Niddah 143
וב"ה אומרים
BUT BETH HILLEL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that a woman who observed a discharge on the eleventh day of her zibah period need not allow a clean day to pass before cleanness can be established. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
פטורים מן הקרבן
RULED: THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SACRIFICE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But, in accordance with a Rabbinical enactment, are subject to uncleanness, as a preventive measure against a discharge during the eleven days (other than the last) in which case the uncleanness is Pentateuchal unless a portion at least of the following day had passed in cleanness. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
טבלה ביום של אחריו ושמשה את ביתה ואח"כ ראתה ב"ש אומרים
IF SHE PERFORMED IMMERSION ON THE NEXT DAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The day following the zibah period (which is the first day of that of menstruation), a portion of that day having passed in cleanness. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ומודים ברואה בתוך י"א יום וטבלה לערב ושמשה שמטמאין משכב ומושב
AND ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SACRIFICE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a portion of the day at least, has passed in cleanness. The discharge observed later in the day has no bearing on zibah since that day belonged to the menstruation period. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
טבלה ביום של אחריו ושמשה ה"ז תרבות רעה ומגען ובעילתן תלויין
IS A GLUTTON,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sexually. Such hurry is indecent, since it might lead one to act similarly in the case of a discharge in the intermediate days of the zibah period when a Pentateuchal prohibition might be infringed. The uncleanness of zibah, however, does not apply. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
מטמאין משכב ומושב וחייבין בקרבן
AND ARE LIABLE TO A SACRIFICE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, as a minor zabah (one who experienced a discharge on one of the days of a zibah period) she must allow one clean day to pass before she can regard herself as clean. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
מ"ש יום י"א מיום תוך י"א
CONDUCT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a discharge that might possibly occur later in the day would continue and extend the uncleanness of the previous day and render the immersion invalid. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
אם שיוה לו לטומאה לא ישוה לו לקרבן
BUT THE UNCLEANNESS OF THEIR TOUCH AND THEIR LIABILITY TO A SACRIFICE ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR INTERCOURSE ARE IN SUSPENSE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until the evening. If later in the day she experienced a discharge their touch conveys the uncleanness of zibah and they are liable to bring the prescribed sacrifice; but if no discharge appeared the touch conveys no uncleanness and no liability to a sacrifice is incurred. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
לא אם אמרת בתוך י"א יום שכן יום שלאחריו מצטרף עמו לזיבה תאמרו ביום י"א שאין יום שלאחריו שנצטרף עמו לזיבה
agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though Beth Hillel hold that, where a discharge appeared on the eleventh day and immersion was performed in the evening, intercourse in that night does not involve the bringing of a sacrifice. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
השוו מדותיכם אם שיוה לו לטומאה ישוה לו לקרבן ואם לא שיוה לו לקרבן לא ישוה לו לטומאה
the immersion is invalid, for both agree that if a woman who observed a discharge during the eleven days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. on any day other than the eleventh. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
אמרו להם ב"ה
and performed immersion in the evening and then had intercourse she conveys uncleanness to couch and seat and both are liable to a sacrifice. They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
ועוד מדבריכם אתם נושכין שאתם אומרין טבלה יום שלאחריו ושמשה ואח"כ ראתה מטמא משכב ומושב ופטורה מן הקרבן אף אתם השוו מדותיכם אם שיוה לו לטומאה ישוה לו לקרבן ואם לא שיוה לו לקרבן לא ישוה לו לטומאה
convey uncleanness to couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice, and Beth Hillel exempt them from the sacrifice. Said Beth Shammai to Beth Hillel: Why should in this respect the eleventh day differ from one of the intermediate of the eleven days; seeing that the former is like the latter in regard to uncleanness, why should it not also be like it in regard to the sacrifice? Beth Hillel answered Beth Shammai: No; if you ruled that a sacrifice is due after a discharge in the intermediate of the eleven days because the following day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is also one of the days of the zibah period. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
אלא להחמיר ולא להקל הכא נמי להחמיר ולא להקל
combines with it in regard to <i>zibah</i>, would you also maintain the same ruling in regard to the eleventh day which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being the last of the zibah days and followed by the first of those of menstruation. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
משכבה ומושבה שבשני ב"ש מטמאין אע"פ שטבלה אע"פ שלא ראתה
if the one is like the other in regard to uncleanness it should also be like it in regard to the sacrifice, and if it is not like it in regard to the sacrifice it should not be like it in regard to uncleanness either. Said Beth Hillel to them: If we impose upon a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we brought him'. ');"><sup>26</sup></span>
תנינא
Out of your own rulings. For, since you rule that if she performed immersion on the next day and having had intercourse she observed a discharge, uncleanness is conveyed to couch and seat and she is exempt from a sacrifice, you also must be consistent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'make your measures equal'. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
טבלה יום שלאחריו ושמשה את ביתה ואח"כ ראתה
If the one is like the other in regard to uncleanness it should also be like it in regard to the sacrifice and if it is not like it in regard to the sacrifice it should not be like it in regard to uncleanness either. The fact, however, is that they are like one another only where the law is thereby restricted but not where it would thereby be relaxed; well, here also, they are like one another where the law is thereby restricted but not where it is thereby relaxed.
מטמאה משכבות ומושבות ופטורה מן הקרבן
which she occupies on the second day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the day following one of the intermediate days of the zibah period on which she experienced a discharge. ');"><sup>33</sup></span>
וכי ראתה מאי הוי
What is the reason? — Because if she had observed a discharge she would have been unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Retrospectively, in accordance with Pentateuchal law, since the discharge on the second day is joined to that on the first to constitute a continuous zibah. ');"><sup>36</sup></span>
תנן הרואה ראייה אחת של זוב ב"ש אומרים
seeing that we have learnt, IF SHE PERFORMED IMMERSION ON THE NEXT DAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The day following the eleventh of a zibah period, which is the first of the following menstruation period, and a discharge on which cannot be treated as a continuation of the zibah discharge of the previous day. ');"><sup>40</sup></span>
כבעל קרי
CONVEY UNCLEANNESS TO COUCH AND SEAT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In cur. edd., the plural is here used. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> AND ARE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. use here the fem. sing. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> EXEMPT FROM THE SACRIFICE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, since a discharge on the twelfth day cannot be treated as a continuation of that on the eleventh (cf. prev. n. but two) and since it does not invalidate the immersion on that day, that discharge, as far as zibah is concerned, might well be regarded as if it had never occurred. The case is consequently similar to that of R. Huna where a discharge on an intermediate day in the zibah period was followed by a day on which none had occurred. As in the Mishnah, where the second discharge occurred on the twelfth, uncleanness has been imposed Rabbinically as a preventive measure against the possibility of a second discharge occurring on the eleventh so also in the case of R. Huna uncleanness must be imposed where no discharge occurred on the second day as a preventive measure against the possibility of a discharge occurring on the second day. What need then was there for R. Huna to make a statement which is implicit in the ruling of our Mishnah? ');"><sup>43</sup></span> R. Kahana objected:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against R. Huna. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> Where she observed a discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case dealt with in our Mishnah though that discharge could not be attributed to zibah. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> the case is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From one where there was no discharge at all. How then could R. Huna maintain his statement? ');"><sup>46</sup></span> Said R. Joseph: But what matters it that she observed a discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case in our Mishnah. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> seeing that it is one of menstruation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which cannot be attributed to zibah; and consequently (cf. p. 501, n. 13) might be regarded (as in the case of R. Huna) as if no discharge had taken place. What then is the basis of R. Kahana's objection? ');"><sup>48</sup></span> — Abaye answered R. Joseph: R. Kahana<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who advanced the opinion that 'where she observed a discharge the case is different'. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> had this difficulty: Where the woman did observe a discharge one can well see the reason why uncleanness has been imposed since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling concerning one discharge being likely to be misunderstood for that of another discharge. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> an observation of menstruation had to be declared unclean as a preventive measure against the possibility of an observation of a discharge of <i>zibah</i>, but where one observed no discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the absence of a discharge is not likely to be misunderstood for a discharge. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> what possibility was there to be provided against? And, furthermore, we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Contrary to the view of R. Huna. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> If a man observed one discharge of <i>zibah</i>, Beth Shammai ruled: He is like a woman who waits a day for a day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. who must allow one clean day to pass for every day on which she experienced a discharge before she may be regarded as clean. As the uncleanness of the touch of such a woman on the second day after she performed immersion is left in suspense to provide against the possibility of a discharge appearing later in the day, so must also be the uncleanness of such a person if after experiencing the discharge he performed immersion. If, e.g., he touches tithe its uncleanness must remain in suspense in case he observes a second discharge which would continue his former zibah. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> and Beth Hillel ruled: Like a man who emitted semen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. he is clean in regard to tithe immediately after his immersion. At all events it was here stated that, according to Beth Shammai, a woman who waits a day for a day is on a par with a man who experienced a first discharge of zibah. ');"><sup>54</sup></span>