Study Niddah folio 10B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
R' Ilai objects to this ruling of Ḥizkiyya: And what is the difference between this case of a girl who has not yet started menstruating and a recently married menstrual virgin whose stain is deemed pure for as long as her blood is pure, since the stain is presumed to be from her torn hymen? R' Zeir
§ Ulla says that R' Yoḥanan says in the name of R' Shimon ben Yehotzadak: With regard to a young girl whose time to see the flow of menstrual blood has not arrived and she saw menstrual blood one time and then a second time, but not the third time that would render her a woman who regularly sees me
The Talmud asks: What difference is there? That is, what does it matter who said it? The Talmud explains: It makes a difference for it to be considered the statement of one Sage in the place of two dissenting opinions. As stated above, Ḥizkiyya disagrees with this ruling and maintains that a young g
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia along with all the seafarers [naḥotei yamma], they stated this ruling as the statement of R' Shimon ben Yehotzadak. If so, R' Yoḥanan was relating his own opinion, which echoed that of his teacher, R' Shimon ben Yehotzadak, and therefore the halakha i
§ Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi says: With regard to a young girl whose time to see menstrual blood has not arrived, even if she continuously discharges menstrual blood for all 7 days of a typical menstrual period, it is considered as only one sighting of blood and she remains in the category of one who lac