דף 65

and he should clean the pressing baskets with ashes and water if they were made of palm leaves or of hemp [bitzbutz], or leave them dormant if they were made of bast [shifa] or of reeds, because these absorb more of the wine. And how long must one leave them dormant? He must leave them for twelve months. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He can lay them aside from one wine-pressing season to the next wine-pressing season, or from one olive-pressing season to the next olive-pressing season.

The Gemara interrupts its citation to analyze the baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement is the same as that of the first tanna, as there are twelve months between one wine-pressing season and the next. The Gemara responds: The difference between them is the matter of the early and late ripening season for grapes. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel does not require a precise measure of twelve months, as the difference in time between ripening seasons can be slightly more or less than that.

The Gemara continues its citation of the baraita. Rabbi Yosei says: One who wishes to purify the baskets immediately, without waiting a year, purges them in boiling water or scalds them in olive water. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yosei: One sets them under a pipe whose water flows constantly or in a spring with rapid waters. And how much time should he leave them there? He should leave them for a period of time. In the same way that the Sages stated this time frame with regard to wine used for a libation in idol worship, so too the Sages stated this time frame with regard to matters of ritual purity.

The Gemara expresses surprise at this last clause: Isn’t it the opposite [kelapei layya]? We are dealing with matters of purity in this baraita. Rather, the baraita means: In the same way that the Sages stated this time frame with regard to matters of ritual purity, so too the Sages stated this time frame in the case of wine used for a libation in idol worship.

The Gemara asks: And how long is the period of time referred to in the baraita? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Either the day or the night. Rabbi Ḥana She’ona, and some say Rabbi Ḥana bar She’ona, say that Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Half a day and half a night.

And Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: And the Sages do not disagree. The ruling of this one, who says either a day or a night, is stated with regard to the equinox of the season of Nisan or Tishrei, when the days and night are equal; whereas the ruling of that one, who says half a day and half a night, is stated with regard to the solstice of the season of Tammuz, i.e., summer, or Tevet, i.e., winter, which have the longest day or night respectively, so that half the day and half the night together amount to twelve hours. This baraita apparently contradicts the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that the woman may attribute the blood to her hymen for a night and half the day.

The Gemara answers: Here too, one can say with regard to a menstruating woman that he meant half a day and half a night. The Gemara raises a difficulty. But Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said a night and half a day. The Gemara clarifies: Rather, this is what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel meant: Either a night during Nisan or Tishrei, which is twelve hours, or half a day and half a night during Tevet or Tammuz, which also equals twelve hours.

And if you wish, say instead: With regard to the purity of wine, a period is twelve hours. But in the case of marriage the time frame is different, due to the marriage contract, which is signed before the marriage is consummated, as there are those who delay for a lengthy period until they complete and sign it. Consequently, the Sages extended the period in this case to a night and half a day.

§ Although the mishna provides a certain period of time for both a minor and a young woman during which they may attribute any blood to the torn hymen, nevertheless Rav and Shmuel both say that the halakha is that the groom engages in relations that consummate a marriage, which are a mitzva, and then he separates from his wife.

Rav Ḥisda raises an objection from the baraita: There was an incident involving a virgin who married, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi gave her four nights to engage in intercourse within twelve months of her wedding. This indicates that the husband does not have to separate from his wife immediately after the first act of intercourse is completed.

Rava said to Rav Ḥisda: Why do I need to search for a refutation from a baraita, which is not necessarily known by all? One can raise a difficulty from an explicit statement of the mishna, which states that the first blood a woman sees on her wedding night is attributed to her torn hymen. The Gemara explains that Rav Ḥisda raises his objection from the baraita, as he holds that a practical incident ruled upon by a Sage is a preferable source.

The Gemara returns to the objection: In any case, this baraita is difficult for Rav and Shmuel. The Gemara answers that they acted in accordance with the opinion attributed to our Sages, as it is taught in a baraita: Our Sages returned and were counted again, i.e., they voted and decided, that the groom engages in relations that consummate a marriage, which are a mitzva, and subsequently he separates from his wife.

The Gemara proves that this ruling of Rav and Shmuel, based on the baraita, is also the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. Ulla said: When we were learning the topic of a young girl who saw blood on her wedding night with Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, they brought up from it only the amount of earth that the fox brings up from a plowed field, i.e., they did not establish the halakha as stated in the mishna. And they concluded the discussion in this manner: The groom engages in relations that consummate a marriage, which are a mitzva, and then he separates from his wife.

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi, in light of this ruling that the groom must separate from his bride after completing the act of intercourse: If that is so, a pious person should not complete his act of intercourse, lest he unintentionally continue longer than is permitted. Rav Ashi said to him in reply: The Sages did not issue such a decree, because if so, his heart will strike him with fear that perhaps his wife will begin to bleed while he is engaged in the act of intercourse, and he will separate from his wife completely and will not consummate the marriage.

§ The mishna teaches that a young girl is given four nights during which any bleeding is attributed to her torn hymen. The Sages taught in a baraita: And with regard to all of them, i.e., all the women who are given four nights, if they were discharging blood continually, from four nights until after those four nights, or in the case of those women who are given only one night, if they discharge blood from that one night until after that night, they may not attribute the blood to the torn hymen. Rather, all of them must examine themselves, in the manner that will be explained.

And with regard to all of these women, Rabbi Meir is stringent in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, and therefore a minor girl who bleeds for more than four nights must examine herself, despite the fact that Beit Hillel say she remains ritually pure until the wound has healed. Similarly, Rabbi Meir holds that with regard to a young girl who has reached puberty, if she continues to bleed after the first night she must examine herself.

The baraita continues: But with regard to the other cases of seeing blood, when she does not discharge blood continuously but bleeds again the following day, concerning which there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, Rabbi Meir holds that one follows the appearance of the blood. In other words, he does not maintain entirely in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel rule that the woman is ritually pure even if the color of the blood has changed, whereas Beit Shammai hold that she is ritually impure even if the color of the blood has not changed.

As Rabbi Meir would say: The appearances of impure and pure blood differ from one another. How so? The blood of a menstruating woman is red, whereas blood that comes from a torn hymen, indicating that she was a virgin, is not red. The blood of a menstruating woman is cloudy; blood that indicates that she was a virgin is not cloudy. Finally, the blood of a menstruating woman comes from the uterus; blood that indicates that she was a virgin comes from the sides of the vaginal wall.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rabbi Yosei says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, it is possible to examine the color of blood to determine whether it is menstrual blood or hymenal blood. But the Rabbis say that all appearances of blood are one, i.e., there is no distinction between the appearance of menstrual blood and blood indicating one’s loss of virginity.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: A woman who sees blood due to sexual intercourse may engage in intercourse before the first time this occurs, before the second time this occurs, and before the third time this occurs. From this point forward, i.e., after three consecutive occurrences of bleeding due to intercourse, she may not engage in intercourse until she is divorced from her husband