We begin our study of the Gemara on Daf 64a, starting five lines down from the top of the page. Our discussion today focuses on various halachic rulings concerning pregnant women.
What do we know about pregnant women? A pregnant woman who sees blood is subject to the rule of daya sha'ata. Why daya sha'ata? Because during pregnancy, a woman is typically "removed from blood" (מְסוּלֶקֶת דָּמִים). Therefore, when she is mesuleket damim, any blood she sees is considered to have appeared at that moment, rather than retroactively defiling her from a previous time.
The Gemara asks a question: What if a woman saw blood and only immediately afterward realized she was pregnant (ukara ubarah)? Do we say that since she saw blood before she knew she was pregnant, and thus before she was considered mesuleket damim, the blood retroactively defiles her (metameh afraya)? Or do we say that because she realized she was pregnant right after seeing the blood, the two events are connected, and she is still subject to daya sha'ata? The reasoning for a pregnant woman being mesuleket damim is that her body and limbs become heavy. If she saw blood before her body reached this state of "heavy limbs" due to being ukara ubarah, then she would be retroactively defiled. Only once she is fully ukara ubarah, with her limbs heavy, does the rule of daya sha'ata apply.
Next, we discuss the concept of a "fixed period" (veset). A veset is a time when a woman is normally prone to see blood. There is a halacha stating that a woman must perform an internal examination (bedika) at the time of her veset. If she fails to perform a bedika, we assume that "the period came at its time" (orach vizmano ba), and she is considered ritually impure (temea).
Now, let's consider a pregnant woman. A pregnant woman is mesuleket damim. If her veset arrived and she did not perform a bedika, what is the ruling? Do we say that since she is mesuleket damim, she is exempt from the bedika? Or do we say that being mesuleket damim only applies outside the time of her veset, but at the time of her veset, when the blood is expected, even a pregnant woman must perform a bedika? We are asking this question according to the opinion that considers this bedika a Torah-level obligation (deoraita bedika).
The question is: If it's a deoraita bedika, do we override the leniency of being mesuleket damim to uphold the Torah obligation of the bedika? Or, perhaps, since the blood is unlikely to appear due to her state of being mesuleket damim, even a deoraita bedika is not required?
An interesting parallel case is when a woman is in a state of fear (harada). We say that a period will not come when she is afraid. For example, if she is in a cave, worried about robbers or a siege, and her veset arrives, but she does not perform a bedika, she is still considered ritually pure (tehora). Why? Because "fear removes blood" (she'a harada mesaleket). This shows that when there is an external reason to believe blood will not come, a bedika is not required. Similarly, in the case of a pregnant woman, even if one might argue that a bedika is still necessary, since she is mesuleket damim, she is considered like a woman in a state of fear and does not need a bedika. The Gemara concludes that for the same reason that a woman in a state of fear does not need a bedika, a pregnant woman also does not need a bedika.
The Mishnah mentions that a nursing woman (meneket) is one of the four types of women who are subject to daya sha'ata. The question is, for how long is she considered a nursing woman? According to Rabbi Meir, the rule of daya sha'ata applies only as long as she is actively nursing. If she stops nursing, even within 24 months of birth, she becomes retroactively defiled (metameh me'et le'et) like any other woman. This is because Rabbi Meir believes that the blood turns into milk, and once she stops nursing, there is no milk, so the blood will return.
However, the Sages (Chachamim) argue with Rabbi Meir. They hold that the body takes 24 months to recover after childbirth. During this entire 24-month period, whether she is actively nursing or not, her body is considered "broken" (shavur) and not yet returned to its routine of producing blood. Therefore, for 24 months, she is subject to daya sha'ata. According to this view, even if she nurses for five years, she would only be subject to daya sha'ata for the first 24 months, after which she would be treated as any other woman.
The Gemara asks about the phrase "therefore" (lefikach) used by Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir states that "therefore, if she is nursing for five years, daya sha'ata applies." This is consistent with his view that as long as she is nursing, the blood turns into milk. The Gemara then says that this "lefikach" is actually according to Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Yose holds that the 24-month period is the determining factor. So, if Rabbi Yose says it's a 24-month item, then if she's nursing for five years, there would be no daya sha'ata after 24 months. This seems to contradict the Gemara's statement.
The Gemara clarifies that we might have thought Rabbi Yose holds two opinions: first, that it's a 24-month period regardless of nursing, and second, that as long as she is nursing, she is fine. However, Rabbi Yose holds only one opinion: that the body is broken for 24 months. He does not hold that blood turns into milk. Therefore, after 24 months, even if she is still nursing, we do not say that the blood goes away or turns into milk.
One Sage learns a verse: "Who can bring something pure (tahor) from something impure (tameh)? Is it not God, who is One?" This Sage applies it to the creation of milk, which is pure, from blood, which is impure. This supports the view that blood turns into milk.
Other Rabbis, who do not believe blood turns into milk, interpret this verse differently. Rabbi Yohanan says it refers to the "seed of man" (shikmat zera), which is impure, from which a human being, who is pure, is formed. Another explanation refers to the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer (efer haparah). The one who sprinkles the purification water (mazzeh) and the one who is sprinkled upon become pure, but the one who touches the ashes becomes impure. The verse asks, "Who can bring pure from impure?" referring to God's ability to make the water purify some while simultaneously defiling others who touch the ashes.
There is a common misunderstanding of this halacha. The Gemara explicitly states that the sprinkler (mazzeh) does not become impure. It is the one who touches (nogea) the water or carries (noseh) the water who becomes impure. The verse states that the mazzeh must wash his clothes, implying he is impure. However, the Gemara clarifies that "mazzeh" in this context refers to "nogea," meaning someone who touched it. But the verse says both "mazzeh" and "nogea." The mazzeh must wash his clothes, while the nogea does not. This indicates that the mazzeh is even more impure than the nogea. The Gemara concludes that "mazzeh" actually refers to "noseh," the one who carries the water. The noseh and the nogea become impure, but the mazzeh (sprinkler) himself remains pure. This is the paradox that King Solomon referred to when he said, "I said, 'I will be wise,' but it is far from me." He found the halacha of the red heifer to be a paradox: the same substance purifies the impure yet defiles the pure.
The Mishnah also discusses an elderly woman (zekena). If she sees blood, she is subject to daya sha'ata. What defines a zekena? One opinion states that she is a zekena if three cycles (onot) have passed since she last saw blood. Another opinion, from Shimon, says a woman is called a zekena when her friends call her "Ima Ima" (a term for an old woman or grandmother) and she is not embarrassed. The difference between these two opinions is a practical ramification (nafkamina): if she is embarrassed internally but does not show it externally, then according to the first opinion, she is not a zekena, but according to the second, she is.
What is an ona (cycle)? There is a dispute. One opinion says a standard ona is 30 days. This includes the days of impurity (tuma'a) and the days of purity (tahara). For example, three days of a zavah, seven clean days for a nidah, plus twenty days until she sees again, totaling 30 days. The other opinion, by Rabba, says an ona is 20 days, counting only the days of purity.
If an elderly woman passes three onot without seeing blood, and then sees blood again, what is the ruling? The first time she stops seeing blood for three onot, we assume she is old and will not see blood anymore, so daya sha'ata applies. The second time it happens, we might consider it a fluke, and still apply daya sha'ata. However, if it happens a third time, it establishes a new cycle for her. She is no longer considered to have "stopped seeing blood" (sidov damim); rather, her cycle has changed (shinu veset). In this case, she would be retroactively defiled (metameh afraya) from the first instance. This is because the Sages are not as strict with retroactive impurity for the first two instances, but by the third, they consider it established.
The Gemara then states that this rule applies not only when the cycles are perfectly consistent (kivna), for example, 90, 90, and 90 days, but also if the cycle decreased (pichata), for example, 93, 92, 91 days, or increased (hotira), for example, 90, 91, 92 days. The Gemara finds this puzzling. If the cycles are perfectly consistent (kivna), it means she has a "fixed period" (veset kavua). According to the first Mishnah, a woman with a fixed period is not retroactively defiled; daya sha'ata applies. Therefore, the Gemara's statement that "not only kivna but even pichata" is problematic, as kivna should not lead to retroactive defilement at all.
The Gemara offers two resolutions. One is that the Mishnah aligns with the Rabbis who argue with Rebbi Dosa. Rebbi Dosa holds that a woman with a fixed period is subject to daya sha'ata. However, the Rabbis argue that even a woman with a fixed period is retroactively defiled. Thus, the Mishnah's statement that "not only pichata and hotira, but even kivna" would be a significant innovation (chiddush) according to the Rabbis, meaning that even a fixed period leads to retroactive defilement. The second resolution is to amend the text of the Braita to say, "not in the case of kivna," meaning that the rule of retroactive defilement applies only to pichata and hotira, but not to kivna, where daya sha'ata still applies, in accordance with Rebbi Dosa.
A story is told: In the city of Hitler, a girl stopped seeing blood for three cycles. The Rabbis ruled that she was subject to daya sha'ata. This seems to support Rebbi Dosa's view. However, the Gemara explains that this was a "case of pressing need" (sha'at hadchak), specifically a famine. In such a situation, the Rabbis were lenient to avoid rendering many pure items impure due to retroactive defilement, as people could not afford to replace them. This does not prove that this is the general halacha. The Gemara also recounts a story where a Sage initially ruled daya sha'ata for a woman who stopped seeing blood for three cycles, but then retracted his ruling, realizing that the Rabbis disagreed with Rebbi Dosa. This retraction indicates that the halacha does not generally follow Rebbi Dosa's lenient view in such cases. However, the Sage's initial ruling was not a definitive halachic decision (lo nitkav'a halacha), so his retraction was valid. If it had been a final ruling, he would not have been able to retract it.