Talmud - Niddah 53a נידה נ״ג א׳

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra and the Rabbis should be decided as follows: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra, who maintains that there is a concern for the possibility that the woman might have seen blood at twilight, appears to be correct in a case where she did not examine. And the statement of the Rabbis, who are not concerned about that possibility, appears to be correct in a case where she did examine.

The Gemara asks: What did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mean by: Where she did examine, and what did he mean by: Where she did not examine? Rava says: I found the Sages in the study hall of Rav sitting and saying the following explanation of the baraita: Here we are dealing with a case where the woman examined herself but did not examine her robe. And even with regard to herself, she examined herself only during twilight [bein hashemashot] as defined by Rabbi Yehuda, i.e., the time it takes to walk a half mil before the emergence of the stars. But during twilight as defined by Rabbi Yosei, i.e., the blink of an eye before the emergence of the stars, she did not examine herself.

As the Rabbis hold that during the period of twilight as defined by Rabbi Yosei it is already night, and therefore it does not matter that she did not examine herself then. And as she did examine herself during the period of twilight as defined by Rabbi Yehuda, and she found no blood, there is no concern that she saw during twilight, which would count as two sightings. And Rabbi Yosei conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yosei, in whose name Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra said his ruling, stated that the time that he defines as twilight is considered uncertain, i.e., it is not definitely night or day, and therefore there is a concern that she might have seen blood at that time, which would count as seeing twice.

Rava continues: And I said to those Sages: Had the woman’s hands been in her eyes, a euphemism for her private parts, for the entire twilight period, what you say would be fine. But now that this is not the case, perhaps when she removed her hands from examining herself she saw blood. And those Sages said to me: The case about which we said that opinion was where she placed her hands in her eyes for the entire twilight period.

The Gemara further clarifies the baraita. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra in the name of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that one needs to be concerned for the possibility that the woman saw blood at twilight, which would count as though she saw blood twice, appears to be correct in a case where she did not examine. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Where she did not examine?

If we say that she examined herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the time period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight, this is difficult: If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accepted the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra only in such a case, this indicates, by inference, that Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra himself, whose ruling is more strict than that of the Rabbis, holds that even though she examined herself during the twilight period as defined by both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, she must be concerned. This conclusion is untenable, as she examined herself throughout twilight and there was no blood.

Rather, it is obvious that when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi referred to a case where she did not examine herself, he meant that she examined herself neither during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, nor during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. But if she examined herself during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight, then she does not need to be concerned.

Evidently, the time period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight is considered nighttime according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But if so, say the latter clause: And the statement of the Rabbis appears to be correct in a case where she did examine. What is meant by: Where she did examine?

If we say that she examined herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight, this is difficult: If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accepted the opinion of the Rabbis only in such a case, this indicates by inference that the Rabbis themselves hold that even though she did not examine herself during the twilight period as defined by both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, nevertheless, we are not concerned. But in such a case, she did not examine herself at twilight at all.

Rather, it is obvious that she examined herself both during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, and during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. But if she examined herself during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, and she did not examine herself during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight, then we are concerned.

Evidently, the time period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight is considered to be of uncertain status regarding whether it is day or night according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: If so, one statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi poses a difficulty for another statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the inferences from the two parts of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s observation contradict one another.

The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra appears correct to the Rabbis in a case where she did not examine herself at all, neither during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, nor during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. As, even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra only in a case where she examined herself during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight but she did not examine herself during the time period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. But in a case where she did not examine herself at all, they concede to him that we are concerned that she might have emitted blood at twilight.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: In the case of a woman who sees a red stain, if she saw a large stain, covering an area the size of at least three split beans, she must be concerned that she might be a zava. But if she saw a small stain, covering an area of less than the size of three split beans, she does not need to be concerned that she is a zava. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: I heard from Rabbi Yosei that with regard to both this one and that one, i.e., whether it is a large or small stain, she must be concerned that she is a zava. And Rabbi Yosei said this halakha to me based on this reasoning: And what would be the case if a menstruating woman did not perform the examination marking the first step in her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on the seventh day from minḥa time onward? Would she not have a presumptive status of ritual impurity? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi added: And Rabbi Yosei’s statement appears to be correct with regard to the case where she examined.

Once again, the Gemara asks: What is meant by the term: Where she examined? If we say that she examined herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight, this indicates by inference that Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra, who disagrees in the second baraita with this version of Rabbi Yosei’s opinion and rules more leniently, holds that even though she did not examine herself during the twilight period as defined by both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, nevertheless, she does not need to be concerned that she is a zava. But this conclusion is untenable, as she did not examine herself at twilight at all.

Rather, it is obvious that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to a case where she examined herself both during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight and during the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight. This indicates, by inference, that Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra holds that if she examined herself during the period that Rabbi Yehuda defines as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the time period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight, then she does not need to be concerned, as a sighting at that time would not count as two.

Evidently, the period that Rabbi Yosei defines as twilight is considered to be nighttime according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra. If so, one statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra poses a difficulty with regard to another statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra, as earlier it was stated that according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra twilight is not definitely night.

Granted, without the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the apparent contradiction between these statements of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra in the two baraitot is not difficult, as one could explain as follows: There, with regard to the first baraita, it is referring to a case where she examined herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight, but she did not examine herself during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight. By contrast, here it is referring to a case where she examined herself both during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yehuda as twilight and during the period that is defined by Rabbi Yosei as twilight. But in light of the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one cannot explain in this manner, and therefore the contradiction poses a difficulty.

The Gemara answers: This is not a contradiction, as there are two tanna’im and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra. This tanna holds that Rabbi Yehuda’s twilight ends,

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Nidah 53a examines the dispute over twilight timing during a woman's self-examination and how differing views on bein hashemashot affect ritual purity rulings.