Niddah 108
ת"ש ראתה שנים ולשלישי הפילה ואינה יודעת מה הפילה הרי זו ספק זיבה ספק לידה
be reckoned in the counting prescribed for her <i>zibah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that at the conclusion of seven days, and the due performance of immersion, she is exempt from the restrictions that are imposed upon a zabah. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אמר רב פפא
observed a discharge on two days, and on the third day she miscarried but was unaware what she miscarried, behold this is a case of doubtful <i>zibah</i> and doubtful birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is possible that she gave birth to a proper child and that no bleeding accompanied it, in which case it is a valid birth and no zibah. It is equally possible that the birth was not that of a proper child and that it was accompanied by a flow of blood, in which case it is a proper zibah and no valid birth. It is also possible that the birth was a proper one and that it was accompanied by bleeding in which case it is both a valid birth and a proper zibah. It is equally possible that there was neither proper birth nor bleeding so that there was neither zibah nor valid birth. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ביולדת זכר איכא לספוקי ביולדת נקבה ליכא לספוקי
which may not be eaten<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is possible that the birth was not valid, that in consequence no sacrifice was required, and that the bird that was mistakenly killed in the manner prescribed for a sacrifice was, therefore, nebelah, ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
אלא לאו שמע מינה
while the days succeeding her childbirth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the first fourteen days of which, since it is possible that the birth was that of a female, the woman is unclean even though no discharge was observed, ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
עולין שמע מינה
on which she observes no discharge are reckoned in the counting prescribed for her <i>zibah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the restrictions of which she is subject on account of the possibility that the miscarriage was accompanied by bleeding. Thus it has been shown that the days succeeding childbirth on which no discharge is observed are reckoned in the counting prescribed for a zabah. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
אבל הזוב והניע והרוק והשרץ והנבלה והשכבת זרע מטמאין לחין ואין מטמאין יבשין
so that all the extra seven days that we impose upon her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A total of fourteen days as a precaution against the possibility that the birth was that of a female child. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ואם יכולין להשרות ולחזור לכמות שהן מטמאין לחין ומטמאין יבשין
may well be reckoned in the counting prescribed for her <i>zibah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had it, however, been certain that the birth was that of a female child (similar to the certainty supra 54a) the days succeeding birth could not be reckoned in the counting prescribed for a zabah. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
בפושרין מעת לעת
only the doubt of having given birth to a male child, and is there no doubt as to the possibility of the birth of a female child?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course there is. The birth of the latter is as possible as the birth of the former and the possibility, therefore, exists that the woman is unclean for fourteen days. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
דאמר קרא (ויקרא טו, לג) והדוה בנדתה מדוה כמותה מה היא מטמאה אף מדוה מטמאה
If a woman is alternately unclean for nine days and clean for nine days she may have marital intercourse on eight days out of every eighteen days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first group of nine days she is a menstruant during the first seven days and a minor zabah on the last two days; and in the second group of nine days she allows the first day to pass (as prescribed for a minor zabah) while in the remaining eight days, being fully clean, she is permitted marital intercourse. The same process is repeated in every cycle of eighteen day. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
אשכחן לח יבש מנלן
If she is alternately unclean for ten days and clean for ten days, the days in which she is permitted marital intercourse are the same in number as the days of her <i>zibah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the first ten days she is a menstruant for seven days and a zabah during the last three days, while during the second group of ten days she counts the prescribed seven days and has three days left in which she is clean and permitted marital intercourse. The three latter days are thus equal in number to the three days of her zibah. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
אמר קרא {ויקרא טו } יהיה בהויתו יהא
applies to cycles of a hundred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman is menstrual during the first seven days of the first hundred and is a zabah during the remaining ninety-three days, while the first seven days of the second hundred are counted as the days prescribed after the zibah and in the remaining ninety-three days she is permitted marital intercourse. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
הני מילי בלח ונעשה יבש יבש מעיקרו מנלן
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE BLOOD OF A MENSTRUANT AND THE FLESH OF A CORPSE CONVEY UNCLEANNESS WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY. BUT THE ISSUE, PHLEGM AND SPITTLE OF A <i>ZAB</i>, A DEAD CREEPING THING, A CARCASS AND SEMEN CONVEY UNCLEANNESS WHEN WET BUT NOT WHEN DRY. IF, HOWEVER, ON BEING SOAKED, THEY ARE CAPABLE OF REVERTING TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION THEY CONVEY UNCLEANNESS WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY. AND WHAT IS THE DURATION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the maximum time. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
המפלת כמין קליפה כמין עפר כמין שערה כמין יבחושין אדומים תטיל למים אם נמוחו טמא מנלן
TWENTY-FOUR HOURS IN LUKEWARM WATER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if they do not resume their original freshness unless soaked for a longer time or in warmer water they convey uncleanness when wet only. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
אי מה היא עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם ולטמא בגדים אף דמה נמי עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם ולטמא בגדים
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Whence are these rulings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the blood of menstruation conveys uncleanness by contact and carriage. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
דתניא
is like herself, as she conveys her uncleanness so does her impurity convey similar uncleanness. Thus we find the law concerning wet blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is its natural state when discharged from the body. ');"><sup>32</sup></span>
ודין הוא ומה זב שאינו מטמא בביאה עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים אבן מנוגעת שמטמאה בביאה אינו דין שמטמאה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים ת"ל הזב הזב ולא אבן מנוגעת
it shall retain its original force.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in its being it shall be'. ');"><sup>34</sup></span>
ומינה לאו מי אמרת הזב ולא אבן מנוגעת ה"נ אמר קרא
applies only to blood that was wet and then dried up; whence, however, the deduction that it applies also to blood that was originally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. when it was discovered. Cf. the cited Mishnah that follows. ');"><sup>36</sup></span>
אשר היא יושבת עליו היא ולא דמה
dry? And, furthermore, with reference to what we have learnt, 'If a woman aborted an object that was like a rind, like earth, like a hair, like red flies, let her put it in water and if it dissolves she is unclean', whence is this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That subsequent solution renders the originally dry object unclean. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> deduced? — 'Be'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her issue … be blood (Lev. XV, 29). ');"><sup>38</sup></span> is an inclusive statement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Covering all the objects mentioned. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> If [it be argued:] As she causes couch and seat to convey uncleanness to man and to his garments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. she does not merely convey to them an uncleanness of a degree next to, and lower than her own but one, that of 'father of uncleanness', which is on a par with hers. Only a 'father of uncleanness' can effect the uncleanness of a man. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> so should her blood also cause couch and garment to convey uncleanness to man and his garments. [it can be retorted:] Is then her blood capable of using a couch or a seat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not. The analogy, therefore, cannot be drawn. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> — But according to your argument<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That since blood cannot use a couch or a seat it cannot cause it to be a 'father of uncleanness'. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> [it could also be objected]: Is a leprous stone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XIV, 34ff. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> capable of using a couch or a seat that a text should be required to exclude it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the restriction of causing a couch and a seat to become 'fathers of uncleanness'. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> For it was taught. 'It might have been presumed that a leprous stone should cause a couch and a seat to convey uncleanness to man and to his garments, this being arrived at logically, for if a <i>zab</i> who does not convey uncleanness by means of entry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a clean person enters with a zab into the same house the former does not thereby become unclean. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> causes couch and seat to convey uncleanness to man and to his garments, how much more then should a leprous stone, which does convey uncleanness by means of entry,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XIV, 46. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> convey uncleanness to couch and seat to convey it to man and his garments, hence it was specifically stated, He that hath the issue,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 4. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> implying only 'he that hath the issue' [is subject to the restriction]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of causing couch and seat to convey uncleanness to man and his garments. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> but not a leprous stone'. Now the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why a leprous stone was excluded from the restriction (cf. prev. n.). ');"><sup>49</sup></span> is that Scripture has excluded it, but if that had not been the case it would have conveyed the uncleanness, would it not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is not capable of using couch or seat. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> — A reply may indeed be forthcoming from this very statement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and from it'. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> for did you not say. 'He that hath the issue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 4. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> [is subject to the restriction] but not a leprous stone'? Well here also Scripture said, Whereon she sitteth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV. 23. emphasis on 'she'. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> only she but not her blood.