OPINIONS: The Gemara relates that a certain elder asked Rebbi Yochanan what the Halachah is in a case of a pregnant woman who did not examine herself upon the arrival of her Veses (the date on which she normally sees Dam Nidah). He added that his question is according to the opinion that a woman is required to examine herself mid'Oraisa (because, mid'Oraisa, she is presumed to be Tamei unless she examines herself on the day of her Veses). Does the fact that she is pregnant -- and thus does not see Dam Nidah -- remove her status of being Tamei on the day of her Veses?

Rebbi Yochanan replied by quoting a statement of Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Meir says that a woman who is forced into hiding and does not check herself on the day she anticipates seeing Dam Nidah is considered Tahor. Rebbi Yochanan explains that Rebbi Meir maintains that the Bedikah on the day of the Veses is a Torah requirement, as implied by his ruling about a woman in hiding; if a woman not in hiding fails to examine herself, then she does become Tamei. The reason why a woman in hiding is considered Tahor is that she presumably does not see Dam Nidah when she is scared. Similarly, a pregnant woman who normally does not see Dam Nidah does not require a Bedikah on the day of her Veses.

What is the context of the question of the elder? Is he asking about whether a pregnant is Tahor with regard to the Taharos that she handles or with regard to being permitted to her husband?

Moreover, the question is only what her status is if she does not examine herself. This question implies that she is required to examine herself l'Chatchilah, and the question is what her status is b'Di'eved if she fails to examine herself. However, at the end of the Sugya, Rebbi Yochanan states that she does not need to examine herself even l'Chatchilah. What is the conclusion of the Gemara? Must a pregnant woman examine herself l'Chatchilah or not?

(a) The RASHBA quotes the RA'AVAD who says that the Gemara is discussing her status b'Di'eved. If the day of her Veses passed and she did not examine herself, she is assumed to be Tahor, since a pregnant woman does not see Dam Nidah, and she had no sensation of having Dam Nidah. However, l'Chatchilah a woman who is pregnant must examine herself on the day she expects to see Dam Nidah.

(b) The TOSFEI HA'ROSH, the RITVA, and the Rashba himself explain that the Gemara's conclusion teaches that even l'Chatchilah a pregnant woman does not need to examine herself at this time, because it is assumed that a pregnant woman does not see Dam Nidah. The Rashba says that this is clear from the Gemara even according to the opinion that a woman normally has the status of being Tamei on the day of her Veses according to Torah law. Therefore, although there is normally a requirement that a woman's husband separate from her "Samuch la'Vestah" (for a certain amount of time before the arrival of the time at which she expects to see Dam Nidah; see Insights to Shevuos 18:2) in order to ensure that he does not transgress the prohibition of having relations with a Nidah, her husband is not required to separate from her when she is pregnant (see Insights to Nidah 7:1).

These Rishonim question this position from the Gemara in Pesachim (72b). The Gemara there states that if a person had relations with his wife and then found out that she was a Nidah, he must bring a Korban Chatas. If this occurred in the process of doing Yibum with the widow of his deceased brother, he does not have to bring a Korban. The Gemara there questions what the difference is between the two cases. The Gemara suggests that perhaps since one has a Mitzvah to do Yibum, he has the status of a "To'eh b'Devar Mitzvah" and is exempt from bringing a Korban. The Gemara rejects this answer, because having relations with one's wife is also considered a Mitzvah ("Peru u'Revu")! The Gemara answers that the case of one who must bring a Korban when he finds out that his wife was a Nidah refers to one whose wife was pregnant, in which case there is no Mitzvah of "Peru u'Revu." The Gemara asks that in that case, too, there is a Mitzvah of Onah! The Gemara answers that the case is when the woman is Samuch la'Vestah. This seems to be a proof for the Ra'avad, who maintains that even a woman who is pregnant is required to examine herself when she is Samuch la'Vestah.

All of the Rishonim answer that when the Gemara concludes that the case is Samuch la'Vestah, it refers to when the woman is not pregnant.

Alternatively, the Rashba answers that the Gemara in Pesachim may refer to a pregnant woman, but one who is in the first trimester of her pregnancy, when the prohibition of Samuch la'Vestah still applies. (Y. MONTROSE)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah (7a) says that a woman, near old age, whose anticipated time to see Dam Nidah arrives and she does not see Dam three consecutive times attains the status of no longer seeing Dam Nidah. Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue about when a woman is considered "near her old age." Rebbi Yehudah says that this refers to one whose friends call her an "old lady." Rebbi Shimon says that this refers to a woman who is called "Ima Ima" and is not embarrassed. The Gemara then cites an argument between Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak regarding the view of Rebbi Shimon. One says that Rebbi Shimon means that she is called "Ima Ima" and does not object. The other says that Rebbi Shimon means that she is not embarrassed. The difference between the two opinions is a case in which she is embarrassed, but does not object.

Which opinion does the Halachah follow?

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Mishkav u'Moshav 4:1) writes that "near her old age" refers to one whose friends call her an old lady in front of her and she does not object. The KESEF MISHNEH makes two observations in the words of the Rambam. The first is that the Rambam clearly rules like Rebbi Shimon, because Rebbi Yehudah makes no mention about the woman being embarrassed or objecting to what people call her. It seems that we rule like Rebbi Shimon because Rebbi Zeira and Rebbi Shmuel argue about his intention, implying that the Halachah follows his opinion. The second observation of the Kesef Mishneh is that the Rambam rules like the opinion that even if she is embarrassed, as long as she does not object she is considered an old lady who no longer sees Dam Nidah (if three consecutive Vestos have passed with no Dam). The Kesef Mishneh explains that this is because of the rule "Safek d'Rabanan l'Kula" -- we rule leniently in a case of a doubt about a Halachah d'Rabanan.

(b) The TUR and SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 189:29) rule that a Zekeinah is one "who is called an old lady and does not care." The TAZ (YD 189:46) infers from the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, "she does not care," that they rule like the stringent opinion that she is considered old only when she does not care at all and she is not even embarrassed.

However, the VILNA GA'ON, SHULCHAN ARUCH HA'RAV, MAHARI SHAPIRA and others argue that this is not the intention of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. They explain that "she does not care" means that she does not care enough to object even though she is embarrassed. Although most Poskim rule like this opinion (that she is considered old when she does not object to being called an old lady), it is difficult to define this age by a specific number of years. The Poskim say that although some women today stop seeing Dam Nidah as early as the age of forty-five, a woman does not have the status of no longer seeing Dam Nidah (even though she did not see Dam for three Vestos) until a much later age. (See SHI'UREI SHEVET HA'LEVI 189:29, who says that such a status cannot be given to a woman until the age of sixty to sixty-five.) Nevertheless, if a woman has not seen Dam Nidah for a very long time, there are grounds to give her the status of no longer seeing Dam Nidah earlier, depending on each individual situation (see TESHUVOS BEIS SHLOMO YD #28). (Y. MONTROSE)