Study Niddah folio 53A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
R' Yehuda HaNasi says that the dispute between R' Yehuda ben Agra and the Rabbis should be decided as follows: The statement of R' 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 d
The Talmud asks: What did R' Yehuda HaNasi mean by: Where she did examine, and what did he mean by: Where she did not examine? Rava says: I found the rabbis 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
As the Rabbis hold that during the period of twilight as defined by R' 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 R' Yehuda, and she found no blood, there is no concer
Rava continues: And I said to those rabbis: 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 r
The Talmud further clarifies the baraita. R' Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of R' Yehuda ben Agra in the name of R' 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