The (Doubtful) Niddah Upon Return Home

The other day, I only addressed a few of the important manuscript variants on Sanhedrin 103. To continue, there is this interpretation from Rav Chisda, on 103a:

וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תְאֻנֶּה אֵלֶיךָ רָעָה וְנֶגַע לֹא יִקְרַב בְּאׇהֳלֶךָ״? ״לֹא תְאֻנֶּה אֵלֶיךָ רָעָה״ – שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁלוֹט בָּהֶן יֵצֶר הָרָע, ״וְנֶגַע לֹא יִקְרַב בְּאׇהֳלֶךָ״ – שֶׁלֹּא תִּמְצָא אִשְׁתְּךָ סְפֵק נִדָּה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁתָּבֹא מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ.

And Rav Ḥisda says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “No evil shall befall you, nor shall any plague come near your tent” (Psalms 91:10)? “No evil shall befall you” means that the evil inclination shall not dominate them. “Nor shall any plague come near your tent” means that you will never find your wife in a state of uncertainty whether she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman when you return from a journey. After a period of separation, when a husband desires his wife, her uncertain status may prove more frustrating than a situation where the prohibition is clear-cut.

Why specifically a safek, rather than a certainty? Rashi explains how the safek is worse

שלא תמצא אשתך ספק נדה וכו' - והיינו באהלך באשתך כדאמרי' אין אהלו אלא אשה ובשעה שאדם בא מן הדרך קשה לו כשימצא את אשתו ספק נדה יותר מנדה ודאית שעל ספק הוא מיצר ויצרו תקפו ואומר טהורה היא ועל חנם אני מונע:

Namely, if it were a certainty, you could put it out of your mind. Here, you still struggle with your yetzer, because maybe you are refraining for nothing.

I wonder if something about nega and yikrav could connote safek. Alternatively, perhaps this is the more common situation. Since the man was away, his wife was not careful calculating when she would be tahor. And while he then is of course disappointed, exacerbated by coming back home, it is not really any worse than if he were home all along. But here, it was his absence and sudden return home that caused this issue in the first place.

Anyway, here is the relevant variant:

Namely, that Reuchlin 2 and Munich 95 seem to have omitted safek, and then inserted it, perhaps on the basis of Rashi or on the basis of other manuscripts.

Also, it should not be Rabbi Yirmeyah bar Abba. It should be Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba.

Finally, yes, this is the primary sugya, where we have a corpus of three statements of Rav Chisda quoting Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba. But there is a secondary sugya where the statement appears, in Berachot 55b, where the Talmudic Narrator harnesses this quote from Rav Chisda to pose a question:

וְהָכְתִיב: ״לֹא תְאֻנֶּה אֵלֶיךָ רָעָה״. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: שֶׁלֹּא יַבְהִילוּךָ לֹא חֲלוֹמוֹת רָעִים וְלֹא הִרְהוּרִים רָעִים. ״וְנֶגַע לֹא יִקְרַב בְּאׇהֳלֶךָ״ — שֶׁלֹּא תִּמְצָא אִשְׁתְּךָ סְפֵק נִדָּה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאַתָּה בָּא מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ. אֶלָּא אִיהוּ לָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ, אַחֲרִינֵי חָזוּ לֵיהּ.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is it not written: “No evil shall befall you, neither shall any plague come near your tent” (Psalms 91:10)? And Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said in explanation of that verse: This means that you will be frightened neither by bad dreams nor by evil thoughts. Neither shall any plague come near your tent, means that you will never find your wife with the uncertain status of a menstruating woman when you return from a journey. This proves that it is impossible that a righteous person will experience bad dreams throughout his life. Rather, one might say that he does not see bad dreams; others see bad dreams about him.

There it is Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba. And, while not relevant to the question posed by the gemara, it again states safek niddah.

The next step is to check variants there in Berachot. Two of the printings, Soncino and Venice actually lack the entirety of the statement, I suppose because the first portion of the Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba statement suffices.

Also, Munich 95 is consistent with the version before the word safek was added. Thus:

Niddah by itself admittedly makes sense. Perhaps yet other variants on 103 in another post…