(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nidah 12



(a) No! It is forbidden for a woman to examine herself before Tashmish for her husband only - because we are worried that her husband, knowing that she is not working in Taharos, will suspect that she is perhaps Temei'ah, and will separate from her.

(b) After Tashmish, a woman can either make a proper examination. But this takes time, and, by the time she has performed it, should she find blood, there is a likelihood that the blood came only afterwards. Consequently, they will not be Chayav Chatas - at most, an Asham Taluy - if that. Or she can just wipe the womb clean, which takes no time at all. Therefore, if she finds blood, they will both be Chayav Chatas.

(c) No! she is not obligated to examine herself - even after Tashmish. This is because we are afraid that, since her husband knows that intends to examine herself, he will be afraid (even in advance) to be intimate with her, in case she later discovers that she is Temei'ah. (This is how Rashi learns the Gemara's Sha'aleh, though it appears strange that the Gemara should ask this again, after having established that a woman is not obligated to examine herself for her husband alone; in addition, the Lashon 'Mahu she'Tivdok' and not 'Mahu she'Chayeves Livdok' suggests a voluntary examination, rather than an obligatory one. It seems more appropriate to explain the Sha'aleh as to whether she is *permitted* to examine herself, rather than *obligated*- in the way that Tosfos explains the Sha'aleh of before Tashmish [where Rashi says nothing]).

(a) The Gemara uses the term 'Eden shel Tzeni'us, referring to the examination of before Tashmish, and it means that it is 'Midas Chasidus'.

(b) The Gemara objects to this term, which suggests that the pre'Tashmish examination is no more than a Chumra, when really it is a Halachah.

(c) The Gemara wants to say that someone who fulfills the words of the Chachamim is bears the title 'Tzanua' However, Rava objects to this too, because it infers that someone who does not fulfil the words of the Chachamim, merely loses the title of 'Tzanu'a', whereas in reality, he ought to be called a Rasha.

(d) Rava learns: 'Tzenu'os, Eid she'Badku Bo Atzman Lifnei Tashmish Zeh, Ein Bodkos Bo Lifnei Tashmish Acher', ve'she'Ein Tzenu'os, Bodkos, ve'Lo Ichpas Lahen'.

(a) A woman who is not dealing with Taharos does not need to examine herself for her husband. That is categorically accepted. Consequently, the suggestion that a woman who has no Veses should need a Bedikah for her husband is unacceptable.

(b) The Gemara therefore establishes that the statement of Rebbi Aba speaks when the woman does deal with Taharos, and what he means to say is, that if she *has* a Veses, then she does not require a Bedikah when she is asleep (since she is anyway not fit to work in Taharos); whereas if she does not, then she *does*. When she is awake, she needs a Bedikah either way (since she is fit to work with Taharos).

(See Tosfos, who explains that by asleep, we mean not fully awake - dozing perhaps - because it is forbidden to be intimate with a woman who is fully asleep.)

(a) The Beraisa permits a man who returns home to be with his wife asleep or awake - without a Bedikah. But did Shmuel not say that a woman who has a Veses, is only permitted to be with his wife without a Bedikah, when she is asleep; and if she does not have a Veses, then she is even forbidden when she is asleep? (See Tosfos, for how we know that the Beraisa is not speaking about a woman who does not work in Taharos.)

(b) The Gemara replies that when Shmuel refers to Bedikah, her consent is good enough, because, if she were not Tehorah, she would not consent to intimacy. (See Tosfos, who explains that this Sevara is confined to the case of a man who comes from a journey, and will not apply to a man who has not been away.)

(c) We are afraid that, if he needs to wake her up especially to make a Bedikah, it will lead to him to despise her.

(d) 'Sudni' menas either a Talmid-Chacham (because of the acronym "Sod Hashem li'Yerei'av", hinted in the the word); or it means a beer-maker, as this was Rav Papa's profession.




(a) The wives of Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua told him that their husbands did not make a point of waking them up to make a Bedikah, when they came home and found them asleep.

(b) They asked the wives and not the husbands, because they suspected that Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei d'Rav Yehoshua might tell them that it was halachically permitted, without adding that they themselves were Machmir (and Rav Kahana really wanted to know how they behaved personally, so that he could follow their stringencies).

(a) Rebbi Meir holds that a woman who has no Veses is forbidden to her husband even if she uses two 'Eidim'.

(b) We are worried that perhaps, if the woman later develops a Veses after she has remarried and born children, her ex-husband will say that, had he known, he would never have divorced her. This invalidates the Get retroactively, with the result that her children are now Mamzeirim. So we warn him at the outset that when he divorces her, his divorce will be permanent, and any regrets that he may later have will be ineffective.

(c) 'Peyros' is the fruit of the property which the wife brings in to the marriage, and of which the husband is entitled to eat the fruits (i.e. to make full use of). It is known as 'Nechsei Milug'. In this case, we ought to have said that, since she has no Kesubah from him, it transpires that their marriage is not valid, so that he should really return the fruit that he ate.

'Mezonos' refers to a husband who goes overseas, where, under normal circumstances, Beis-Din would fix for her, sustenance from his property. And 'Bela'os' are the remains of the clothes which she brought into the marriage and which the husband would normally have to return after he divorces her.

(d) She loses her Kesubah because no Kesubah is due to a woman by a marriage in which intimacy is impossible (See Ritva, in whose opinion this is due to a Mekach Ta'us - a false sale.)

7) When Aba Chanan said 'Oi Lo le'Ba'alah', either he was saying to Rebbi Meir that a woman who has no Veses does receive her Kesubah - like Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos; or to Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, that her husband cannot rely on her Bedikah before Tashmish, because perhaps even though she is Tehorah then, she may see blood during Tashmish; therefore, she is forbidden to him - like Rebbi Meir.


(a) Rav Yehudah, who quoted Shmuel as ruling like Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, did not issue the ruling that a woman who does not have a Veses is forbidden to her husband without Bedikah, and vice-versa (the Gemara appears to mean that each one is quoting the same Halachah in the name of Shmuel from a different source, and neither agrees that he Shmuel made the second statement.

(b) If a woman does not deal with Taharos, Rebbi Meir agrees that she does not need Bedikah and that she is permitted to her husband.

Hadran Alach 'Shamai'!

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,