Talmud for Niddah 1:1
משנה שמאי אומר כל הנשים דיין שעתן הלל אומר מפקידה לפקידה אפילו לימים הרבה וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא מעת לעת ממעטת על יד מפקידה לפקידה ומפקידה לפקידה ממעטת על יד מעת לעת כל אשה שיש לה ווסת דייה שעתה והמשמשת בעדים הרי זו כפקידה הממעטת על יד מעת לעת ועל יד מפקידה לפקידה:
From when may one recite Shema in the evening? From the time the Kohanim go in to eat their Terumah (produce consecrated for priestly consumption). Until the end of the first watch, says Rabbi Eliezer. And the Sages say: Until [astronomical] midnight. Rabban Gamliel says: Until the break of dawn. It once happened that his [Rabban Gamliel’s] sons came from a house of feasting. They said to him: We have not recited Shema. He to them: If dawn has not broken, you are obligated to recite it. And it is not only in this case that they said it! Rather, in all cases where the Sages said "only until midnight," the obligation remains until the break of dawn. [e.g.] Burning the fats and limbs [of the sacrifices, on the Temple altar] — the obligation is until the break of dawn. [e.g.:] All [sacrifices] which may be eaten for one day — the obligation is until the break of dawn. If that is so, why did the Sages say, "until midnight?" To distance a person from transgression.
Jerusalem Talmud Niddah
Rebbi Yannai said, the first one14The woman working on pure food mentioned in Mishnah 1:7 who is required to check herself before intercourse. also is called religious. We have stated “they have to check themselves”, and you say so15In Mishnah 1:7, the checking is stated as a requirement. In Mishnah 2:1, a similar statement appears as an act of special piety. It is impossible to explain Mishnah 2:1 as dealing with a woman not occupied with pure food since Mishnah 2:3 very clearly states that all women are permitted to their husbands without any checking.? Rebbi Ila said, to tell you that everybody who keeps the directives of the rabbis is called religious16The Babli, 12a, quotes the explanation attributed here to R. Ila in the name of R. Immi and rejects it since a person who does not follow the rabbis’ directives is called evil. Rava explains there that the religious women take a new piece of textile for every check whereas others use the same piece repeatedly..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Niddah
90Mishnah 1:5.“Rebbi Yose said, the timing of a pregnant or a nursing woman who had stopped for three periods is exact.” On that it was stated91Tosephta 1:10: “R. Yose and R. Simeon say that the timing of a pregnant or a nursing woman is not exact unless there passed three periods (without menstruation); the days of her pregnancy and those of her nursing are added together.” It is clear that pregnancy and nursing cannot be counted together if the blood lost in childbirth is of menstrual character. Therefore, the Tosephta and the similar baraita quoted in the text are intelligible for Levi, not for Rav.: The days of her pregnancy and her nursing add up to three periods. Can he think that there is only one source?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Niddah
Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: In every situation in which the Sages said that her husband would be obligated for a sacrifice, pure food became impure; her husband would be exempt from a sacrifice, pure food remains pure; her husband would have to bring a sacrifice for a doubt, pure food is in limbo159In the Babli 60b (and later in this paragraph in the Yerushalmi) this is attributed to Bar Pada or Pedaiah. Rashi explains the text:
A woman was occupied with pure food and noticed she was bleeding; since if that were to happen during intercourse her husband would have to bring a purification sacrifice (for a sin committed inadvertently), we assume that the blood was already there when she was touching the pure food, the food is certainly impure and has to be burned. But if only a short time after she was finished with the food she noticed it, since if she did notice blood a short time after intercourse her husband would have to bring an expiation sacrifice (not knowing whether a sin has been committed, cf. Bikkurim 2:9 Note 162), the food can neither be used nor burned. If the woman detected the blood after a longer interval, the husband is in the clear and the food is pure.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: If an old man and a child walk in a dining room, does the old man not enter first? But the child can come and make a fool of him160This simile is slightly pornographic. The dining hall is the woman’s womb, the old man the penis, and the child menstrual blood. Even though the penis closes the entrance, the blood can sneak out before the penis leaves. The implication is that even in the case in which the husband only would be obligated for the expiation sacrifice, the food should be declared impure and be burned.. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yudan: I say, it was here but the intercourse stopped it from leaving; but there, what hindered it to leave161The argument in the preceding simile does not apply; a woman working in the kitchen is not to be compared to a woman during intercourse. In the first case, blood will flow out immediately under the action of gravity; in the second case she is lying down and her vagina is closed by the man’s penis.? The Mishnah162Mishnah 1:3. This refers to a case which, when occurring immediately after intercourse, would obligate the husband for an expiation sacrifice. Nevertheless, the food remains pure if the woman has a regular, predictable, period. (In the Babli, R. Hoshaia is reported to oppose the opinion ascribed to him in the present paragraph and to hold that in all cases other that direct touch by an impure person, pure food is held in limbo. This also is denied by the Mishnah quoted.) disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaiah: “If she left [the bed] and saw blood, she is impure but all the food is pure.” The Mishnah disagrees with Bar Pedaiah159In the Babli 60b (and later in this paragraph in the Yerushalmi) this is attributed to Bar Pada or Pedaiah. Rashi explains the text:
A woman was occupied with pure food and noticed she was bleeding; since if that were to happen during intercourse her husband would have to bring a purification sacrifice (for a sin committed inadvertently), we assume that the blood was already there when she was touching the pure food, the food is certainly impure and has to be burned. But if only a short time after she was finished with the food she noticed it, since if she did notice blood a short time after intercourse her husband would have to bring an expiation sacrifice (not knowing whether a sin has been committed, cf. Bikkurim 2:9 Note 162), the food can neither be used nor burned. If the woman detected the blood after a longer interval, the husband is in the clear and the food is pure.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also when they stop eating heave.” Why? Not that if she would bleed, the food should not retroactively become impure163Jehudah’s opinion can only be explained in the case that he requires a verification to avoid retroactive impurity even where the husband would be free from any obligation of sacrifice if there remains the possibility of retroactive impurity. But Bar Pedaiah asserts that in the latter case there is no retroactive impurity!? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana: Explain it for a woman who has no regular period164Following Mishnah 1.. He said to him, so says my teacher Rebbi Yose: All that is described here is about a woman who has a regular period. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah rises165The Mishnah has two parts; R. Jehudah does not address the same situation as does the anonymous majority; one cannot infer that he represents a minority opinion.: Up to this point [it speaks] about a woman who has a regular period; from there on about a woman who has no regular period. But even if you say that the Mishnah does not rise166The Mishnah assumes a uniform background; R. Jehudah’s opinion is that of a minority., and we deal only with a woman who has a regular period, where does Bar Pedaiah hold? One differs with Rebbi Jehudah.
A woman was occupied with pure food and noticed she was bleeding; since if that were to happen during intercourse her husband would have to bring a purification sacrifice (for a sin committed inadvertently), we assume that the blood was already there when she was touching the pure food, the food is certainly impure and has to be burned. But if only a short time after she was finished with the food she noticed it, since if she did notice blood a short time after intercourse her husband would have to bring an expiation sacrifice (not knowing whether a sin has been committed, cf. Bikkurim 2:9 Note 162), the food can neither be used nor burned. If the woman detected the blood after a longer interval, the husband is in the clear and the food is pure.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: If an old man and a child walk in a dining room, does the old man not enter first? But the child can come and make a fool of him160This simile is slightly pornographic. The dining hall is the woman’s womb, the old man the penis, and the child menstrual blood. Even though the penis closes the entrance, the blood can sneak out before the penis leaves. The implication is that even in the case in which the husband only would be obligated for the expiation sacrifice, the food should be declared impure and be burned.. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yudan: I say, it was here but the intercourse stopped it from leaving; but there, what hindered it to leave161The argument in the preceding simile does not apply; a woman working in the kitchen is not to be compared to a woman during intercourse. In the first case, blood will flow out immediately under the action of gravity; in the second case she is lying down and her vagina is closed by the man’s penis.? The Mishnah162Mishnah 1:3. This refers to a case which, when occurring immediately after intercourse, would obligate the husband for an expiation sacrifice. Nevertheless, the food remains pure if the woman has a regular, predictable, period. (In the Babli, R. Hoshaia is reported to oppose the opinion ascribed to him in the present paragraph and to hold that in all cases other that direct touch by an impure person, pure food is held in limbo. This also is denied by the Mishnah quoted.) disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaiah: “If she left [the bed] and saw blood, she is impure but all the food is pure.” The Mishnah disagrees with Bar Pedaiah159In the Babli 60b (and later in this paragraph in the Yerushalmi) this is attributed to Bar Pada or Pedaiah. Rashi explains the text:
A woman was occupied with pure food and noticed she was bleeding; since if that were to happen during intercourse her husband would have to bring a purification sacrifice (for a sin committed inadvertently), we assume that the blood was already there when she was touching the pure food, the food is certainly impure and has to be burned. But if only a short time after she was finished with the food she noticed it, since if she did notice blood a short time after intercourse her husband would have to bring an expiation sacrifice (not knowing whether a sin has been committed, cf. Bikkurim 2:9 Note 162), the food can neither be used nor burned. If the woman detected the blood after a longer interval, the husband is in the clear and the food is pure.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also when they stop eating heave.” Why? Not that if she would bleed, the food should not retroactively become impure163Jehudah’s opinion can only be explained in the case that he requires a verification to avoid retroactive impurity even where the husband would be free from any obligation of sacrifice if there remains the possibility of retroactive impurity. But Bar Pedaiah asserts that in the latter case there is no retroactive impurity!? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana: Explain it for a woman who has no regular period164Following Mishnah 1.. He said to him, so says my teacher Rebbi Yose: All that is described here is about a woman who has a regular period. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah rises165The Mishnah has two parts; R. Jehudah does not address the same situation as does the anonymous majority; one cannot infer that he represents a minority opinion.: Up to this point [it speaks] about a woman who has a regular period; from there on about a woman who has no regular period. But even if you say that the Mishnah does not rise166The Mishnah assumes a uniform background; R. Jehudah’s opinion is that of a minority., and we deal only with a woman who has a regular period, where does Bar Pedaiah hold? One differs with Rebbi Jehudah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy