Niddah 69b

וְתַמְנֵי לְזִיבָה, אֲתַאי קַמַּן בְּלֵילָוָתָא — יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ תַּמְנֵי לְנִדָּה וְשַׁב לְזִיבָה.

And she requires eight immersions during the day to purify her from her ziva , as it is possible that she experienced bleeding for three consecutive days, rendering her a greater zava , and one of those was on this day that she came before the court, and it is also possible that the day she arrived she did not experience bleeding, and she was a zava during her last clean day and had to immerse that day. If she comes before us at night, we give her eight immersions to purify herself from her menstruation, including one on the night that she comes before the court, and seven immersions during the day to purify herself from her ziva .

זִיבָה, תַּמְנֵי בָּעֲיָא! אֶלָּא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי — שַׁב לְנִדָּה, וְתַמְנֵי לְזִיבָה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to her ziva , she still requires eight immersions. Since it is possible that she experienced bleeding for the third day on the day before coming to the court, she might be a greater zava , who starts her clean days only the day after she arrived. In addition, any of the first seven days may be the last clean day, on which she has to immerse herself. The Gemara answers: Rather, in both this case and that case she requires seven immersions to purify herself from the impurity of menstruation, and eight immersions to purify herself from the impurity of ziva .

בְּלֵילָוָתָא, תַּמְנֵי לְנִדָּה בָּעֵי!

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: If the woman comes at night to the court, she requires eight immersions to purify herself from her impurity of menstruation. Why does the baraita require her to immerse a total of only fifteen times when there are cases where she must immerse sixteen times?

זִיבָה דִּפְסִיקָא לֵיהּ, דְּלָא שְׁנָא כִּי אָתְיָא קַמַּן בִּימָמָא, לָא שְׁנָא כִּי אָתְיָא קַמַּן בְּלֵילְיָא — חֲשִׁיב לַהּ. נִדָּה דְּלָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ, דְּכִי אָתְיָא קַמַּן בְּלֵילָוָתָא — בָּעֵי תַּמְנֵי, בִּימָמָא — לָא קָבָעֵי תַּמְנֵי, לָא קָחָשֵׁיב לַהּ.

The Gemara answers: With regard to purifying herself from the impurity of ziva , which can be taught in a distinct manner, as there is no difference whether she comes before us during the day and there is no difference whether she comes before us at night, the baraita counts the fixed amount of eight immersions. By contrast, with regard to purifying herself from menstruation, which the tanna cannot teach in a distinct manner, as when she comes before us at night she requires eight immersions but if she comes before us during the day she does not require eight immersions, the tanna did not count both options, but mentioned only seven immersions, which is the minimum number required.

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ סְפוּרִין לְפָנֵינוּ בָּעֵינַן — כֹּל הָנֵי טְבִילוֹת לְמָה לִי? תִּסְפּוֹר שַׁב וַהֲדַר תִּטְבּוֹל! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַבָּנַן הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: לָא בָּעֵינַן סְפוּרִין לְפָנֵינוּ.

The Gemara returns to the initial purpose of this discussion, which was to indicate that the Rabbis do not require all seven days of counting before the court. And if it enters your mind that we require seven days of counting before us, why do I need all of these immersions? She should count seven clean days and only afterward immerse. Rather, must one not conclude from this that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and who say that we do not require seven days of counting before us?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לָאו תָּרוֹצֵי קָמְתָרְצִינַן לַהּ? תָּרֵיץ וְאֵימָא הָכִי: ״סָפַרְתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדַעַת כַּמָּה סָפַרְתִּי, אִם בִּימֵי נִדָּה סָפַרְתִּי וְאִם בִּימֵי זִיבָה סָפַרְתִּי״ — מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה טְבִילוֹת.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi, in rejection of this proof: But didn’t you resolve a difficulty in the baraita ? Since you admit that the baraita in any event requires revision, resolve this difficulty too, and say this: If a woman comes and says: I counted clean days but I do not know how many days I counted, and I do not know whether I counted during the days of menstruation or whether I counted during the days of ziva , the court instructs her to immerse fifteen immersions. If so, there is no proof that the Rabbis hold that the counting does not need to be before the court.

״סָפַרְתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדַעַת כַּמָּה סָפַרְתִּי״ — חַד יוֹמָא מִיהָא אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא סָפְרָה, חָסְרָה לָהּ טְבִילָה!

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this interpretation of the baraita : If it is referring to a case where the woman said: I counted clean days but I do not know how many days I counted, it is impossible that she did not count at least one clean day. If so, she should not be required to immerse on the eighth day, in which case she is lacking one immersion, as the baraita rules that she must immerse fifteen times.

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: ״אֵינִי יוֹדַעַת אִם סָפַרְתִּי אִם לֹא סָפַרְתִּי״.

The Gemara answers: Rather, say that she claims: I do not know if I counted any clean days or I did not count any clean days. Likewise, she does not know whether she saw the blood during her days of menstruation or during her days of ziva . Therefore, she must immerse fifteen times, as it is possible that she has not yet counted at all.

מַתְנִי' הַזָּב, וְהַזָּבָה, וְהַנִּדָּה, וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת, וְהַמְּצוֹרָע שֶׁמֵּתוּ — מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַשָּׂא, עַד שֶׁיִּמּוֹק הַבָּשָׂר. נׇכְרִי שֶׁמֵּת — טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא.

MISHNA: The corpses of a zav , and a zava , and a menstruating woman, and a woman after childbirth, and a leper, who died, transmit ritual impurity by carrying their corpses, until the flesh decays. With regard to the corpse of a gentile who died, although when alive he transmits impurity like a zav , once he dies he is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים מֵתוֹת נִדּוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נִדָּה אֶלָּא שֶׁמֵּתָה נִדָּה.

Beit Shammai say: The status of all women when they die is as though they were menstruating women at the time of death. Therefore, the garments that they were wearing before they died are impure and require immersion. And Beit Hillel say: Only a woman who died with the impurity of a menstruating woman has the status of a menstruating woman after death.

גְּמָ' מַאי בְּמַשָּׂא? אִילֵּימָא בְּמַשָּׂא מַמָּשׁ — אַטּוּ כֹּל מֵת מִי לָא מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא!

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the corpse of one of these impure people transmits ritual impurity by carrying. The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean by the term: By carrying? If we say that it literally means by carrying, that is difficult: Is that to say that every other corpse does not impart ritual impurity by carrying? Since every corpse imparts impurity through carrying, why does the mishna need to specify this halakha in these specific cases?

אֶלָּא מַאי בְּמַשָּׂא? בְּאֶבֶן מְסָמָא,

Rather, what does the mishna mean when it states: By carrying [ bemassa ]? It means imparting impurity through a very heavy stone [ even mesama ]. There is a unique halakha with regard to the ritual impurity of a zav and a menstruating woman. If they sit on an item, even one that cannot become ritually impure, and beneath that item there is a vessel, although the weight of the zav or the menstruating woman has no physical effect on the vessel, it becomes ritually impure.

דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֵיתָיִת אֶבֶן חֲדָא וְשׂוּמַת עַל פּוּם גּוּבָּא״.

The Gemara notes that the word mesama is based on a verse, as it is written: “And a stone was brought and placed [ vesumat ] upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel” (Daniel 6:18). Accordingly, the mishna is teaching that although a corpse does not normally impart ritual impurity to vessels under a heavy stone, these specific types of corpses do transmit impurity in this manner.

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב: גְּזֵרָה, שֶׁמָּא יִתְעַלְּפֶה.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages decreed that these specific types of corpses impart ritual impurity through a heavy stone? Rav said: It is a decree due to the possibility that perhaps one of these people might faint while sitting on the heavy stone, and it might be mistakenly thought they are dead and do not impart impurity to the vessels beneath.

תָּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמְרוּ: עַד שֶׁיִּבָּקַע כְּרֵיסוֹ.

A tanna taught in a baraita that the Sages said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: All of these types of corpses listed in the mishna impart ritual impurity through a heavy stone until the belly of the corpse bursts. The Sages imposed their decree only in cases where the corpse resembles a person who has fainted. Once the corpse is clearly no longer alive, it no longer imparts ritual impurity through a heavy stone.

נׇכְרִי שֶׁמֵּת [כּוּ׳]. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ נׇכְרִי שֶׁמֵּת טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין טוּמְאָתוֹ מֵחַיִּים מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the corpse of a gentile who died, although when alive he transmits impurity like a zav , once he dies he is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: For what reason did the Sages say that the corpse of a gentile who died is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity by carrying? Because his impurity that he transmits even when alive is not by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. The Sages decreed that every living gentile imparts ritual impurity in the manner of a zav ; they did not extend their decree to include the corpse of a gentile in the manner of the corpse of a zav .

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים שָׁאֲלוּ אַנְשֵׁי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חִינָּנָא, שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּבְרֵי חָכְמָה, שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּבְרֵי הַגָּדָה, שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּבְרֵי בוּרוּת, שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּבְרֵי דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ.

§ The Sages taught: The wise people of Alexandria asked twelve matters of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥinnana. Three of them were matters of wisdom, three were matters of aggada , three were matters of ignorance, and three were matters of behavior.

שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּבְרֵי חָכְמָה: הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וְהַנִּדָּה וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת וְהַמְּצוֹרָע שֶׁמֵּתוּ, עַד מָתַי מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַשָּׂא? אָמַר לָהֶן: עַד שֶׁיִּמּוֹק הַבָּשָׂר.

The Gemara lists the questions. Three were matters of wisdom: The first question was with regard to a zav and a zava and a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth and the leper, who died: Until when do they transmit ritual impurity by carrying? Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Until the flesh decays. This is the halakha taught in the mishna.

בַּת מְשׁוּלַּחַת, מָה הִיא לְכֹהֵן?

The second question referred to the daughter of a wife who had been sent away by her husband, i.e., divorced, who then married another, but after her divorce from her second husband or his death she returned and remarried her first husband, to whom she is forbidden (see Deuteronomy 24:1–4), and a daughter was born from this marriage. What is her, i.e., the daughter’s, status with regard to marrying a priest?

מִי אָמְרִינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וּמָה אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרָהּ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל — בְּנָהּ פָּגוּם, זוֹ שֶׁאִיסּוּרָהּ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁבְּנָהּ פָּגוּם? אוֹ דִילְמָא: מָה לְאַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — שֶׁהִיא עַצְמָהּ מִתְחַלֶּלֶת.

Do we say an a fortiori inference: And if in the case of a widow married to a High Priest, whose prohibition does not apply to all, i.e., it is prohibited for her only to marry a High Priest (see Leviticus 21:13–15), and yet the lineage of her son is flawed, as he is disqualified from the priesthood, then in the case of this daughter of a remarried divorcée, whose prohibition applies equally to all men, is it not right that her son should be of flawed lineage? Or perhaps this comparison can be refuted: What is notable about a widow married to a High Priest? It is notable in that she herself is disqualified from the priesthood, i.e., if a High Priest engages in intercourse with her she is disqualified from partaking of teruma , whereas a remarried divorcée is not disqualified from partaking of teruma .

אָמַר לָהֶן:

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: