Niddah 35b

שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב.

as he renders impure the bedding upon which he lies and the seat upon which he sits, like a primary source of ritual impurity, which is not the case for one who experienced a seminal emission.

אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא בִּרְאִיָּיה שְׁנִיָּה — הֵיכָא הֲוָה בִּכְלַל בַּעַל קֶרִי? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בִּרְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְקָתָנֵי לְהָקֵל עָלָיו שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס!

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement: When does this statement apply, i.e., to which sighting of ziva is Rabbi Yitzḥak referring? If we say he is referring to the second sighting this is untenable, for where in the verse was such a person included in the category of one who experienced a seminal emission? After the second sighting one is considered a full-fledged zav . Rather, it is obvious that he is referring to the first sighting. And yet Rabbi Yitzḥak teaches: The separate passage discussing a zav serves to be lenient with him, as a zav is not rendered impure through an emission that occurs due to circumstances beyond his control. This contradicts the statement of Rav Huna.

וְתִסְבְּרָא לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, בִּרְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה בַּר מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב הוּא?

The Gemara rejects this: And how can you understand that Rabbi Yitzḥak is referring to the first sighting of ziva ? But Rabbi Yitzḥak also says: The separate passage serves to be stringent with him, as he renders impure the bedding upon which he lies and the seat upon which he sits. With the first sighting of ziva is one fit to render impure his bedding or his seat?

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר, רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: וַהֲלֹא זָב בִּכְלַל בַּעַל קֶרִי הָיָה בִּרְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְלָמָּה יָצָא בִּרְאִיָּיה שְׁנִיָּיה — לְהָקֵל עָלָיו וּלְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו, לְהָקֵל עָלָיו — שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, וּלְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו — שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב.

Rather, this is what he is saying: Rabbi Yitzḥak says: But wasn’t a zav with his first sighting included in the category of one who experienced a seminal emission? Why, then, was he taken out and discussed in a separate passage with regard to his second sighting? In order to be lenient with him and to be stringent with him. In other words, the passage serves to be lenient with him, as he is not rendered impure through an emission that occurs due to circumstances beyond his control. And it serves to be stringent with him, as he renders impure the bedding upon which he lies and the seat upon which he sits.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זוֹב דּוֹמֶה לְמֵי בָצֵק שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים. זוֹב בָּא מִבְּשַׂר הַמֵּת, שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בָּא מִבְּשַׂר הַחַי. זוֹב — דֵּיהֶה, וְדוֹמֶה לְלוֹבֶן בֵּיצָה הַמּוּזֶרֶת, שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע קְשׁוּרָה, וְדוֹמָה לְלוֹבֶן בֵּיצָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּזֶרֶת.

With regard to ziva , Rav Huna says: The discharge of ziva is similar to water of barley dough. Whereas the discharge of ziva comes from dead flesh, i.e., when one’s penis is flaccid, semen comes from living flesh, when one’s penis is erect. Moreover, the discharge of ziva is runny, and is similar in appearance to the white of a unfertilized egg. By contrast, semen is viscous, and it is similar in appearance to the white of an egg that is not unfertilized, i.e., a fertilized egg.

דַּם הַיּוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה וְכוּ׳.

§ The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the blood of a woman who gave birth and reached the conclusion of her days of impurity, but did not yet immerse in a ritual bath. Beit Shammai say: The blood does not retain the halakhic status of menstrual blood; rather, it imparts impurity only while moist. And Beit Hillel say: Since she did not immerse in a ritual bath, her blood is considered like that of a menstruating woman, and it imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.

תַּנְיָא, אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים בְּנִדָּה שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה דָּם, שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה? אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: לֹא, אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בְּנִדָּה שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה טְמֵאָה, תֹּאמְרוּ בְּיוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁאִם טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה.

With regard to this dispute, it is taught in a baraita that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Do you not concede with regard to a menstruating woman who did not immerse after seven days and thereafter saw blood, that she is impure as a menstruating woman in every sense? If so, a woman who failed to immerse after childbirth should likewise be impure as a menstruating woman. Beit Shammai said to them: No, this is not a legitimate comparison. Even if you say this is true with regard to a menstruating woman, there the halakha is that even in a case where she immersed and immediately saw blood thereafter, she is impure. Will you say that this halakha applies with regard to a woman who gave birth, where the halakha is that if she immersed and then saw blood she is pure? Therefore, even if a woman who gave birth neglected to immerse and experienced bleeding, she is not considered a full-fledged menstruating woman, and the blood does not impart impurity whether it is moist or dry.

אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאִם טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה לְאַחַר יְמֵי סְפִירָה — טְהוֹרָה, לֹא טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה — טְמֵאָה!

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: The halakha of a woman who gives birth as a zava will prove this is in fact a legitimate comparison. A woman who gives birth as a zava may immerse only after experiencing seven clean days. The halakha is that if she immersed in her days of purity and then saw blood after the seven days of counting for ziva , she is pure, as she is in her days of purity. But if she did not immerse and she saw blood, she is impure. If so, the same should apply to a woman who gave birth and did not immerse at the conclusion of her days of impurity: She should be considered a full-fledged menstruating woman as long as she has not immersed.

אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: הוּא הַדִּין, וְהִיא הַתְּשׁוּבָה.

Beit Shammai said to them: The same is true and this is the refutation, i.e., we maintain that even in the case of a woman who gave birth as a zava and failed to immerse after seven clean days, her blood imparts impurity only while moist. Accordingly, one cannot compare this case to that of a typical menstruating woman.

לְמֵימְרָא דִּפְלִיגִי? וְהָתְנַן: וּמוֹדִים בְּיוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה לַח וְיָבֵשׁ!

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to a woman who gave birth as a zava and counted seven clean days but did not immerse? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel in the case of a woman who gives birth as a zava , that any blood she sees imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry?

לָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן שֶׁסָּפְרָה, כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא סָפְרָה.

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, in the baraita , Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree with regard to a woman who counted seven clean days for her ziva . In such a case Beit Shammai maintain that any blood she sees imparts impurity only when moist. There, in the mishna, they agree with regard to a woman who did not yet count seven clean days for her ziva . In such an instance, even Beit Shammai concede that her blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.

וְהָתַנְיָא: יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁסָּפְרָה וְלֹא טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה, הָלְכוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְשִׁיטָתָן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל לְשִׁיטָתָן.

The Gemara notes: And it is taught likewise in a baraita : With regard to a woman who gives birth as a zava , who counted seven clean days after the conclusion of her days of impurity but did not yet immerse, and she subsequently saw blood, Beit Shammai follow their opinion with regard to any woman who gave birth and concluded her days of impurity but did not yet immerse, and Beit Hillel likewise follow their opinion. In other words, according to Beit Shammai her blood imparts impurity only while moist, whereas according to Beit Hillel it imparts impurity whether moist or dry.

אִיתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא — הַתּוֹרָה טִמְּאַתּוּ וְהַתּוֹרָה טִהֲרַתּוּ.

§ With regard to blood emitted by a woman during her days of purity after childbirth, it was stated that there is a dispute between the Sages. Rav says: It is from one source in a woman’s body that pure and impure blood are emitted, but the Torah rendered impure the blood emitted during her days of impurity and the Torah rendered pure the blood emitted during her days of purity.

וְלֵוִי אָמַר: שְׁנֵי מַעְיָנוֹת הֵם — נִסְתָּם הַטָּמֵא נִפְתָּח הַטָּהוֹר, נִסְתָּם הַטָּהוֹר נִפְתָּח הַטָּמֵא.

And Levi says: There are two sources in a woman’s body. Blood emitted during her days of impurity emerges from one source, while blood emitted during her days of purity emerges from the other, and these two sources are not active simultaneously. Rather, when the source of the impure blood is closed, i.e., following her days of impurity, the source of the pure blood opens, and when the source of the pure blood is closed, at the conclusion of her days of purity, either thirty-three days for a male child or sixty-six days for a female child, the source of the impure blood is opened.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ: שׁוֹפַעַת מִתּוֹךְ שִׁבְעָה לְאַחַר שִׁבְעָה, וּמִתּוֹךְ אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְאַחַר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וּמִתּוֹךְ אַרְבָּעִים לְאַחַר אַרְבָּעִים, וּמִתּוֹךְ שְׁמֹנִים לְאַחַר שְׁמֹנִים.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rav and Levi? The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the following cases: A woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within seven days of giving birth to a male until sometime after those seven days, during her days of purity; and likewise, a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within fourteen days of giving birth to a female until sometime after those fourteen days, during her days of purity; and a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within forty days of giving birth to a male until sometime after those forty days, i.e., after the conclusion of her days of purity; and a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within eighty days of giving birth to a female until sometime after those eighty days, i.e., after the conclusion of her days of purity.

לְרַב — רֵישָׁא לְקוּלָּא, וְסֵיפָא לְחוּמְרָא;

The Gemara elaborates: According to Rav, who maintains that both pure and impure blood emerge from the same source, in the cases described in the first clause, i.e., if she continuously discharged menstrual blood from within her days of impurity until sometime during her days of purity, one is to be lenient, In other words, any blood emitted during her days of purity is pure, since the Torah rendered it pure. And in the cases described in the latter clause, when the discharge begins during her days of purity and continues until after the conclusion of her days of purity, one is to be stringent, as the Torah deemed impure any blood emitted after her days of purity.

לְלֵוִי — רֵישָׁא לְחוּמְרָא, וְסֵיפָא לְקוּלָּא.

According to Levi, who says that there are two different sources in the body, in the cases described in the first clause one is to be stringent, as the continuous flow of blood indicates this blood is emanating from the source of the impure blood, and the Torah deemed pure only the blood that emerges from the source of the pure blood. And in the cases described in the latter clause one is to be lenient, as the continuous flow of blood indicates this blood is from the source of the pure blood.

מֵיתִיבִי: דַּם הַיּוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כְּרוּקָּהּ וּכְמֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ.

The Gemara raises an objection from the mishna: With regard to the blood of a woman who gave birth and reached the conclusion of her days of impurity but did not yet immerse, Beit Shammai say: The blood is like her saliva and urine, and it imparts impurity only while moist. And Beit Hillel say: Her blood is considered like that of a menstruating woman, and it imparts impurity whether moist or dry.

קָא סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּפָסְקָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ. אֶלָּא לְלֵוִי, דְּאָמַר: שְׁנֵי מַעְיָנוֹת הֵן, אַמַּאי מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ?

It enters your mind to explain that the mishna is referring to a case where a woman’s discharge of menstrual blood ceased during her days of impurity, and she subsequently experienced bleeding after the conclusion of her days of impurity. If so, granted the mishna is clear according to the opinion of Rav, who said pure and impure blood emanate from one source, as it is due to that reason that Beit Hillel maintain that the blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry, since she did not yet immerse. But according to the opinion of Levi, who said there are two separate sources, why do Beit Hillel maintain that the blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry? After all, blood emitted during her days of purity comes from the source of pure blood.

אָמַר לָךְ לֵוִי: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּשׁוֹפַעַת, אִי בְּשׁוֹפַעַת, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? קָסָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא.

The Gemara explains that Levi could say to you: Here we are dealing with a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within her days of impurity until sometime during her days of purity. Since the continuous flow of blood indicates that this blood emanates from the source of the impure blood, Beit Hillel rule that it imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry. The Gemara asks: If the mishna is dealing with a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood, what is the reason that Beit Shammai maintain this blood imparts impurity only while moist? Isn’t it evident that it is impure menstrual blood? The Gemara responds: Beit Shammai hold that it is from one source that pure and impure blood emanate, and the Torah deemed pure any blood emitted during her days of purity.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְלֵוִי, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא בֵּין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, אֶלָּא לְרַב מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?

The Gemara questions the opinion of Rav: Granted, the mishna is clear according to Levi, who maintains there are two separate sources, as that is how there is a practical difference between the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Beit Hillel hold there are two sources, and the continuous flow of blood from her days of impurity into her days of purity indicates that the blood emanates from the source of the impure blood, whereas Beit Shammai contend that pure and impure blood emanate from one source, and the Torah deemed pure the blood of her days of purity. But according to Rav, what is the reason for the difference between them?

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ יוֹמֵי וּטְבִילָה, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: בְּיוֹמֵי תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: בְּיוֹמֵי וּטְבִילָה.

The Gemara responds: The difference between them is due to their opinions with regard to the significance of the days and the immersion at the conclusion of her days of impurity. As, Beit Shammai hold that the Merciful One rendered the purity of her blood dependent on days, which means that once she begins her days of purity her blood is pure regardless of whether or not she immersed. And Beit Hillel hold that it is dependent on both days and immersion. Accordingly, if she fails to immerse after her days of impurity, any blood she sees is impure.

תָּא שְׁמַע, וּמוֹדִים בְּיוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה לַח וְיָבֵשׁ. סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הָכָא נָמֵי דְּפָסְקָה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the mishna: And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel in the case of a woman who gives birth as a zava , that any blood she sees imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry. It enters your mind to explain that here too, the mishna is referring to a case where a woman’s discharge of menstrual blood ceased during her days of impurity, and she then experienced bleeding during her days of purity. Since she is still a zava at the beginning of her days of purity, the blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ. אֶלָּא לְלֵוִי, דְּאָמַר: שְׁנֵי מַעְיָנוֹת הֵן, אַמַּאי מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ?

The Gemara continues: If so, granted, the mishna is clear according to Rav, who said that pure and impure blood emanate from one source, as it is due to that reason that the blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry, since she is still a zava and the Torah has not yet deemed her pure. But according to Levi, who said there are two sources, why does the blood impart impurity whether it is moist or dry? Let it be considered like the saliva or urine of a zava , which imparts impurity only when moist.

אָמַר לָךְ: הָכָא נָמֵי — בְּשׁוֹפַעַת. אִי בְּשׁוֹפַעַת, לְמַאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ?

The Gemara explains that Levi could say to you: Here too, we are dealing with a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within her days of impurity until her days of purity. The continuous flow of blood indicates that the blood emanates from the source of the impure blood. The Gemara asks: If the mishna is dealing with a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood, for what purpose was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha ? It is obvious that this blood is impure.

לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, וּבְיוֹמֵי תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא — הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּיוֹלֶדֶת גְּרֵידְתָּא, דִּשְׁלִימוּ לְהוּ יוֹמֵי, אֲבָל יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב דְּבָעֵי סְפִירָה — לָא.

The Gemara answers that it was necessary for the opinion of Beit Shammai. The mishna is teaching that even though Beit Shammai say there is one source, and the Merciful One rendered the purity of her blood dependent on days alone, that statement applies only in the case of a woman who only gave birth, as her days of impurity have been completed at this point. But with regard to a woman who gives birth as a zava , who requires the counting of seven clean days from the end of her days of impurity, that statement does not apply, and blood emitted before she counted seven clean days imparts impurity whether moist or dry, like the blood of a menstruating woman.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita , which addresses the verse: “If a woman be delivered, and bear a male, then she shall be impure seven days; as in the days of her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” (Leviticus 12:2). The superfluous phrase “her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” serves to include a man who engages in intercourse with her, teaching that he is rendered impure like a menstruating woman and imparts impurity like her.

״דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַלֵּילוֹת, ״דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַיּוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁצְּרִיכָה שֶׁתֵּשֵׁב שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב דְּאָמַר מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי בָּעֲיָא שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים,

Furthermore, the phrase “Her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” serves to include the nights; although the verse states: “As in the days,” she is impure during the night as well. Finally, “her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” serves to include a woman who gives birth as a zava , teaching that she must observe seven clean days. The Gemara analyzes this baraita : Granted, the baraita is clear according to Rav, who said there is one source, as it is due to that reason that a woman who gives birth as a zava requires seven clean days.