to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing, so too her bed and her chair transmit impurity to a person who comes in contact with them to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing.

תניא כוותיה דרבא הרואה דם מטמאה מעת לעת ומה היא מטמאה משכבות ומושבות אוכלין ומשקין וכלי חרס המוקף צמיד פתיל ואינה מקולקלת למנינה ואינה מטמאה את בועלה למפרע ר' עקיבא אומר מטמאה את בועלה ואינה מונה אלא משעה שראתה § It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If a woman sees menstrual blood, it renders her impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. And what does she render impure during that period? Beds and chairs, food and drink, and an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover [tzamid patil], if she moves it. But she does not disrupt her count of the periods of menstruation and ziva, i.e., she starts her cycle only from that day when she saw the blood, and she does not render impure retroactively a man who engaged in intercourse with her. Rabbi Akiva says: She does render impure a man who engaged in intercourse with her. And she counts her seven days of impurity only from the time that she saw her menstrual blood, not retroactively.

הרואה כתם מטמאה למפרע ומה היא מטמאה אוכלין ומשקין משכבות ומושבות וכלי חרס המוקף צמיד פתיל ומקולקלת למנינה ומטמאה את בועלה ואינה מונה אלא משעה שראתה The baraita continues: With regard to a woman who sees a blood stain, it renders her impure retroactive to when the garment was last checked. And what does she render impure during that period? Food and drink, beds and chairs, and an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover, if she moves it. And it also disrupts her count of eleven days during which emission of blood renders the woman a zava, as the time of the stain is unknown, and she renders ritually impure a man who engaged in intercourse with her. And she counts her seven days of impurity only from the time that she saw her menstrual blood, not retroactively.

וזה וזה תולין לא אוכלין ולא שורפין The baraita further teaches: With regard to both this, one who sees menstrual blood, and that, one who sees a blood stain, if they had touched teruma, its status is suspended. It is not eaten, as impure teruma is prohibited in consumption, but it is not burned either, since it is prohibited to burn pure teruma.

ורבא אי שמיע ליה מתניתא לימא מתניתא ואי לא שמיע ליה מתניתא קל וחומר מנא ליה The Gemara raises a difficulty: And as for Rava, why is the halakha of an earthenware vessel more obvious to him than the halakha of a bed and a chair? If he had heard this baraita, which states the halakha of an earthenware vessel, then let him say that the baraita itself is proof for his opinion with regard to a bed and a chair as well, as the baraita states both halakhot. And if he had not heard this baraita, from where did he learn his a fortiori inference, which is based on the halakha that an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover is not spared from impurity if a menstruating woman moved it during her twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity?

לעולם שמיע ליה מתניתא ואי ממתניתא הוה אמינא או אדם או בגדים אבל אדם ובגדים לא משום הכי קאמר ק"ו The Gemara answers: Actually, he did hear the baraita. But if his proof had been merely from the baraita, I would say that a different halakha applies to a bed and chair than to the earthenware vessels, as the baraita means that the bed and chair render impure a person or garments that they touch, but they do not render a person impure to the extent that he then transmits impurity to his garments. It is due to that reason that Rava says the a fortiori inference.

אמר רב הונא מעת לעת שבנדה לקדש אבל לא לתרומה אי הכי ליתני גבי מעלות כי קתני היכא דאית ליה דררא דטומאה אבל היכא דלית ליה דררא דטומאה לא קתני § Rav Huna says: The twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman applies only to sacrificial food but not to teruma. The Gemara asks: If so, let the mishna in Ḥagiga 20b teach this among the other higher levels of purity that apply to sacrificial foods but not to teruma. That mishna lists stringencies of ritual purity that are in effect with regard to sacrificial foods and not teruma. The Gemara answers: When that mishna teaches those higher levels of purity, it is referring only to types of impurity that have a connection [derara] to impurity as defined by Torah law. But it does not teach a case where there is no connection to impurity as defined by Torah law, and the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman is by rabbinic law.

מיתיבי מה היא מטמאה אוכלין ומשקין מאי לאו בין דקדש בין דתרומה לא דקדש The Gemara raises an objection from the aforementioned baraita that deals with the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman: What does she render impure during that period? Food and drink. The Gemara asks: What, is it not correct to say that this is referring both to sacrificial food and to teruma? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring only to sacrificial food, not to teruma.

תא שמע רבי יהודה אומר אף בשעת עברתן מלאכול בתרומה והוינן בה מאי דהוה הוה The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (11a): With regard to women of priestly families who must examine themselves before partaking of teruma, Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when they conclude partaking of teruma, they still need to examine themselves. And we discussed this statement of Rabbi Yehuda and asked: Why do they need to examine themselves after they finish eating teruma? What was, was; i.e., if a woman was impure when she ate the teruma, what is achieved by an examination now?

אמר רב חסדא לא נצרכה אלא לתקן שירים שבפניה And Rav Ḥisda says in explanation: It was necessary only in order to amend the situation of the remaining teruma that is left before her, i.e., to prevent it from being rendered ritually impure. In other words, if she later experiences a flow of menstrual blood, her retroactive impurity status will not render the remaining teruma impure. This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman affects only sacrificial foods, not teruma.

רב הונא מתני לישרוף שירים שבידיה שבדקה עצמה כשיעור וסת The Gemara answers: According to Rav Huna, Rabbi Yehuda teaches that since impure teruma must be burned, she must examine herself in order to determine whether it is correct to burn the remaining teruma that was in her hands. If she examined herself immediately after eating the teruma, in the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation (see 14b), and she found that she was impure, it is assumed as a certainty that she was impure when she ate the teruma. Consequently, the remaining teruma must be burned, in accordance with the halakha of teruma that was definitely rendered impure. But in fact, Rav Huna maintains that she does not render that remaining teruma impure retroactively, in a case where she did not examine herself.

ת"ש מעשה ועשה רבי כר"א The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: There was an incident in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi performed an action by ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating any longer, and therefore any menstrual blood that she emits later renders her ritually impure only from then onward, but not retroactively. By contrast, the Rabbis contend that this halakha applies only to an older woman, for whom it is natural to stop menstruating, but not to a young woman, even if three typical periods have passed without bleeding.

לאחר שנזכר אמר כדי הוא ר"א לסמוך עליו The baraita continues: After Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that Rabbi Eliezer’s colleagues disagree with Rabbi Eliezer on this matter and that he had apparently ruled incorrectly, he nevertheless said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy [kedai] to rely upon

בשעת הדחק והוינן בה מאי לאחר שנזכר אילימא לאחר שנזכר דאין הלכה כרבי אליעזר אלא כרבנן בשעת הדחק היכי עביד כותיה in exigent circumstances [bishe’at hadeḥak]. And we discussed it and asked: What is the meaning of: After he remembered? If we say that this means after he remembered that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer but in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, if so, how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi act in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer even in exigent circumstances, since the halakha has been decided against him?

אלא (לאו) דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר וכיון שנזכר דלאו יחיד פליג עליה אלא רבים פליגי עליה אמר כדי הוא רבי אליעזר לסמוך עליו בשעת הדחק Rather, is it not correct that the halakha had not been stated on this matter, neither in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, nor in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, i.e., the Rabbis. And once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that it was not a single authority who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, but it was several Sages who disagreed with him, and there is a principle that the halakha follows the opinion of the many over that of an individual, he nevertheless said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances.

אי אמרת בשלמא לתרומה היינו דהואי תרומה בימי רבי אלא אי אמרת לקדש קדש בימי רבי מי הואי The Gemara explains the proof from the baraita: Granted, if you say that it was a case of a menstruating woman who had touched teruma during the previous twenty-four hours, this is fine, as teruma still existed in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But if you say that it was a case of a woman who touched sacrificial food, was there still sacrificial food in days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, after the destruction of the Temple? Clearly, the case involved teruma, and according to the Rabbis, whose opinion is accepted as halakha, this woman who had skipped three menstrual cycles nevertheless renders teruma impure retroactively. This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna.

כדעולא דאמר עולא חבריא מדכן בגלילא הכא נמי בימי רבי The Gemara answers: This can be answered in accordance with the testimony of Ulla, as Ulla said: Ḥaverim purify their wine and oil in the Galilee, i.e., they produce their wine and oil by the standards of purity used for sacrificial food, in the hope that the Temple will be rebuilt in their lifetime. Here, too, in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there were those who kept the standards of purity observed for sacrificial food.

ת"ש מעשה בשפחתו של רבן גמליאל שהיתה אופה ככרות של תרומה ובין כל אחת ואחת מדיחה ידה במים ובודקת באחרונה בדקה ומצאה טמאה ובאת ושאלה את רבן גמליאל ואמר לה כולן טמאות אמרה לו רבי והלא בדיקה היתה לי בין כל אחת ואחת אמר לה א"כ היא טמאה וכולן טהורות The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: There was an incident involving the maidservant of Rabban Gamliel, who was baking loaves of teruma bread. And in between each and every one she would wash her hand in water and examine herself. After the last one she examined herself and found that she was impure due to menstrual blood, and she came and asked Rabban Gamliel about the status of the loaves. And he said to her: They are all impure, due to her retroactive impurity for the previous twenty-four hours. She said to him: My teacher, didn’t I perform an examination in between each and every one? Rabban Gamliel said to her: If so, then this last one is impure and the rest are all pure, as your retroactive impurity is reduced until the time of the most recent examination.

קתני מיהת ככרות של תרומה מאי תרומה תרומת לחמי תודה תרומת לחמי תודה באפיה מאי בעיא The Gemara explains the difficulty: In any event, the baraita teaches that the case involved loaves of teruma bread. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rabban Gamliel applied retroactive impurity in a case of teruma. The Gemara answers: What is meant by: Teruma? It means teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, i.e., the four loaves of the thanks offering that were separated from the total of forty and eaten by the priests. These are sacrificial foods, not teruma. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this interpretation: What was she doing baking the teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering alone? All forty loaves of the thanks offering are baked together, and only afterward are four set aside as teruma to be eaten by priests.

דאפרשינהו בלישייהו וכי הא דאמר רב טובי בר רב קטינא לחמי תודה שאפאן ד' חלות יצא והוינן בה והא בעינן ארבעים למצוה The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where dough for the teruma loaves was separated and designated for the priests during its kneading. And this halakha is in accordance with that which Rav Tovi bar Rav Ketina said: If one baked the loaves of the thanks offering as four loaves, rather than the requisite forty loaves, he has fulfilled his obligation. And we discussed it and asked: Isn’t one required to bring forty loaves with the thanks offering, ten loaves of each of the four different types? The Gemara answers: One must bake forty loaves in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation with four loaves, one of each type.

והא בעינן אפרושי תרומה מינייהו וכי תימא דמפריש פרוסה מכל חד וחד אחד אמר רחמנא שלא יטול פרוסה ואמרינן דאפרשינהו בלישייהו הכא נמי דאפרשינהו בלישייהו The Gemara continues its answer by further elucidating the statement of Rav Tovi bar Rav Ketina. And we asked with regard to this opinion: But he is required to separate teruma from it, i.e., to designate one loaf from each type that is given to the priests. And if you would say that he separates a slice from each one of the four loaves and gives them to the priest, this cannot be the case, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift to the Lord; it shall be the priest’s” (Leviticus 7:14). The word “one” indicates that he may not take a slice, but rather he takes a complete loaf. The Gemara answers: Rather, we must say that he separated dough for the teruma loaves during its kneading. Here too, in the incident involving Rabban Gamliel’s maidservant, she separated the dough during its kneading.

ת"ש שוב מעשה בשפחה של רבן גמליאל שהיתה גפה חביות של יין ובין כל אחת ואחת מדיחה ידיה במים ובודקת ובאחרונה בדקה ומצאה טמאה ובאת ושאלה לרבן גמליאל ואמר לה כולן טמאות אמרה לו והלא בדיקה היתה לי בין כל אחת ואחת אמר לה אם כן היא טמאה וכולן טהורות The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: There was another incident involving the maidservant of Rabban Gamliel who was sealing barrels of wine. And in between each and every one she would wash her hands in water and examine herself. And after the last one she examined herself and found that she was ritually impure, and she came and asked Rabban Gamliel about the wine. And he said to her: They are all impure. She said to him: My teacher, didn’t I perform an examination in between each and every one? Rabban Gamliel said to her: If so, this last one is impure and the rest are all pure.

אי אמרת בשלמא חדא דקדש וחדא דתרומה היא היינו דהדרה ושיילה אלא אי אמרת אידי ואידי דקדש למה לה למהדר ולשייליה מעשה שהיה בשתי שפחות היה The Gemara clarifies the difficulty with regard to Rav Huna’s opinion: Granted, if you say that one incident involved a case of sacrificial food and one incident involved a case of teruma, this is the reason that she returned and again asked Rabban Gamliel what to do. But if you say that both this incident and that incident involved sacrificial food, why did she need to return and ask him the same question a second time? The Gemara answers: Each incident that occurred was with sacrificial food and they happened with two different maidservants.

לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה אמר רב הונא מעת לעת שבנדה מטמאה בין לקדש ובין לתרומה ממאי מדלא קתני לה גבי מעלות א"ל רב נחמן והא תני תנא לקדש אבל לא לתרומה Some say another version of Rav Huna’s statement. Rav Huna says: During the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman, she renders impure both sacrificial food and teruma. The Gemara asks: From where is this derived? The Gemara answers: It can be inferred from the fact that the mishna in Ḥagiga (20b) does not teach this matter among the other matters where higher levels of purity are required only for sacrificial foods but not for teruma. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: But doesn’t the tanna explicitly teach in a baraita: The retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman applies only with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma?

קבלה מיניה רב שמואל בר רב יצחק בחולין שנעשו על טהרת קדש ולא בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה The Gemara answers: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak received the following explanation from Rav Naḥman: The baraita means that this retroactive impurity applies to non-sacred food that was prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, but not to non-sacred food that was prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma. It does apply to teruma itself.

תנן התם נולד לה ספק טומאה עד שלא גלגלה תעשה בטומאה משגלגלה תעשה בטהרה § With regard to a non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma, we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Ḥalla 3:2): In a case of dough where uncertainty developed as to whether it was ritually impure, if the uncertainty developed before it was kneaded, it may be prepared even in definite impurity, i.e., with impure vessels. If it developed after it was kneaded, it must be prepared in purity.

עד שלא גלגלה תעשה בטומאה חולין נינהו ומותר לגרום טומאה לחולין שבארץ ישראל משגלגלה תעשה בטהרה חולין הטבולין לחלה כחלה דמו ואסור לגרום טומאה לחלה The baraita elaborates: Before it was kneaded it may be prepared even in definite impurity because it is non-sacred food, and the halakha is that it is permitted to cause impurity to non-sacred food in Eretz Yisrael. After it was kneaded it must be prepared in purity, since non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to the obligation to separate ḥalla, i.e., its ḥalla has not yet been separated, is considered like ḥalla, and it is prohibited to cause impurity to ḥalla.

תנא It is taught in a baraita:

וחלתה תלויה לא אוכלין ולא שורפין באיזה ספק אמרו בספק חלה מאי ספק חלה And as the ḥalla of this kneaded, untithed dough is in a state of uncertain purity, its status is suspended: It is neither eaten like ritually pure ḥalla, nor is it burned like impure ḥalla. With regard to which uncertainty did they state this halakha? With regard to ḥalla of uncertain status. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the concept of ḥalla of uncertain status? This apparently indicates a scenario of possible ritual impurity that applies specifically to ḥalla, not to non-sacred food.

אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו שלא תאמר בהוכחות שנינו כמו שני שבילין דהתם חולין גרידא נמי מטמו Abaye and Rava both say: One should not say that we learned this case of ḥalla of uncertain status among the cases of equal proofs, i.e., an unresolvable uncertainty, such as the case of two paths, where someone walked down one of two paths, one of which was ritually impure and the other ritually pure, and he does not remember which one he walked down. As there, even regular non-sacred food is also rendered ritually impure due to uncertainty.

אלא בנשען דתנן זב וטהור שהיו פורקין מן החמור או טוענין בזמן שמשאן כבד טמא משאן קל טהור וכולן טהורין לבני הכנסת וטמאין לתרומה Rather, the uncertainty referred to here is similar to the less likely case of leaning, as we learned in a mishna (Zavim 3:2): In a case of a zav and a ritually pure person who were unloading a package from a donkey or who were loading a package onto a donkey, when their package is heavy the pure person is rendered impure, as perhaps the zav leaned on him while they handled the package together. If their package is light, he remains pure. And in all those cases, he remains ritually pure even if he is one of the members of a synagogue whose congregants handle non-sacred food according to the standards of sacrificial food, as this is not a true case of a zav moving a pure person. But he is impure with regard to matters involving teruma, by rabbinic law.

וחולין הטבולין לחלה כחלה דמו והתניא אשה שהיא טבולת יום לשה את העיסה וקוצה הימנה חלתה ומניחתה בכפישה או באנחותא ומקפת וקורא לה שם The Gemara asks: And is non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to the obligation to separate ḥalla really considered like ḥalla to the extent that it is rendered impure even in a case of leaning? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, she may separate ḥalla: She may knead the dough, and separate its ḥalla from it, and place the separated dough into a wicker basket or a wooden board [be’anḥuta], and subsequently she may bring it near the rest of the dough, and she may then designate it ḥalla by name.

מפני שהוא שלישי ושלישי טהור בחולין ואי אמרת חולין הטבולין לחלה כחלה דמו הא טמיתנהו The baraita continues: The reason that this is allowed, despite her impurity, is because the dough is impure by third-degree ritual impurity, and an item that has third-degree impurity is considered pure with regard to non-sacred food. The Gemara concludes its question: And if you say that non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to the obligation to separate ḥalla is considered like ḥalla, then she should render it impure with her touch, just as she would render actual ḥalla impure.

אמר אביי כל שודאי מטמא חולין גזרו על ספקו משום חולין הטבולין לחלה והאי טבול יום כיון דלא מטמא ודאי חולין לא גזרו עליו משום חולין הטבולין לחלה Abaye says: With regard to any item that when it is definitely impure renders non-sacred food impure, as in the case of the zav, the Sages issued a decree that its uncertain impurity should also render non-sacred food items impure, due to its status as non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to ḥalla. But with regard to this case of one who immersed that day, since even when she is definitely impure she does not render non-sacred food impure, they did not issue a decree that she should render that dough impure due to its status as non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to ḥalla.

והא מעת לעת שבנדה דודאי מטמא חולין ולא גזרו על ספקה משום חולין הטבולין לחלה The Gemara asks: But what about the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman? As a definitely impure menstruating woman renders non-sacred food impure and nevertheless with regard to untithed dough the Sages did not issue a decree to treat her uncertain impurity as definite impurity due to the dough’s status as non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to ḥalla.

דאמר מר קבלה מיניה רב שמואל בר רב יצחק בחולין שנעשו על טהרת קדש ולא בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה The Gemara cites its source for this claim: As the Master said: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak received from Rav Naḥman: The retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman transmits impurity to non-sacred food items that were prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, but not to non-sacred food items that were prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma. It is assumed that the level of purity required for non-sacred food items prepared according to the standards required of teruma is the same as that of dough from which ḥalla has not been separated, i.e., it is not treated as real ḥalla, which is rendered impure by her retroactive twenty-four-hour period of impurity.

התם לא פתיכא בהו תרומה הכא פתיכא בהו תרומה The Gemara answers: The level of purity required for non-sacred food items that were prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma is actually lower than the level required for dough from which ḥalla has not been separated. The reason is that there, in the case of non-sacred food items, there is no actual teruma mixed in it. By contrast, here, in the case of untithed dough, there is teruma, i.e., ḥalla, mixed in it, which will eventually be separated from this dough.

ואיבעית אימא הנח מעת לעת דרבנן If you wish, say instead: Leave aside the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman, as it applies by rabbinic law. One cannot raise a difficulty against the principle that untithed dough is treated with the same level of purity as ḥalla from the case of the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman, since that retroactive impurity is a rabbinic decree, and therefore there is more room for leniency.

מתני׳ רבי אליעזר אומר ארבע נשים דיין שעתן בתולה מעוברת מניקה וזקינה אמר רבי יהושע אני לא שמעתי אלא בתולה MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: Unlike the women with regard to whom it was taught that they transmit impurity retroactively, there are four women who discern menstrual blood and their time is sufficient, i.e., they transmit impurity only from the moment that they saw the blood: A virgin, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, and an elderly woman. Rabbi Yehoshua says: I heard this halakha from my teachers only with regard to a virgin,

אבל הלכה כרבי אליעזר but the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

איזו היא בתולה כל שלא ראתה דם מימיה אע"פ שנשואה מעוברת משיודע עוברה מניקה עד שתגמול את בנה נתנה בנה למניקה גמלתו או מת ר"מ אומר מטמאה מעת לעת וחכ"א דיה שעתה Who is the woman characterized as a virgin in this context? It is any woman who has not seen the flow of menstrual blood in all her days, even if she was married and has experienced bleeding as a result of intercourse consummating her marriage. The time of a pregnant woman is from the point in her pregnancy when the existence of her fetus is known to all who see her. The time of a nursing woman is until she weans her child from nursing. If she stopped nursing, e.g., she gave her child to a wet nurse, weaned him from nursing, or her child died, and she saw menstrual blood, Rabbi Meir says: She transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from her most recent examination. And the Rabbis say: Even in those cases, her time is sufficient.

איזוהי זקנה כל שעברו עליה שלש עונות סמוך לזקנתה רבי אליעזר אומר כל אשה שעברו עליה שלש עונות דיה שעתה רבי יוסי אומר מעוברת ומניקה שעברו עליהן שלש עונות דיין שעתן Who is the woman characterized as an elderly woman in this context? It is any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed during which she saw no menstrual blood, at a stage of her life close to her old age. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles passed during which she saw no menstrual blood, if she then experiences bleeding, her time is sufficient. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if they then saw blood, their time is sufficient.

ובמה אמר דיה שעתה בראייה ראשונה אבל בשניה מטמאה מעת לעת ואם ראתה הראשונה מאונס אף השניה דיה שעתה And in the above cases, with regard to what did the tanna say her time is sufficient? It is with regard to the first sighting of blood, but with regard to the second sighting, her status is like that of any other woman, and she transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from her most recent examination. And if she saw the first sighting as a result of unnatural circumstances, even with regard to the second sighting, the halakha is that her time is sufficient.

גמ׳ תניא אמר לו רבי אליעזר לרבי יהושע אתה לא שמעת אני שמעתי אתה לא שמעת אלא אחת ואני שמעתי הרבה GEMARA: Rabbi Eliezer teaches in the mishna that there are four women who transmit impurity only from the moment that they saw menstrual blood, not retroactively. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard this halakha from my teachers only with regard to a virgin. The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: You did not hear, but I did hear it. In other words, you may not have received a tradition from your teachers with regard to any other woman, but I did receive such a tradition. Furthermore, you heard a halakhic ruling with regard to only one woman, and I heard rulings with regard to many women.

אין אומרים למי שלא ראה את החדש יבא ויעיד אלא למי שראהו כל ימיו של רבי אליעזר היו עושין כרבי יהושע לאחר פטירתו של רבי אליעזר החזיר רבי יהושע את הדבר ליושנו Rabbi Eliezer continued his rebuttal with a metaphor from the practice of sanctifying the new moon, which required the testimony of witnesses: We do not say to one who had not seen the new moon to come and testify. Rather we give such an instruction only to he who saw it. Similarly, my opinion is weightier with regard to this issue, as I heard many rulings about the matter, whereas you did not. The Gemara reports: All the days of the life of Rabbi Eliezer, they would practice in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, i.e., only a virgin would be exempt from retroactive impurity. After Rabbi Eliezer’s passing, Rabbi Yehoshua returned the matter to its former custom, which was to follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

כרבי אליעזר בחייו מ"ט לא משום דרבי אליעזר שמותי הוא וסבר אי עבדינן כוותיה בחדא עבדינן כוותיה באחרנייתא The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they did not act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer during his lifetime? The Gemara answers: Because Rabbi Eliezer was a Shammuti, i.e., a follower of the rulings of Beit Shammai, and the halakha is generally in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in their disputes with Beit Shammai. And the Sages held that if we act in accordance with his opinion in one matter, people will act in accordance with his opinion in other matters.

ומשום כבודו דר"א לא מצינן מחינן בהו לאחר פטירתו של ר"א דמצינו מחינן בהו החזיר את הדבר ליושנו And that would be a problem, as if so, then during his lifetime, due to the honor of Rabbi Eliezer, we will not be able to protest against them. But after Rabbi Eliezer’s passing, when we are able to protest against those who act in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion in other matters, Rabbi Yehoshua returned the matter to its former custom of deciding the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in this matter.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי אליעזר בארבע חדא דאמרן § The Gemara mentions other instances in which the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases. One is the halakha that we just mentioned, of the four women who transmit ritual impurity only from the time of their sighting and onward.

ואידך המקשה כמה תשפה ותהא זבה מעת לעת דברי ר"א והלכה כדבריו And another is taught in a baraita with regard to a woman who experiences labor pain as a result of which she sees a flow of blood. Her discharge is attributed to childbirth rather than zava blood. The baraita asks: For how long must she be relieved from pain in order to be considered a zava due to her flow of uterine blood? She must have relief for a twenty-four-hour period. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the halakha is in accordance with his statement.

ואידך הזב והזבה שבדקו עצמן יום ראשון ומצאו טהור יום שביעי ומצאו טהור ושאר הימים לא בדקו רבי אליעזר אומר הרי אלו בחזקת טהרה רבי יהושע אומר אין להן אלא יום הראשון ויום השביעי בלבד And another case in which the halakha follows Rabbi Eliezer is taught in a mishna (68b): A zav and a zava must observe seven days without a discharge in order to attain ritual purity. With regard to a zav or a zava who examined themselves on the first day and found themselves to be pure, and they examined themselves on the seventh day and found themselves to be pure, but on the rest of the intervening days they did not examine themselves, Rabbi Eliezer says: The presumptive status of the zav and the zava is one of ritual purity. Rabbi Yehoshua says: In that case, the zav and the zava have counted only the first day and the seventh day, two of the seven clean days, and they must count another five days to complete the tally.

רבי עקיבא אומר אין להם אלא יום שביעי בלבד ותניא ר"ש ורבי יוסי אומרים נראין דברי רבי אליעזר מדברי רבי יהושע ודברי ר"ע מדברי כולן אבל הלכה כר' אליעזר The mishna continues: Rabbi Akiva says: Since any impure discharge that they might have experienced in between the first and seventh days would negate their count and require them to restart the seven-day period, the zav and the zava have counted only the seventh day, and must count another six days to complete the tally. And with regard to this dispute, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosei say: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears more correct than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, and the statement of Rabbi Akiva appears more correct than the statement of all of them. But the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

ואידך דתנן אחורי כלים שנטמאו במשקין ר' אליעזר אומר מטמאין את המשקין ואין פוסלין את האוכלין מטמאין את המשקין ואפילו דחולין ואין פוסלין את האוכלין ואפילו דתרומה רבי יהושע אומר מטמאין את המשקין ופוסלין את האוכלין And the other case in which the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 8:7): With regard to the exterior of vessels that contracted ritual impurity through contact with impure liquids, i.e., with liquids that had touched the carcass of a creeping animal, Rabbi Eliezer says, with regard to this impurity that applies by rabbinic law: These exteriors transmit impurity to liquids that come in contact with them, but they do not disqualify foods with which they come into contact. The mishna elaborates: They transmit impurity to other liquids, and even non-sacred liquids. And they do not disqualify foods, and even teruma. Rabbi Yehoshua says: These exteriors transmit impurity to liquids and they disqualify teruma foods, as well.

א"ר יהושע ק"ו ומה טבול יום שאין מטמא משקה חולין פוסל אוכלי תרומה אחורי כלים שמטמא משקה חולין אינו דין שפוסל אוכלי תרומה Rabbi Yehoshua says: I derived my ruling via an a fortiori inference from the halakha of one who was ritually impure, who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed. And if one who immersed that day, who has second-degree ritual impurity status and therefore he does not transmit impurity to non-sacred liquids, nevertheless disqualifies teruma foods with which he comes into contact, then with regard to the exteriors of vessels, which do transmit impurity to non-sacred liquids, is it not logical that they should render teruma food disqualified?

ורבי אליעזר אחורי כלים דרבנן וטבול יום דאורייתא ורבנן מדאורייתא לא עבדינן קל וחומר דמדאורייתא אין אוכל מטמא כלי ואין משקה מטמא כלי The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, how does he refute this inference? The Gemara answers: He would counter that the halakha that the exterior of vessels are rendered impure through contact with impure foods or liquids is by rabbinic law, and the halakhot of one who immersed that day apply by Torah law. And there is a principle that one does not apply a fortiori inferences to derive conclusions by rabbinic law from cases that apply by Torah law. As by Torah law impure foods do not transmit impurity to vessels, and similarly, impure liquids do not transmit impurity to vessels.

ורבנן הוא דגזור גזרה משום משקין דזב וזבה משקין דעלולין לקבל טומאה גזרו בהו רבנן אוכלין דאין עלולין לקבל טומאה לא גזרו בהו רבנן The Gemara continues: And it was the Sages who issued a decree that the exterior of a vessel is rendered impure when it comes into contact with impure liquids, and they decreed that only liquids, not foods, are rendered impure when they come into contact with impure vessel exteriors. The reason for this is due to the liquids secreted by a zav or zava, e.g., their saliva and urine, which have a primary degree of ritual impurity and therefore transmit impurity to vessels. Consequently, with regard to liquids, which are apt to contract impurity, the Sages issued a decree that they contract impurity when they come in contact with these impure vessel exteriors. But with regard to foods, which are not as apt to contract impurity, as they must first be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid, the Sages did not issue such a decree with regard to them.

ומאי שנא אחורי כלים דנקט משום דקילי דתנן כלי שנטמא מאחוריו במשקין אחוריו טמא תוכו אזנו אוגנו ידיו טהורין נטמא תוכו כולו טמא The Gemara raises a difficulty: Rabbi Eliezer agrees that if the interior of a vessel is rendered impure by contact with impure liquids, it renders impure any teruma foods that come into contact with it. But what is different about the exterior of vessels, that Rabbi Eliezer cited them as having a more lenient status? The Gemara answers: This is due to the fact that their halakhot are more lenient than those of the other parts of the vessel. As we learned in a mishna (Kelim 25:6): With regard to a vessel whose exterior was rendered impure by contact with impure liquids, its exterior is impure, while its others parts, such as its interior, its ear, i.e., its looped handle, its rim, the edge of the vessel that protrudes outward, and its handles, are pure. But if its interior was rendered impure, it is all impure.

מאי קמ"ל שמואל בכולהו תנן הלכתא These are the four cases with regard to which Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: What is Shmuel teaching us? In all of these cases we learned explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

וכי תימא אחורי כלים קמ"ל דלא תנן ולימא הלכה כר"א באחורי כלים אלא הא קמ"ל שאין למדין הלכה מפי תלמוד And if you would say that he is teaching us the halakha with regard to the exterior of vessels, whose halakha we did not learn from the mishna, let Shmuel simply state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the exterior of vessels. The Gemara explains: Rather, this is what Shmuel teaches us: That a final halakha may not be learned directly from the Talmud, i.e., from a statement of a mishna or baraita that the halakha is in accordance with a specific opinion, unless the ruling is confirmed by amora’im.

ותו ליכא והאיכא דתנן ר"א אומר The Gemara asks: And is there nothing more that can be added to the list of cases in which the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? But isn’t there another case that we learned in a mishna (Yevamot 109a): Two brothers married two sisters, one an adult and the other a minor. If the husband of the adult dies, the Torah obligation of levirate marriage applies to the other brother, which is not abrogated by the rabbinic prohibition of the yevama as the sister of his minor wife. In such a case, Rabbi Eliezer says:

מלמדין את הקטנה שתמאן בו ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' אליעזר כי אמר שמואל הלכה כר' אליעזר בד' בסדר טהרות אבל בשאר סדרים איכא טובא We instruct the minor, i.e., the surviving brother’s wife, to refuse to continue to stay married to him so that her marriage is dissolved, and he may then enter into levirate marriage with her adult sister, the widow of his childless brother. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara explains: When Shmuel says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases, what he meant was four cases within Seder Teharot in the Mishna, the order that deals with ritual purity. But in the other orders, there are many instances where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

וה"נ מסתברא דתנן ר' אליעזר אומר אף הרודה ונותן לסל הסל מצרפן לחלה ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר"א ש"מ The Gemara adds: This too stands to reason, as we learned in a mishna in the order of Zera’im (Ḥalla 2:4) that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even with regard to one who removes loaves of bread from an oven and places them in a basket, the basket serves to combine them to reach the quantity from which one is required to separate ḥalla, despite the fact that each of the loaves does not contain the necessary measure for ḥalla on its own. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Conclude from this that Shmuel’s general statement applies only to Seder Teharot.

ומאי אולמיה דהאי מהאי משום דקאי רבי אלעזר כותיה The Gemara raises a difficulty: The case of ḥalla was cited as proof that there is an exception to Shmuel’s principle that there are only four cases where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, after a difficulty was raised from the case of levirate marriage with the sister of one’s minor wife. But in what way is this case of ḥalla greater proof than that case of the levirate marriage? Neither case appears in Seder Teharot. The Gemara answers: The case of the levirate marriage is different, as there Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

דתנן רבי אלעזר אומר מלמדין את הקטנה שתמאן בו As we learned in the mishna (Yevamot 111b): A yavam may perform levirate marriage with only one of his deceased brother’s wives. Once he does so, the other wives are forbidden to him, because they had been married to his brother. If a deceased brother had two wives, an adult and a minor, and the yavam engaged in sexual intercourse with the minor and then engaged in intercourse with the adult, the Rabbis maintain that he disqualifies the minor from staying married to him, as her levirate bond is uncertain, and the adult wife is also prohibited to him, because the levirate marriage with the minor is considered effective by rabbinic law. Rabbi Elazar says: The court instructs the minor to refuse him, thereby annulling her marriage retroactively, and he may then perform levirate marriage with the adult. Accordingly, the case of ḥalla is a stronger example, as there the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer exclusively, as his opinion is not supported by another tanna.

ומי קאי והא אצרכו מצרכינן להו ולא דמיין להדדי אלא משום דקאי רבי יהודה בן בבא כותיה The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Elazar in fact hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? But doesn’t the Gemara (Yevamot 111b) explain that both the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar are necessary, as they apply to different cases, and therefore they are not comparable to each other? The Gemara suggests a new answer: Rather, the ruling with regard to levirate marriage is a weaker example of a case where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer because Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with his opinion.

דתניא רבי יהודה בן בבא העיד ה' דברים שממאנים את הקטנות As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified about five matters of halakha: Normally, marriage refusals of girls married off by their mother or brothers are discouraged. Yet, in specific instances where it is clear that if the marriage were to remain in effect it would engender problems related to levirate marriage and ḥalitza, the court persuades minor girls to refuse to continue living with their husbands, thereby resolving the complications involved in the case.

ושמשיאין את האשה ע"פ עד אחד ושנסקל תרנגול בירושלים על שהרג את הנפש ועל יין בן מ' יום שנתנסך ע"ג המזבח ועל תמיד של שחר שקרב בד' שעות And he also testified that one may allow a woman who seeks to remarry after hearing of her husband’s death to marry based on the testimony of one witness, as opposed to the two witnesses required for other matters of testimony. And he further testified that a rooster was stoned to death in Jerusalem for killing a person, in order to teach that the Torah law requiring the stoning of an ox that killed a person (see Exodus 21:28) applies to other animals as well. And he testified about forty-day-old wine that was used for libation on the altar. And finally, he testified about the daily morning offering that was sacrificed at four hours of the day.

מאי קטנות לאו חדא דר' אלעזר וחד דר' אליעזר לא מאי קטנות קטנות דעלמא The Gemara concludes its proof: When the baraita teaches that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified that the court persuades minor girls to refuse to continue living with their husbands, what is the significance of the reference to minor girls in the plural? Is this not referring to the one minor girl who is the subject of the ruling of Rabbi Elazar and the other one that is the subject of the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer? Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the minor’s refusal. If so, this ruling is a weaker proof that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in cases outside of Seder Teharot. The Gemara answers: No, what is meant by the plural: Minor girls? It means minor girls in general, i.e., all minor girls in such cases where the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies.

אי הכי גבי אשה נמי נתני נשים ונימא נשים דעלמא אלא מדהכא קתני אשה והכא קתני קטנות ש"מ דוקא קתני ש"מ The Gemara challenges: If so, with regard to the halakha listed in the baraita that one may allow a woman to marry based on the testimony of one witness, let it also teach: Women, in the plural, and we will say that it is referring to women in general. Rather, from the fact that here it teaches: A woman, and yet here it teaches: Minor girls, conclude from this discrepancy that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava is teaching his ruling specifically about two minor girls: The one who is the subject of Rabbi Elazar’s ruling and the one who is the subject of Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling. The Gemara comments: Indeed, conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

וכן א"ר אלעזר הלכה כר"א בד' ותו ליכא והתנן רבי אליעזר אומר מלמדין את הקטנה שתמאן בו וא"ר אלעזר הלכה כר"א וכי תימא כי א"ר אלעזר הלכה כר"א בד' בסדר טהרות אבל בשאר סדרי איכא ומי איכא § And similarly, Rabbi Elazar says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases. The Gemara asks: And are there no more? But didn’t we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: The court instructs the minor to refuse to stay married to him, and Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? The Gemara adds: And if you would say that when Rabbi Elazar said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases, he meant four cases within Seder Teharot, but in the other orders of the Mishna there are many cases, are there really other such cases?

והתנן הורד והכופר והלטום והקטף יש להן שביעית ולדמיהן שביעית יש להן ביעור ולדמיהן ביעור וא"ר פדת מאן תנא קטפא פירא ר"א But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Shevi’it 7:6) that the halakha of the following fragrant plants: The rose, the henna, the rockrose, and the balsam, is that they have the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, and money exchanged for them has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Additionally, they have the halakha of eradication and money exchanged for them has the halakha of eradication. And with regard to this mishna, Rabbi Pedat said: Who is the tanna who taught that balsam has the status of a fruit, and is not merely sap, and therefore it has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year? It is Rabbi Eliezer.

וא"ר זירא חזי דמינך ומאבוך קשריתו קטפא לעלמא את אמרת מאן תנא קטפא פירא ר"א ואבוך אמר הלכה כר"א בד' The Gemara continues: And Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Pedat: One can see that from you and from your father, i.e., between the two of you, you have permitted balsam to the world, since the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer is certainly not accepted. As you said: Who is the tanna who taught that balsam has the status of a fruit? It is Rabbi Eliezer. And your father, Rabbi Elazar, said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in only four cases.

ואם איתא לימא ליה כי אמר אבא הלכה כר"א בד' בסדר טהרות אבל בשאר סדרי איכא The Gemara explains the difficulty: And if it is so, that Rabbi Elazar was referring only to Seder Teharot, then let Rabbi Pedat say to Rabbi Zeira: When my father said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in four cases, he meant only four cases within Seder Teharot, but in the other orders there are other such cases. From the fact that Rabbi Pedat did not reply in this manner, evidently there are no cases in the other orders of the Mishna where, according to Rabbi Elazar, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

אלא קשיא ההיא משום דקאי רבי אלעזר כותיה דתנן רבי אלעזר אומר מלמדים את הקטנה שתמאן בו The Gemara asks: But that case, where the amora Rabbi Elazar said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to persuading a minor to refuse to stay married to her husband, is difficult. This apparently conflicts with the statement that there are only four cases in which Rabbi Elazar rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara answers: There the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer only because the tanna Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with his opinion. As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Elazar says: The court instructs the minor to refuse to stay married to him, thereby annulling her marriage retroactively.

ומי קאי והא אצרוכי מצרכינן להו ולא דמיין להדדי אלא משום דקאי רבי יהודה בן בבא כוותיה The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Elazar hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case of the minor? But doesn’t the Gemara in Yevamot explain that both the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar are necessary, and therefore they are not comparable to each other? Rather, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case because Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with his opinion, as explained earlier.

ותו ליכא והתנן ר"ע אומר אומרה ברכה רביעית בפני עצמה ר' אליעזר אומר אומרה בהודאה וא"ר אלעזר הלכה כר"א The Gemara asks: And are there no more cases in which Rabbi Elazar maintains that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Berakhot 33a): One recites the prayer of distinction between the holy and the profane [havdala], said in the evening prayer following Shabbat and festivals, in the fourth blessing of the Amida prayer: Who graciously grants knowledge. Rabbi Akiva says: One recites havdala as a fourth blessing by itself. Rabbi Eliezer says that one recites it in the blessing of thanksgiving. And with regard to this dispute, Rabbi Elazar says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

א"ר אבא ההוא דאמר משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל דתניא רבי עקיבא אומר אומרה ברכה רביעית בפני עצמה רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אומרה בהודאה Rabbi Abba said, in explanation: That case is different, as that is not the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer himself. Rather, he stated that ruling in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: One recites havdala as a fourth blessing by itself; Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: One recites it in the blessing of thanksgiving.

והא קשיש מיניה טובא אלא משום דקאי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל בשיטתיה The Gemara asks: But wasn’t Rabbi Eliezer much older than Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel? How could Rabbi Eliezer have cited the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel? The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason Rabbi Elazar ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case was because Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel held in accordance with his opinion.

ומי קאי והתניא אור יוה"כ מתפלל שבע ומתודה שחרית מתפלל שבע ומתודה מוסף מתפלל שבע ומתודה מנחה מתפלל שבע ומתודה בנעילה מתפלל שבע ומתודה בערבית מתפלל שבע מעין שמנה עשרה And does Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel really hold in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On the night of Yom Kippur, one prays seven blessings in the Amida prayer and confesses; in the morning prayer, one prays seven blessings and confesses; in the additional prayer, one prays seven blessings and confesses; in the afternoon prayer, one prays seven blessings and confesses; and in the ne’ila prayer, one also prays seven blessings and confesses. For the evening prayer at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one prays seven blessings in an abridged version of the eighteen blessings of the weekday Amida prayer. One recites the first three blessings, the final three, and a middle blessing that includes an abbreviated form of the other weekday blessings.

רבי חנינא בן גמליאל משום אבותיו אומר מתפלל שמנה עשרה מפני שצ"ל הבדלה בחונן הדעת אמר ר"נ בר יצחק איהו אמר משום אבותיו וליה לא ס"ל Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says in the name of his forefathers: One recites the complete eighteen blessings, due to the fact that he is required to recite havdala in the fourth blessing of the Amida: Who graciously grants knowledge. Havdala cannot be inserted into the abridged version. Evidently, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel does not agree with Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling that one recites havdala in the blessing of thanksgiving, one of the final three blessings of the Amida prayer. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says in explanation: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel said this opinion in the name of his forefathers, but he himself does not hold accordingly.

א"ל ר' ירמיה לר' זירא ואת לא תסברא דמאן תנא קטפא פירא ר"א הוא והתנן ר"א אומר המעמיד בשרף ערלה אסור § Earlier, Rabbi Zeira questioned the claim of Rabbi Pedat, son of Rabbi Eliezer, that the Sage who holds that balsam is considered to be fruit and therefore has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And you? Do you not hold that the tanna who taught that balsam sap has the status of fruit is Rabbi Eliezer? As, didn’t we learn in a mishna (Orla 1:7) that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to one who curdles cheese in the sap of orla, the cheese is prohibited, as the sap is considered to be fruit of the tree.

אפילו תימא רבנן ע"כ לא פליגי רבנן עליה דר"א אלא בקטפא דגווזא אבל בקטפא דפירא מודו ליה דתנן א"ר יהושע שמעתי בפירוש שהמעמיד בשרף העלין בשרף העיקרין מותר בשרף הפגין אסור מפני שהוא פרי The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna that deals with balsam is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to the sap of the tree, but in the case of the sap of the fruit they agree with him. As we learned in a mishna (Orla 1:7) that Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard explicitly that in the case of one who curdles cheese in the sap of the leaves or the sap of the roots of an orla tree, the cheese is permitted. But if it is curdled in the sap of unripe figs it is prohibited, because that sap is considered to be fruit.

ואיבעית אימא כי פליגי רבנן עליה דר"א באילן העושה פירות אבל באילן שאינו עושה פירות מודו דקטפו זהו פריו דתנן ר"ש אומר אין לקטף שביעית וחכ"א יש לקטף שביעית מפני שקטפו זהו פריו And if you wish, say instead: When the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, it is with regard to a tree that bears fruit. But in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit, they agree that its sap is considered to be its fruit. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 7:6) that Rabbi Shimon says: The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not apply to sap. And the Rabbis say: The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does apply to sap, because its sap is its fruit.

מאן חכמים לאו רבנן דפליגי עליה דר"א א"ל ההוא סבא הכי א"ר יוחנן מאן חכמים ר"א דאמר קטפו זהו פריו The Gemara explains the proof: Who are these Rabbis? Are they not the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer? If so, this demonstrates that they agree in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit. The Gemara rejects this proof: A certain elder said to Rabbi Zeira that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Who are the Rabbis in this mishna? It is Rabbi Eliezer, who said that its sap is considered to be its fruit.

אי ר"א מאי איריא אילן שאינו עושה פרי אפילו אילן העושה פרי קטפו זהו פריו לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי אפי' אילן העושה פירות נמי קטפו זהו פריו לדידכו אודו לי מיהת באילן שאינו עושה פירות דקטפו זהו פריו ורבנן אמרי ליה לא שנא The Gemara asks: If it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, why are they specifically discussing the case of a tree that does not bear fruit? Even in the case of a tree that does bear fruit, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that its sap is like its fruit. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer stated his opinion to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis themselves, as follows: According to my opinion, even with regard to a tree that bears fruit, its sap is also considered to be its fruit. But according to your opinion, you should at least agree with me in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit, that its sap is considered to be its fruit. And the Rabbis said in response to Rabbi Eliezer: It is no different. Sap is not considered fruit whether it comes from a fruit-bearing tree or a barren tree.

איזו היא בתולה כל שלא ראתה כו' ת"ר נשאת וראתה דם מחמת נישואין ילדה וראתה דם מחמת לידה עדיין אני קורא לה בתולה שהרי בתולה שאמרו בתולת דמים ולא בתולת בתולים § The mishna teaches: Who is the woman characterized as a virgin in this context? It is any woman who did not see the flow of menstrual blood in all her days, even if she was married and experienced bleeding resulting from intercourse consummating her marriage. The Sages taught: If she was married and she saw a flow of blood due to her marriage, i.e., blood resulting from the tearing of her hymen; or if she gave birth and saw blood due to the birth, I still call her a virgin in this context. The reason is that when they said: Virgin here, they meant a menstrual blood virgin, i.e., one who did not yet see a menstrual flow, and not a hymen-blood virgin, i.e., one who did not experience bleeding from a torn hymen.

איני והאמר רב כהנא תנא ג' בתולות הן בתולת אדם בתולת קרקע בתולת שקמה בתולת אדם כל זמן שלא נבעלה נפקא מינה לכ"ג א"נ לכתובתה מאתים The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rav Kahana say that a Sage taught: There are three types of virgins: A virgin human, virgin ground, and a virgin sycamore. A virgin human is a woman for as long as she has not engaged in intercourse. The relevance of this designation is that only a virgin is permitted to marry a High Priest (see Leviticus 21:13–14). Alternatively, the relevance is that her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, instead of the one hundred dinars in the marriage contract of a non-virgin.

בתולת קרקע כ"ז שלא נעבדה נפקא מינה לנחל איתן א"נ למקח וממכר Virgin ground is ground for as long as it has not been worked. The relevance of this designation is with regard to the rough dried-up stream mentioned in the Torah. When the corpse of a murder victim is found between two towns and the murderer is unknown, the Torah states that a heifer’s neck is broken in a place that was not worked. Alternatively, the relevance is with regard to buying and selling. If one stipulates that he is buying virgin land, it is defined as land that has never been worked.

בתולת שקמה כ"ז שלא נקצצה נפקא מינה למקח וממכר אי נמי למקצצה בשביעית כדתנן אין קוצצין בתולת שקמה בשביעית מפני שהיא עבודה ואם איתא ליתני נמי הא Finally, a virgin sycamore is a sycamore for as long as it has not been felled, i.e., cut to promote growth. The relevance of this designation is with regard to buying and selling. If one stipulates that he is buying virgin sycamore, it is defined as one that has never been felled. Alternatively, the relevance is with regard to the prohibition against felling it in the Sabbatical Year, as we learned in a mishna: (Shevi’it 4:5): One may not fell a virgin sycamore in the Sabbatical Year, because it is considered work, as this promotes the growth of the tree. The Gemara explains its question: And if it is so, that there is a concept of a virgin from menstrual blood, let the tanna of this baraita also teach this type of virgin.

אמר ר"נ בר יצחק כי קתני מידי דלית ליה שם לווי אבל מידי דאית ליה שם לווי לא קתני רב ששת בריה דרב אידי אמר כי קתני מידי דתלי במעשה מידי דלא תלי במעשה לא קתני The Gemara cites several answers. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that does not have a modifier, but he does not teach an item that has a modifier. A virgin human, virgin land, and a virgin sycamore can be referred to without another modifier. Conversely, a virgin with regard to menstrual blood cannot be referred to simply by the unmodified term: Virgin. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that is dependent upon an outside action, e.g., intercourse in the case of a human virgin or felling in the case of a virgin sycamore. But he does not teach an item that is not dependent upon an outside action, such as a woman’s menstrual flow.

רבי חנינא בריה דרב איקא אמר כי קתני מידי דלא הדר לברייתו מידי דהדר לברייתו לא קתני רבינא אמר כי קתני מידי דקפיד עליה זבינא מידי דלא קפיד עליה זבינא לא קתני Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rav Ika says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that will not later revert to its original state. But he does not teach an item that will later revert to its original state, such as a woman’s menstrual flow that ceases when she reaches old age. Ravina says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item about which a buyer is particular, such as one who purchases a virgin sycamore tree. But he does not teach an item about which a buyer is not particular, e.g., a woman’s menstrual blood.

ולא קפדי והתניא רבי חייא אומר כשם שהשאור יפה לעיסה כך דמים יפין לאשה ותניא משום ר"מ כל אשה שדמיה מרובין בניה מרובין אלא כי קתני מידי דקפיץ עליה זבינא מידי דלא קפיץ עליה זבינא לא קתני The Gemara asks: And is a buyer, i.e., a potential husband, not particular about her menstrual blood? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: Just as leaven is fortuitous for dough, so too, blood is fortuitous for a woman; and it is taught in another baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: Any woman whose blood is plentiful, her children are plentiful? A potential husband would certainly be particular about this factor. The Gemara provides an alternative answer: Rather, when the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that buyers are eager to purchase. But he does not teach an item that buyers are not eager to purchase, e.g., a woman without menstrual blood.

ת"ר איזוהי בתולת קרקע כל שמעלה רשושין ואין עפרה תיחוח נמצא בה חרס בידוע שנעבדה צונמא הרי זו בתולת קרקע The Sages taught in a baraita: What is virgin ground? It is any ground that raises up hard clumps of earth and whose dirt is not loose. If one finds a shard of earthenware in the earth, it is thereby known that it was once worked and is not virgin ground. If one finds hard rock, it is virgin ground.

מעוברת משיודע עוברה וכמה הכרת העובר סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר שלשה חדשים ואע"פ שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר שנאמר (בראשית לח, כד) ויהי כמשלש חדשים וגומר § The mishna teaches: The time of a pregnant woman is sufficient from the point in her pregnancy when the existence of her fetus is known to all who see her. The Gemara asks: And how much time must pass for the fetus to be known? Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Three months. And although there is no explicit proof for the matter, that a fetus is discernable after three months of pregnancy, there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot” (Genesis 38:24).

זכר לדבר קרא כתיב וראיה גדולה היא משום דאיכא דילדה לט' ואיכא דילדה לשבעה The Gemara asks: Why does Rabbi Meir call this a mere allusion to the matter? An explicit verse is written, and that is a significant proof. The Gemara answers: It is only an allusion because there are some women who give birth after nine months and there are others who give birth after seven months. Although the verse indicates that a fetus is known to all after three months, it is possible that this applies only to a nine-month pregnancy. Since in the case of a nine-month pregnancy the fetus is recognizable after a third of the full term, with regard to a seven-month pregnancy, the fetus would likewise be noticeable after a third of the full pregnancy, i.e., at two and one-third months. Therefore, Rabbi Meir teaches that in all cases the fetus is known only after three months.

ת"ר הרי שהיתה בחזקת מעוברת וראתה דם ואח"כ הפילה רוח או כל דבר שאינו של קיימא הרי היא בחזקתה ודיה שעתה The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who had a presumptive status that she was pregnant and she saw blood, and afterward she miscarried air, or anything that is not a viable fetus, she retains her presumptive status, and therefore her time is sufficient from that flow of blood, i.e., it renders her impure only from then on, not retroactively, as even a non-viable fetus gives her full pregnancy status.

ואע"ג שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר שנאמר (ישעיהו כו, יח) הרינו חלנו כמו ילדנו רוח מאי זכר לדבר הרי ראיה גדולה היא כי כתיב האי קרא בזכרים כתיב And even though there is no explicit proof for this matter, that even a pregnancy that ends in a miscarriage is like a full-fledged pregnancy, there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind” (Isaiah 26:18). This verse indicates that even one who miscarries wind is considered as having been with child. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that this is called a mere allusion to the matter? This explicit verse is a significant proof. The Gemara answers: When that verse was written, it was written with regard to males as bearing children. The allusion to child-bearing in the verse is symbolic, so halakhic inferences may not be drawn from it.

ורמינהי קשתה שנים ולשלישי הפילה רוח או כל דבר שאינו של קיימא הרי זו יולדת בזוב ואי אמרת לידה מעלייתא היא And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If a woman experienced labor pain for two days, during which she saw a discharge of blood, and on the third day she miscarried air or anything that is not a viable fetus, that woman gives birth as a zava, and the blood is treated as blood of a zava in all regards. The Gemara explains the contradiction: And if you say that miscarrying a non-viable fetus is considered a proper birth, this is problematic,

קושי סמוך ללידה רחמנא טהריה אמר רב פפי הנח מעת לעת דרבנן as with regard to blood emitted while experiencing labor pain close to the time of a proper birth, the Merciful One deems it pure, and it should not be treated as the blood of a zava. Rav Pappi says: The miscarriage is not considered a proper birth and therefore her blood is considered the blood of a zava. And leave aside the first baraita and do not raise a contradiction from it, as the halakha that a woman who sees menstrual blood is retroactively impure for a twenty-four-hour period, which is the topic under discussion in that baraita, applies by rabbinic law, and they did not impose this stringency in the case of a woman who miscarries.

רב פפא אמר מידי הוא טעמא אלא משום דראשה כבד עליה ואבריה כבדין עליה הכא נמי ראשה ואבריה כבדין עליה Rav Pappa says: That reason for the halakha that a pregnant woman is not retroactively impure when she experiences bleeding is only because her head and limbs feel heavy to her. Her physical state is compromised, which also causes her regular menstrual cycle to cease. Here, too, in the case of a pregnancy that precedes a miscarriage, even if it is not considered a proper birth, her head and limbs felt heavy to her during her pregnancy, and therefore it can be assumed that she did not experience a prior menstrual flow.

בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא ראתה ואח"כ הוכר עוברה מהו כיון דבעידנא דחזאי לא הוכר עוברה מטמיא או דלמא כיון דסמוך לה חזאי לא מטמיא With regard to the mishna’s ruling that the time of a pregnant woman is sufficient, Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: If she saw blood and only afterward her fetus became known to all who see her, what is the halakha? One can claim that since at the time when she saw the blood her fetus was not yet known, therefore she becomes impure; or perhaps, since she saw blood in close proximity to the time that her fetus became known, she does not become impure.

א"ל מידי הוא טעמא אלא משום דראשה כבד עליה ואבריה כבדין עליה בעידנא דחזאי אין ראשה כבד עליה ואין אבריה כבדין עליה Rabbi Zeira said to him: That reason for the halakha that a pregnant woman’s time is sufficient is only because her head and limbs feel heavy to her. In this case, where she was yet unaware of her pregnancy at the time when she saw her menstrual flow, neither her head nor her limbs felt heavy to her. Therefore she is impure retroactively, like any other woman.

בעא מיניה ההוא סבא מר' יוחנן הגיע עת וסתה בימי עבורה ולא בדקה מהו קא מיבעיא לי אליבא דמ"ד וסתות דאורייתא מאי כיון דוסתות דאורייתא בעיא בדיקה או דלמא כיון דדמיה מסולקין לא בעיא בדיקה § A certain elder asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: If the time of a woman’s fixed menstrual cycle arrived during her pregnancy and she did not perform an examination, what is the halakha? I raise this dilemma only according to the opinion of the one who said that the obligation for a woman to perform a self-examination during her fixed menstrual cycle applies by Torah law. What is the halakha? According to that opinion, one can claim that since the obligation of an examination during one’s fixed menstrual cycle is by Torah law, she is required to perform an examination even during her pregnancy. Or perhaps, since her blood has stopped, as a pregnant woman generally does not experience a flow of menstrual blood, she is not required to perform an examination.

א"ל תניתוה רבי מאיר אומר אם היתה במחבא והגיע שעת וסתה ולא בדקה טהורה שחרדה מסלקת את הדמים טעמא דאיכא חרדה הא ליכא חרדה והגיע וסתה ולא בדקה טמאה Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: You learned the answer to your dilemma from a mishna (39a): Rabbi Meir says: If a woman was in hiding from danger, and the time of her fixed menstrual cycle came 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. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains the proof: The reason she is pure is that there is fear, from which it may be inferred that in a case where there is no fear and the time of her fixed menstrual cycle arrived and she did not examine herself, she would be impure.

אלמא וסתות דאורייתא וכיון דאיכא חרדה דמיה מסולקין ולא בעיא בדיקה הכא נמי דמיה מסולקין ולא בעיא בדיקה Rabbi Yoḥanan concludes: Evidently, from the fact that Rabbi Meir rules that a woman is impure if the time of her period passed without a proper examination, he maintains that the obligation for a woman to perform an examination at the time of her fixed menstrual cycle applies by Torah law. And, nevertheless, since there is fear, her blood has stopped and she is not required to perform an examination. Here, too, in the case of a pregnant woman, her blood has stopped and therefore she is not required to perform an examination.

מניקה עד שתגמול וכו' ת"ר מניקה שמת בנה בתוך עשרים וארבע חדש הרי היא ככל הנשים ומטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה לפיכך אם היתה מניקתו והולכת ארבע או חמש שנים דיה שעתה דברי ר"מ § The mishna teaches: The time of a nursing woman is sufficient until she weans her child from nursing. The Sages taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 2:1): With regard to a nursing woman whose child dies within twenty-four months of his birth, she is like all other women with regard to her impurity status after seeing menstrual blood, and therefore she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination. Therefore, if a woman continued to nurse her child for four or five years, her time is sufficient and she does not retroactively transmit impurity for the entire four or five years. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אומרים דיין שעתן כל עשרים וארבע חדש לפיכך אם היתה מניקתו ארבע וחמש שנים מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon all say: With regard to nursing women, their time is sufficient for an entire twenty-four months. Therefore, if she nursed him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

כשתמצא לומר לדברי ר"מ דם נעכר ונעשה חלב לדברי רבי יוסי ורבי יהודה ורבי שמעון אבריה מתפרקין ואין נפשה חוזרת עד עשרים וארבע חדש The Gemara discusses the reasoning of each opinion: When you analyze the matter you will find that one must say that according to the statement of Rabbi Meir the case is that menstrual blood spoils and becomes milk. Therefore, it follows that this status continues for as long as she is nursing. By contrast, according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, her limbs become dislocated and her spirit, i.e., her full strength and her regular menstrual cycle, does not return to her until twenty-four months have passed.

לפיכך דר"מ למה לי משום לפיכך דרבי יוסי The Gemara asks: Why do I need the statement of Rabbi Meir: Therefore, if a woman continued to nurse her child for four or five years, her time is sufficient? Since his reasoning is that the menstrual blood of a nursing woman spoils and becomes milk, it is obvious that this applies as long as she continues to nurse him. The Gemara answers: This statement is indeed extraneous. It merely serves to form a parallel between the statement of Rabbi Meir and that of the other Sages. In other words, it was appended due to the statement: Therefore, if she was nursing him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, which is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

ולפיכך דרבי יוסי למה לי מהו דתימא רבי יוסי תרתי אית ליה קמ"ל The Gemara further asks: And why do I need the statement: Therefore, if she was nursing him for four or five years, then after the first twenty-four months have passed, she transmits ritual impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination, which is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? The Gemara explains that this clause is necessary, lest you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that there are two reasons that a pregnant woman’s time is sufficient, both because her blood spoils and because her limbs become dislocated. Therefore, the additional clause teaches us that Rabbi Yosei maintains that the reason is only that her limbs become dislocated, and consequently she transmits retroactive impurity after twenty-four months.

תניא נמי הכי דם נעכר ונעשה חלב דברי ר"מ רבי יוסי אומר אבריה מתפרקין ואין נפשה חוזרת עליה עד עשרים וארבע חדש א"ר אלעאי מאי טעמא דר"מ דכתיב (איוב יד, ד) מי יתן טהור מטמא לא אחד That explanation is also taught in a baraita: Menstrual blood spoils and becomes milk; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: Her limbs become dislocated and her spirit does not return to her until twenty-four months have passed. The Gemara analyzes their respective reasons. Rabbi Ilai says: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? It is based upon a verse, as it is written: “Who can bring a pure thing out of an impure? Is it not the One?” (Job 14:4). In other words, is it not true that the One, i.e., God, can bring a pure thing, such as milk, out of an impure thing, such as menstrual blood?

ורבנן א"ר יוחנן זו שכבת זרע שהוא טמא ואדם הנוצר ממנו טהור The Gemara asks: And the other Sages, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, how do they interpret this verse? Rabbi Yoḥanan says that according to those Sages this verse is referring to semen, which is impure, and yet the person that is formed from it is pure.

ור"א אומר אלו מי הנדה שהמזה ומזין עליו טהור ונוגע טמא ומזה טהור והכתיב (במדבר יט, כא) ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו מאי מזה נוגע And Rabbi Elazar says: Those Sages maintain that this verse is referring to the water of sprinkling, i.e., the purification water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer. As the individual who sprinkles the water and the one upon whom the water is sprinkled are both pure, and yet one who touches the purification water is rendered impure. The Gemara asks: Is the one who sprinkles the water actually pure? But isn’t it written: “He who sprinkles the water of sprinkling will wash his clothes, and he who touches the water of sprinkling will be impure until evening” (Numbers 19:21)? The Gemara responds: What is the meaning of the term: “He who sprinkles”? It means: He who touches.

והכתיב מזה והכתיב נוגע ועוד מזה בעי כבוס נוגע לא בעי כבוס אלא מאי מזה נושא The Gemara asks: But it is written: “He who sprinkles,” and it is written in the same verse: “And he who touches.” How can these two terms be referring to the same individual? And furthermore, that verse states that one who sprinkles requires the washing of his clothes, indicating a severe level of impurity, whereas one who touches does not require the washing of his clothes. Evidently, the phrase “he who sprinkles” is not referring to one who touches. Rather, the Gemara explains: What is the meaning of: “He who sprinkles”? This is referring to one who carries the purification waters.

וליכתוב נושא קמ"ל דעד דדרי כשיעור הזאה הניחא למ"ד הזאה צריכה שיעור אלא למ"ד אין צריכה שיעור מאי איכא למימר The Gemara asks: But if so, let the Torah write explicitly: One who carries. Why does it state “he who sprinkles” when it is referring to carrying? The Gemara answers: The use of the term sprinkling in reference to carrying teaches us that one becomes impure only by carrying the measure required for sprinkling. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that sprinkling requires a minimum measure of water. But according to the one who said that sprinkling does not require a minimum measure of water, what can be said? According to this opinion, there is apparently no concept of a measure required for sprinkling.

אפילו למ"ד אינה צריכה שיעור ה"מ אגבא דגברא אבל במנא בעינא שיעור כדתנן כמה יהיו במים ויהא בהן כדי הזאה כדי שיטבול ראשי גבעולין ויזה The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who said that sprinkling does not require a minimum measure of water, that statement applies only to the measure of purification water that must be sprinkled onto the back, i.e., onto the body, of the impure man. In this regard, any amount will suffice. But with regard to the vessel into which one dips the hyssop in order to sprinkle the water, it requires a certain measure of water. As we learned in a mishna (Para 12:5): How much water must be in the vessel so that it will be enough for sprinkling? It must be enough to dip the tops of the stems of the hyssop branch, used in the rite of purification, into the water and sprinkle it.

והיינו דאמר שלמה (קהלת ז, כג) אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני The Gemara concludes the discussion of the purification waters with the following observation: And that is the meaning of that which King Solomon said: “I said I would become wise, but it eludes me” (Ecclesiastes 7:23). According to tradition, even Solomon in his great wisdom could not understand the contradictory nature of the sprinkling of purification water, as it renders an impure person pure, and a pure person impure.

איזו היא זקנה כל שעברו עליה שלש עונות [סמוך לזקנתה] היכי דמי סמוך לזקנתה אמר רב יהודה כל שחברותיה אומרות עליה זקנה היא ורבי שמעון אומר § The mishna teaches: Who is the woman characterized as an elderly woman in this context? It is any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed at a stage of her life close to her old age, during which she saw no menstrual blood. The Gemara asks: What is considered close to old age? Rav Yehuda says: Any woman about whom her friends say that she is an elderly woman. And Rabbi Shimon says:

כל שקורין לה אמא אמא ואינה בושה ר' זירא ור' שמואל בר רב יצחק חד אמר כל שאינה מקפדת וחד אמר כל שאינה בושה מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו בושה ואינה מקפדת It is any woman who is old enough that people call her: Mother [Imma], Mother, and she is not embarrassed. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak disagree with regard to this matter. One says that the definition is any woman who does not take offense about being called: Mother, Mother. And the other one says that it is any woman who is not embarrassed by this. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between their definitions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where a woman is embarrassed but she does not take offense when called: Mother.

וכמה עונה אמר ריש לקיש משום רבי יהודה נשיאה עונה בינונית שלשים יום ורבא אמר רב חסדא עשרים יום ולא פליגי מר קחשיב ימי טומאה וימי טהרה ומר לא חשיב ימי טומאה The Gemara asks: And how long is a typical menstrual cycle? Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: The average menstrual cycle is thirty days long. And Rava says that Rav Ḥisda says: It is twenty days. The Gemara notes: And they do not disagree. One Sage, Rav Yehuda Nesia, counts all the days of her cycle, including the days of impurity and days of purity. And the other Sage, Rav Ḥisda, does not count the days of impurity, i.e., the seven days of impurity of a menstruating woman and the three days of the sighting of ziva.

ת"ר זקנה שעברו עליה שלש עונות וראתה דיה שעתה ועוד עברו עליה שלש עונות וראתה דיה שעתה ועוד עברו עליה שלש עונות וראתה הרי היא ככל הנשים ומטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה § The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an elderly woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed and then she saw a discharge of menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. And if a further three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed for her and she subsequently saw a discharge of menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. And if yet a further three typical menstrual cycles of thirty days passed for her and then she saw a discharge of menstrual blood, after this third time she is now like all normal women, and she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

ולא (מיבעיא) שכוונה אלא אפי' פיחתה (ואפילו) והותירה The baraita continues: And it is not necessary to teach this halakha in a case where she experienced the three sightings in even intervals of ninety days, as in such a case it is obvious that she assumes the status of a normal woman who transmits impurity retroactively. Rather, even if she had intervals where she decreased, i.e., experienced bleeding at intervals smaller than that, or even if she increased and experienced bleeding at greater intervals, she still assumes the status of a woman who transmits impurity retroactively.

אפי' פיחתה ולא מבעיא כוונה אדרבה כי כוונה קבעה לה וסתה ודיה שעתה The Gemara infers: The wording of the baraita: Even if she had intervals where she decreased, indicates that it is not necessary to teach the halakha in the case of a woman who experienced bleeding at even intervals. This is puzzling, as on the contrary, if she experienced bleeding at even intervals she thereby fixes her menstrual cycle as being every thirty days, and according to Rabbi Dosa (4b) the halakha is that her time is sufficient.

וכי תימא רבנן היא דפליגי עליה דרבי דוסא דאמרי אשה שיש לה וסת מטמאה מעת לעת איפכא מבעי ליה ולימא ולא שפיחתה והותירה אלא אפי' כוונה And if you would say that this is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Dosa, as they say that a woman who has a fixed menstrual cycle transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, then the baraita should have been written in the opposite fashion: Let it say: And the halakha that an elderly woman who sees menstrual blood at intervals returns to the status of normal women and transmits impurity retroactively applies not only to a case where she had intervals where she decreased or increased, i.e., she experienced bleeding less or more than ninety days apart, but this halakha applies even if she experienced bleeding at even intervals.

תני לא שפיחתה והותירה אלא אפי' כוונה ואיבעית אימא ה"ק ולא שכוונה אלא שפיחתה והותירה אבל כוונה קבעה לה וסת ודיה שעתה ומני רבי דוסא היא The Gemara answers: Teach in the baraita in accordance with this altered version: And the halakha applies not only to a case where she had intervals where she decreased or increased, but this is the halakha even if she experienced bleeding at even intervals. And if you wish say instead that this is what the baraita is saying: The halakha that an elderly woman is retroactively impure does not apply to a case when she saw menstrual blood at even intervals. Rather, it applies only if she decreased or increased, i.e., she experienced bleeding at intervals less or more than ninety days apart. But if she saw blood at even intervals, she thereby fixes a set menstrual cycle of ninety days and her time is sufficient. The Gemara adds: And if so, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dosa.

ר"א אומר כל אשה שעברו עליה וכו' תניא אמר להם רבי אליעזר לחכמים מעשה בריבה אחת בהיתלו שהפסיקה שלש עונות ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו דיה שעתה § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles passed during which she saw no menstrual blood, if she experiences bleeding, her time is sufficient. Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if she then saw blood her time is sufficient. Rabbi Eliezer cites a proof for his opinion. It is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain girl in the village of Hitlo who stopped menstruating for three typical menstrual cycles, after which she experienced menstruation. And the matter came before the Sages, and they said that her time is sufficient and she does not transmit impurity retroactively.

אמרו לו אין שעת הדחק ראיה מאי שעת הדחק איכא דאמרי שני בצורת הוו איכא דאמרי טהרות אפיש לעבידא וחשו רבנן להפסד דטהרות The other Sages said to Rabbi Eliezer: Decisions rendered in exigent circumstances are no proof. The Gemara asks: What were the exigent circumstances? Some say that it was during the years of famine, and some say that the girl had handled many ritually pure items and the Sages were concerned for the loss of those pure items if they were ruled retroactively impure.

ת"ר מעשה ועשה רבי כר' אליעזר לאחר שנזכר אמר כדי הוא ר' אליעזר לסמוך עליו בשעת הדחק מאי לאחר שנזכר אילימא לאחר שנזכר דאין הלכה כר' אליעזר אלא כרבנן בשעת הדחק היכי עביד כוותיה The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi acted by ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. After he remembered that Rabbi Eliezer’s colleagues disagree with him on this matter and that he had apparently ruled incorrectly, he nevertheless said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: After he remembered? If we say that this means after he remembered that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, if so, how could he act in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer even in exigent circumstances, since the halakha has been decided against him?

אלא דלא איתמר הילכתא לא כמר ולא כמר ומאי לאחר שנזכר לאחר שנזכר דלאו יחיד פליג עליה אלא רבים פליגי עליה אמר כדי הוא ר' אליעזר לסמוך עליו בשעת הדחק Rather, one must say that the halakha had not been stated on this matter, neither in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, nor in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, the Rabbis. And what is the meaning of: After he remembered? After Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that it was not a lone authority who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, but it was several Sages who disagreed with him, and there is a principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many over the opinion of an individual, he nevertheless said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances.

ת"ר תנוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות וראתה פעם ראשונה דיה שעתה שניה דיה שעתה שלישית הרי היא ככל הנשים ומטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה The Gemara continues the discussion of a woman who fails to experience menstruation for three typical menstrual cycles. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a young girl, less than twelve years old, whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived and she saw menstrual blood, after the first time her time is sufficient. After the second time, again her time is sufficient. After the third time, she is like all normal adult women, and therefore she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

עברו עליה שלש עונות וראתה דיה שעתה ועוד עברו עליה שלש עונות וראתה דיה שעתה ועוד עברו עליה שלש עונות וראתה הרי היא ככל הנשים ומטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה The baraita continues: If she then passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, and then she saw menstrual blood, she returns to the status of a young girl and her time is sufficient. And if it further happens that she again passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, and then she saw menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. And if she passed three further cycles without experiencing bleeding, and she subsequently saw menstrual blood, she is like all normal adult women. She is considered a woman who experiences regular menstruation at long intervals with breaks of ninety days. And therefore she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

וכשהגיע זמנה לראות פעם ראשונה דיה שעתה שניה מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה עברו עליה שלש עונות וראתה דיה שעתה The baraita concludes: And with regard to a girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has arrived, i.e., she has reached the age of twelve, when she sees menstrual blood for the first time, her time is sufficient. After the second time, she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination. If three menstrual cycles then passed without her experiencing bleeding, and afterward she saw menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that any woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating.

אמר מר עברו עליה שלש עונות דיה שעתה The Master said in the baraita: If the young girl who had started menstruating passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding and then saw menstrual blood, she returns to the status of a young girl and her time is sufficient.

הדר קחזיא בעונות מאי אמר רב גידל אמר רב פעם ראשונה ושניה דיה שעתה שלישית מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if she then sees menstrual blood at regular intervals of thirty-day cycles? Is her time sufficient, or does she transmit impurity retroactively? Rav Giddel says that Rav says: With regard to the first time and the second time that she sees menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. After the third time, she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

ועוד עברו עליה ג' עונות וראתה דיה שעתה הדר קחזיא בעונות מאי The baraita further teaches, with regard to a young girl who did not experience bleeding for three typical cycles and then saw blood, and three further expected menstrual cycles passed without her experiencing bleeding and then afterward she saw menstrual blood, that her time is sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if she then sees menstrual blood at regular intervals of thirty-day cycles?

אמר רב כהנא אמר רב גידל אמר רב פעם ראשונה דיה שעתה שניה מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה The Gemara answers: Rav Kahana says that Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The first time that she sees menstrual blood, her time is sufficient. After the second time, she transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

מני רבי היא דאמר בתרי זימני הוי חזקה The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the baraita? The Gemara answers: Since the baraita teaches that she attains the status of a regular adult woman upon the third sighting of menstrual blood, apparently it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that presumption is established by two occasions.

אימא סיפא עברו עליה ג' עונות וראתה דיה שעתה אתאן לר"א The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say the latter clause: If she then passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, and then she saw menstrual blood, she returns to the status of a young girl and her time is sufficient. In this ruling we come to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that any woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating and her time is sufficient. Is the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or Rabbi Eliezer?

וכי תימא רבי היא ובעונות סבר לה כר"א ומי סבר לה והא לאחר שנזכר קאמר אלא ר"א היא ובוסתות סבר לה כרבי And if you would say that the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and in the case of a woman who passes three menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but does he really hold in accordance with this opinion? Doesn’t the baraita state that after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that several authorities disagreed with the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer, he said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances, i.e., only in exigent circumstances. The Gemara concludes: Rather, the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Eliezer, and with regard to menstrual cycles he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that a presumptive cycle is established after two occasions of seeing menstrual blood.

כתם שבין ראשונה ושניה טהור שבין שניה ושלישית חזקיה אמר טמא רבי יוחנן אמר טהור חזקיה אמר טמא כיון דאילו חזיא מטמאה כתמה נמי טמא ורבי יוחנן אמר טהור כיון דלא אתחזקה בדם כתמה נמי לא מטמינן לה § With regard to a young girl who was just starting to menstruate, the Gemara states: If she finds a blood stain between the first and second time that she sees menstrual blood, she is pure. If it is between the second and the third time, Ḥizkiyya says: She is impure; Rabbi Yoḥanan says: She is pure. The Gemara explains the reasoning behind their respective opinions. Ḥizkiyya says: She is impure, since if she had seen menstrual blood it would render her impure. Consequently, her blood stain is also impure. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: She is pure, since she has not yet attained the presumptive status of one who sees menstrual blood. Therefore, we also do not render her impure on account of her blood stain.

מתקיף לה ר' אלעאי וכי מה בין זו לבתולה שדמיה טהורין א"ל ר' זירא זו שירפה מצוי וזו אין שירפה מצוי Rabbi Ilai objects to this ruling of Ḥizkiyya: And what is the difference between this case of a girl who has not yet started menstruating and a recently married menstrual virgin whose stain is deemed pure for as long as her blood is pure, since the stain is presumed to be from her torn hymen? Rabbi Zeira said to him: With regard to this menstrual virgin, her secretion [sirfah] is common, i.e., blood from her torn hymen is normally found during this period. Therefore, any blood stain that is found is also assumed to be from her hymen. But in the case of this young girl, her secretion is not common. Therefore, if a blood stain is found, it is assumed to be menstrual blood.

אמר עולא א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק תינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות וראתה פעם ראשונה ושניה רוקה ומדרסה בשוק טהור כתמה נמי טהור ולא ידענא אם דידיה אם דרביה § Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: With regard to a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived and she saw menstrual blood one time and then a second time, but not the third time that would render her a woman who regularly sees menstrual blood, her saliva and her garment that she treads upon that are found in the marketplace are pure if we do not know whether she has menstruated. Likewise, her blood stain is also pure. Ulla added: And I do not know if this ruling with regard to the stain is merely Rabbi Yoḥanan’s own conclusion or if that is also part of the opinion of his teacher.

למאי נפקא מינה למיהוי דבריו של אחד במקום שנים The Gemara asks: What difference is there? That is, what does it matter who said it? The Gemara explains: It makes a difference for it to be considered the statement of one Sage in the place of two dissenting opinions. As stated above, Ḥizkiyya disagrees with this ruling and maintains that a young girl’s blood stain is impure after she sees menstrual blood twice. If this statement is both Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak’s opinion and that of Rabbi Yoḥanan, then Ḥizkiyya’s ruling is opposed by two Sages, which means that his is a minority opinion. If it is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion alone, then the two sides are equal, with one Sage maintaining each opinion.

כי אתא רבין וכל נחותי ימא אמרוה כר"ש בן יהוצדק When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia along with all the seafarers [naḥotei yamma], they stated this ruling as the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak. If so, Rabbi Yoḥanan was relating his own opinion, which echoed that of his teacher, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, and therefore the halakha is in accordance with this majority opinion.

אמר רב חלקיה בר טובי תינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות אפילו שופעת כל ז' אינה אלא ראיה אחת אפילו שופעת ולא מבעיא פוסקת אדרבה פוסקת הויא לה כשתי ראיות § Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi says: With regard to a young girl whose time to see menstrual blood has not arrived, even if she continuously discharges menstrual blood for all seven days of a typical menstrual period, it is considered as only one sighting of blood and she remains in the category of one who lacks blood until she sees menstrual blood twice more. The Gemara asks: Why did Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi stress: Even if she continuously discharges menstrual blood, which indicates that it is not necessary to teach that this is the halakha if she stops seeing a discharge and then starts again? On the contrary, if she stops and restarts it is as though she has had two sightings of menstrual blood.

אלא תינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות ושופעת כל ז' אינה אלא ראיה אחת The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi meant: With regard to a young girl whose time to see menstrual blood has not arrived, and she then continuously discharges menstrual blood for all seven days of a typical menstrual period, it is considered as only one sighting of blood. In other words, he did not state the word: Even.

אמר רב שימי בר חייא מדלפת אינה כרואה והא קחזיא אימא אינה כשופעת אלא כפוסקת Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: The case of woman who constantly drips menstrual blood is not considered like a full sighting of blood. The Gemara expresses surprise at this claim: But she saw blood. The Gemara answers: Say that what Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya meant was that she is not considered like one who continuously discharges blood, but rather like one who stops and starts again, even if she drips constantly.

מכלל דשופעת (נמי) כי נהרא אלא אימא אינה אלא כשופעת The Gemara raises a difficulty: From the fact that Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya claims that a different halakha applies to a woman who constantly drips menstrual blood, it can be inferred that the blood of one who continuously discharges menstrual blood streams like a river for seven days. But this is physically impossible. The Gemara explains: Rather, say that Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya meant that the status of a woman who constantly drips menstrual blood is nothing other than the status of a woman who continuously discharges blood. In both cases, it is all considered as one sighting.

תנו רבנן חזקה בנות ישראל עד שלא הגיעו לפרקן הרי הן בחזקת טהרה ואין הנשים בודקות אותן משהגיעו לפרקן הרי הן בחזקת טומאה ונשים בודקות אותן § The Sages taught in a baraita: The presumption with regard to the daughters of Israel is that until they have reached their physical maturity they have the presumptive status of ritual purity, and adult women do not need to examine them to check if they are ritually pure before they handle consecrated items or teruma. Once they have reached their physical maturity, they have the presumptive status of ritual impurity, due to the possibility of an unnoticed menstrual discharge, and if they are still minors, adult women must examine them to check if they are ritually pure.

רבי יהודה אומר אין בודקין אותן ביד מפני שמעוותות אותן אלא סכות אותן בשמן מבפנים ומקנחות אותן מבחוץ והן נבדקות מאיליהן Rabbi Yehuda says: They should not examine them by hand, because that is likely to scratch them and ruin their status, as it will be assumed that they are ritually impure with menstrual blood. Rather, they should smear them with oil inside and wipe them off on the outside. And through this method they are automatically examined, i.e., if at that age they are ready to menstruate, the oil will cause the blood to flow.

רבי יוסי אומר מעוברת וכו' תני תנא קמיה דר' אלעזר רבי יוסי אומר מעוברת ומניקה שעברו עליה ג' עונות דיה שעתה א"ל פתחת בתרי וסיימת בחדא § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three expected menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if she then saw blood, her time is sufficient. A tanna taught a baraita before Rabbi Elazar: Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three expected menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if she then experienced bleeding her time is sufficient. Rabbi Elazar said to him: The structure of your baraita is inconsistent. You opened with two categories of women: A pregnant woman and a nursing woman, and you ended your quote with one, as you concluded in the singular form: Her time is sufficient.

דלמא מעוברת והיא מניקה קאמרת ומילתא אגב אורחיה קמ"ל דימי עיבורה עולין לה לימי מניקותה וימי מניקותה עולין לה לימי עיבורה כדתניא ימי עיבורה עולין לה לימי מניקותה וימי מניקותה עולין לה לימי עיבורה Rabbi Elazar continued: Perhaps you are saying that this is a case of a pregnant woman who was also nursing. And if so, the baraita teaches us a matter in passing, that with regard to tallying three menstrual cycles in which she saw no menstrual blood, her days of pregnancy count toward, i.e., combine with, her days of nursing and her days of nursing count toward her days of pregnancy. As it is taught in a baraita: Her days of pregnancy count toward her days of nursing and her days of nursing count toward her days of pregnancy.

כיצד הפסיקה שתים בימי עיבורה ואחת בימי מניקותה שתים בימי מניקותה ואחת בימי עיבורה אחת ומחצה בימי עיבורה ואחת ומחצה בימי מניקותה מצטרפות לג' עונות The baraita continues: How so? If a woman stopped seeing menstrual blood for two expected menstrual cycles during her days of pregnancy and then for one more cycle during her days of nursing, or she passed two expected menstrual cycles during her days of nursing and one more during her days of pregnancy, or one and a half cycles during her days of pregnancy and one and a half cycles during her days of nursing, in all these cases the missed cycles spanning her pregnancy and nursing combine to a total of three missed cycles, and therefore her time is sufficient.

בשלמא ימי עיבורה עולין לה לימי מניקותה משכחת לה דקמניקה ואזלא ומיעברה אלא ימי מניקותה עולין לה לימי עיבורה היכי משכחת לה The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the claim that her days of pregnancy count toward her days of nursing, you can find it in a case where she was nursing continuously and then she became pregnant. But the scenario mentioned in the baraita where her days of nursing count toward her days of pregnancy, how can you find these circumstances? Since she certainly experienced bleeding when she gave birth, how can there be three consecutive menstrual cycles where she did not experience any discharge of blood?

איבעית אימא בלידה יבשתא ואיבעית אימא דם נדה לחוד ודם לידה לחוד ואיבעית אימא תני חדא The Gemara provides several answers: If you wish, say that it is referring to a case of a dry birth, i.e., one without any discharge of blood. Or, if you wish, say: The blood of a menstruating woman is discrete and the blood seen during birth is discrete. Blood seen during birth does not disrupt the count of menstrual cycles during which a woman does not see menstrual blood. Therefore, the cycles before and after the birth combine to form the requisite three cycles according to Rabbi Eliezer. Or, if you wish, say: Teach only one of these scenarios. In other words, teach only the case where the days of pregnancy count toward the days of nursing, but not the case where the days of nursing count toward the days of pregnancy.

במה אמרו דיה שעתה וכו' אמר רב אכולהו § The mishna teaches: And with regard to what did they say that her time is sufficient? It is with regard to the first sighting of blood. But with regard to the second sighting, her status is like that of any other woman and she transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from her last examination. The Gemara inquires concerning which case this clause is referring to. Rav says: This qualification is stated with regard to all of them, i.e., all four cases of the mishna: The menstrual virgin, the elderly woman, the pregnant woman, and the nursing woman.

ושמואל אמר ל"ש אלא בתולה וזקנה אבל מעוברת ומניקה דיין כל ימי עיבורן דיין כל ימי מניקותן And Shmuel says: They taught it only with regard to a menstrual virgin and an elderly woman. But in the case of a pregnant woman and a nursing woman, their time is sufficient for all their days of pregnancy and their time is sufficient for all their days of nursing.

וכן אמר ר' שמעון בן לקיש אכולהו ורבי יוחנן אמר לא שנו אלא בתולה וזקנה אבל מעוברת ומניקה דיין כל ימי עיבורן דיין כל ימי מניקותן כתנאי מעוברת ומניקה שהיו The Gemara notes that another pair of Sages had the same dispute. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: This qualification applies to all of them; and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught it only with regard to a menstrual virgin and an elderly woman. But in the case of a pregnant woman and a nursing woman, their time is sufficient for all their days of pregnancy and their time is sufficient for all their days of nursing. The Gemara suggests: This is like a dispute between tanna’im in the following baraita: With regard to a pregnant woman and a nursing woman who were

שופעות דם ובאות דיין כל ימי עיבורן ודיין כל ימי מניקותן דברי ר"מ רבי יוסי ור' יהודה ורבי שמעון אומרים לא אמרו דיין שעתן אלא בראייה ראשונה אבל בשניה מטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה continuously discharging menstrual blood, their time is sufficient for all their days of pregnancy and their time is sufficient for all their days of nursing. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon all say: They said that her time is sufficient only with regard to the first sighting of blood, but with regard to the second sighting, her status is like that of any other woman, and she transmits impurity for a twenty-four-hour period or from examination to examination.

ואם ראתה ראשונה וכו' א"ר הונא קפצה וראתה קפצה וראתה קפצה וראתה קבעה לה וסת למאי אילימא לימים הא כל יומא דלא קפיץ לא חזאי § The mishna teaches: And if she saw the first sighting as a result of unnatural circumstances, then even with regard to the second sighting her time is sufficient. Rav Huna says: If she jumped and saw menstrual blood, and again she jumped and saw menstrual blood, and a third time she jumped and saw menstrual blood, she has established a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara asks: For what occurrence has she established a fixed cycle? If we say that it is a cycle of days alone, this cannot be correct, as every day that she did not jump, she also did not see menstrual blood. Therefore, her cycle cannot be a mere pattern of days.

אלא לקפיצות והתניא כל שתקבענה מחמת אונס אפילו כמה פעמים לא קבעה וסת מאי לאו לא קבעה וסת כלל The Gemara explains: Rather, the established menstrual cycle is caused by jumps, i.e., by observing a pattern of jumping and seeing blood three times, she has established that jumping causes the onset of her menstrual period. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Any woman who establishes a pattern of seeing menstrual blood due to a recurring accident, even if the pattern repeats, still has not established a fixed menstrual cycle? An accidental menstrual pattern brought about by external causes does not create a menstrual cycle. The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not correct to say that the baraita means that she has not established a fixed menstrual cycle at all?

לא לא קבעה וסת לימים לחודייהו ולקפיצות לחודייהו אבל קבעה לה וסת לימים ולקפיצות לימים לחודייהו פשיטא אמר רב אשי כגון דקפיץ בחד בשבת וחזאי וקפיץ בחד בשבת וחזאי [ובשבת קפצה ולא חזאי] ולחד בשבת חזאי בלא קפיצה The Gemara answers: No, the baraita means that she has not established a fixed menstrual cycle of days alone, nor of jumps alone, but she has established a fixed menstrual cycle for a combination of days and of jumps. In other words, she has established a fixed menstrual cycle when she jumps on specific days. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that she does not establish a cycle for days alone? Why is it necessary to state this? Rav Ashi says: It is necessary to teach this in a case where she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and again she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and then on the following Shabbat she jumped and did not see blood, but on Sunday, the next day, she saw menstrual blood without jumping.

מהו דתימא איגלאי מילתא למפרע דיומא הוא דקגרים ולא קפיצה קמ"ל דקפיצה נמי דאתמול גרמא והאי דלא חזאי משום דאכתי לא מטא זמן קפיצה Rav Ashi explains: Lest you say that the matter is revealed retroactively that it was the day that caused her to experience menstruation and not the jumping, and therefore she has established a menstrual cycle of menstruating on Sundays, regardless of jumping, the baraita teaches us that it was also the jumping of yesterday, on Shabbat, that caused the menstruation today, on Sunday. And as for the fact that she did not see menstrual blood then, that was because the time when jumping causes menstruation had not yet arrived.

לישנא אחרינא א"ר הונא קפצה וראתה קפצה וראתה קפצה וראתה קבעה לה וסת לימים ולא לקפיצות היכי דמי א"ר אשי דקפיץ בחד בשבת וחזאי וקפיץ בחד בשבת וחזאי (ובשבת קפצה ולא חזאי) ולחד בשבת (אחרינא) חזאי בלא קפיצה דהתם איגלאי מילתא דיומא הוא דקא גרים The Gemara presents another version of Rav Huna’s statement. Rav Huna says: If a woman jumped and saw menstrual blood, and again she jumped and saw menstrual blood, and a third time she jumped and saw menstrual blood, she has established a fixed menstrual cycle for a pattern of days and not for a pattern of jumps. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? Rav Ashi says: This is referring to a case where she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and then again she jumped on Sunday and saw menstrual blood, and then on the following Shabbat she jumped and did not see blood, but on Sunday, the next day, she saw menstrual blood without jumping. In that case there, the matter is revealed retroactively that it is the day that causes her to menstruate, not the jumping.

מתני׳ אע"פ שאמרו דיה שעתה צריכה להיות בודקת חוץ מן הנדה והיושבת על דם טוהר MISHNA: Although the Rabbis said that for a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle her time is sufficient and she does not transmit impurity retroactively, she is required to examine herself each day to ensure that she is ritually pure and will not impurify pure items that she is handling. All women must examine themselves each day except for a menstruating woman, whose impure status is known, and a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, whose ritually pure status is known even if she experiences bleeding.

ומשמשת בעדים חוץ מיושבת על דם טוהר ובתולה שדמיה טהורים And even a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle engages in intercourse while using examination cloths to ascertain whether her menstrual flow began, except for a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, and a virgin whose blood is ritually pure for four days after engaging in intercourse for the first time.

ופעמים צריכה להיות בודקת שחרית ובין השמשות ובשעה שהיא עוברת לשמש את ביתה יתירות עליהן כהנות בשעה שהן אוכלות בתרומה רבי יהודה אומר אף בשעת עברתן מלאכול בתרומה And she is required to examine herself twice each day: In the morning, to ascertain if she menstruated during the night, and at twilight, to ascertain if she menstruated during the day. And she is also required to examine herself at a time that she is about to engage in intercourse with her husband. The obligation of women of priestly families is greater than that of other women, as they are also required to examine themselves when they seek to partake of teruma. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when they conclude partaking of teruma they are required to examine themselves, in order to ascertain whether they experienced bleeding while partaking of teruma.

גמ׳ חוץ מן הנדה דבתוך ימי נדתה לא בעי בדיקה GEMARA: The mishna teaches: All women must examine themselves each day, except for a menstruating woman. The Gemara explains: Such a woman does not need to examine herself, as during the days of her menstruation she does not need examination.

הניחא לרבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמר אשה קובעת לה וסת בתוך ימי זיבתה ואין אשה קובעת לה וסת בתוך ימי נדתה שפיר אלא לרבי יוחנן דאמר אשה קובעת לה וסת בתוך ימי נדתה תבדוק דילמא קבעה לה וסת The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that a woman can establish a fixed menstrual cycle even during the days that she has zava status, but a woman does not establish a fixed menstrual cycle during the days of her impurity due to menstruation, as any bleeding during these seven days is merely a continuation of her original menstruation. According to this opinion, it is well, and one can understand the mishna. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that a woman can establish a fixed menstrual cycle during the days of her menstruation, let her examine herself, as perhaps she will establish a fixed menstrual cycle.

אמר לך רבי יוחנן כי אמינא אנא היכא דחזיתיה ממעין סתום אבל חזיתיה ממעין פתוח לא אמרי The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoḥanan could say to you: When I say that a woman can establish a fixed menstrual cycle during the days of her menstruation, that applies only in a case where the first two instances of her fixed cycle were established when she first saw blood from a stopped source, i.e., she saw blood on those particulars days at the outset of her period. But when she first saw blood from an open source, i.e., when the first two instances that she experienced bleeding on those particular days was in the middle of her menstrual period, I did not say that she establishes a fixed menstrual cycle, and therefore there is no need for her to examine herself.

והיושבת על דם טוהר קס"ד מבקשת לישב על דם טוהר § The mishna teaches: All women must examine themselves each day, except for a menstruating woman, whose impure status is known, and a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity. The Gemara explains: It may enter your mind that when the mishna mentions a woman who is observing the period of the blood of purity, it is referring to one who is finishing the period of impurity following a birth and is anticipating observing the period of the blood of purity. In other words, her days of impurity are ending and she is about to start her days `of purity, and the mishna is stating that there is no need for an examination to conclude her days of impurity before starting her days of purity.

הניחא לרב דאמר מעין אחד הוא התורה טמאתו והתורה טהרתו שפיר The Gemara analyzes the mishna in accordance with this interpretation. This works out well according to the opinion of Rav, who said that blood after birth and blood of purity both come from one source, and the Torah deemed blood after birth impure, and the Torah deemed blood of purity pure. According to this opinion, it is well, and one can understand the mishna, since even if she emits blood continuously through the end of her days of impurity into her days of purity, the blood during her days of purity is pure.

אלא ללוי דאמר שני מעינות הם תבדוק דילמא אכתי לא פסק ההוא מעין טמא אמר לך לוי הא מני But according to the opinion of Levi, who said that there are two distinct sources, one for blood after birth and one for blood of purity, she should be required to examine herself at the end of the period following birth, as perhaps that impure source of blood after birth had not yet stopped flowing. The Gemara explains that Levi could say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling?

בית שמאי היא דאמרי מעין אחד הוא וסתם לן תנא כב"ש סתם ואחר כך מחלוקת הוא וכל סתם ואח"כ מחלוקת אין הלכה כסתם It is the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that there is only one source for the two types of blood (see 35b). The Gemara asks: But can it be that the tanna taught us an unattributed mishna, which is generally accepted as the halakha, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, whose opinion is usually not accepted as halakha? The Gemara answers: It is a case where the mishna first records an unattributed opinion and afterward it records a dispute with regard to the same matter. And there is a principle that any time the mishna first records an unattributed opinion and afterward it records that the ruling is subject to a dispute, then the halakha is not necessarily in accordance with the unattributed opinion.

ואבע"א מי קתני מבקשת לישב יושבת קתני אי יושבת מאי למימרא מהו דתימא תיבדוק דדילמא קבעה לה וסת קמ"ל דמעין טהור למעין טמא לא קבעה And if you wish, say instead: Does the mishna teach: A woman is anticipating observing the period of the blood of purity? Rather, it teaches: Who is observing the period of the blood of purity. The Gemara asks: If the mishna is referring to a woman who is already observing the period of the blood of purity, what is the purpose of stating that she is exempt from performing examinations? Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that she should examine herself, as perhaps she will find that she established a fixed menstrual cycle through blood found on her examination cloths, the mishna teaches us that a woman does not establish a cycle from sightings of blood that came from a pure source that transfers to the period when she sees blood from an impure source.

הניחא ללוי דאמר שני מעינות הם אלא לרב דאמר מעין אחד הוא תבדוק דילמא קבעה לה וסת אפילו הכי מימי טהרה לימי טומאה לא קבעה The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: This answer works out well according to Levi, who said that there are two distinct sources, one for blood after birth and one for blood of purity; one can understand that she does not establish a cycle with regard to blood from one source, from a sighting of blood from a different source. But according to Rav, who said that blood after birth and blood of purity both come from one source, she should be required to examine herself during the period of the blood of purity, as perhaps she established a fixed menstrual cycle. The Gemara answers: Even so, i.e., that both types of blood come from the same source, nevertheless a woman does not establish a cycle from her days of purity that transfers to her days of impurity.

ומשמשת בעדים וכו' תנן התם תינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות ונשאת ב"ש אומרים נותנין לה ארבע לילות וב"ה אומרים עד שתחיה המכה § The mishna teaches: And even a woman with a fixed menstrual cycle engages in intercourse while using examination cloths to ascertain whether her menstrual flow began, except for a woman after childbirth who is observing the period of the blood of purity, and a virgin whose blood is ritually pure for four days after engaging in intercourse for the first time. In this connection, the Gemara notes that we learned in a mishna there (64b): With regard to a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived, as she has not yet reached puberty, and she married, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her four nights after intercourse during which the blood is attributed to her torn hymen and she is ritually pure. Thereafter, any blood is menstrual blood and she is impure. And Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals.

אמר רב גידל אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא שלא פסקה מחמת תשמיש וראתה שלא מחמת תשמיש אבל פסקה מחמת תשמיש וראתה טמאה With regard to Beit Hillel’s statement, Rav Giddel says that Shmuel says: They taught this only in a case where she does not stop seeing blood due to intercourse. In other words, every time she engages in intercourse she experiences bleeding. In that case, even if she saw blood not due to intercourse, Beit Hillel still attribute the blood to the torn hymen. But if she stops seeing blood due to intercourse, and then she subsequently saw blood on another occasion, that blood renders her impure.

עבר לילה אחת בלא תשמיש וראתה טמאה נשתנו מראה דמים שלה טמאה מתיב ר' יונה ובתולה שדמיה טהורים אמאי תשמש בעדים דדילמא נשתנו מראה דמים שלה He continues: Similarly, if one night passed without them engaging in intercourse and she subsequently saw blood without connection to intercourse, this indicates that the blood is no longer from her torn hymen and therefore she is deemed impure. Likewise, if the appearance of her blood had changed since her initial blood from her torn hymen, she is impure. Rabbi Yona raises an objection to this last halakha from the mishna: And a virgin whose blood is ritually pure is not required to examine herself when she engages in intercourse. Why not? She should engage in intercourse while using examination cloths, as perhaps she will find that the appearance of her blood has changed, which would mean that her blood is no longer ritually pure blood from her torn hymen.