Niddah 70

שהוא עושה משכב ומושב

in that he causes a couch and a seat to be unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a 'father of uncleanness'. ');">¹</span>

אימת

Now when [does this ruling apply]? If it be suggested: When a second discharge was observed [the objection would arise]: How could he then be included in 'the same law of uncleanness as one who emitted semen'? It is consequently obvious [that is was meant to apply] when a first discharge was observed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When (cf. supra 34b ad fin.) he may well be compared to one who emitted semen. ');">²</span>

אילימא בראייה שניה היכא הוה בכלל בעל קרי

and yet it was stated, was it not, 'To relax the law for him in that he does not become unclean in case of a mishap'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An objection against R. Huna. ');">³</span>

אלא פשיטא בראייה ראשונה וקתני להקל עליו שאינו מטמא באונס

— But how do you understand this: 'To restrict it for him in that he causes a couch and a seat to be unclean'; is he capable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a son of'. ');">⁴</span>

ותסברא להחמיר עליו שהוא עושה משכב ומושב בראייה ראשונה בר משכב ומושב הוא

after a first observation to cause a couch and a seat to be unclean? But the fact is that it is this that was meant: 'R. Isaac said, A <i>zab</i> after his first observation was surely included in the same law of uncleanness as one who emitted semen, why then was he in the case of a second observation excluded? In order to relax the law for him in one respect and to restrict it for him in another respect. "To relax the law for him" in that he does not become unclean in case of a mishap; "and to restrict it for him" in that he causes a couch and a bed to be unclean'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a 'father of uncleanness'. ');">⁵</span>

אלא הכי קאמר רבי יצחק אומר

R. Huna stated: The discharge of a <i>zab</i> resembles the dough water of barley. The discharge of the <i>zab</i> issues from dead flesh while semen issues from live flesh. The former is watery and resembles the white of a crushed egg while the latter is viscous and resembles the white of a sound egg.

והלא זב בכלל בעל קרי היה בראייה ראשונה ולמה יצא בראייה שנייה להקל עליו ולהחמיר עליו להקל עליו שאינו מטמא באונס ולהחמיר עליו שהוא עושה משכב ומושב

THE BLOOD OF A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH WHO DID NOT UNDERGO RITUAL IMMERSION etc. It was taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai, Do you not agree that if a menstruant who did not undergo ritual Immersion observed some blood she is unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they do in this case, why do they differ in that of a WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH? ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב הונא

Said Beth Shammai to them: [This is] no [comparison]. If you apply this law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of uncleanness. ');">⁷</span>

זוב דומה למי בצק של שעורים זוב בא מבשר המת שכבת זרע בא מבשר החי

to a menstruant who, even after she had undergone immersion, is unclean if she observed a discharge, would you also apply it to a woman after childbirth who, if she had undergone immersion and then observed a discharge, is clean? The former retorted: The case of one who gave birth during <i>zibah</i> proves our case; for if such a woman had undergone ritual immersion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After counting the seven clean days in addition to the unclean days of childbirth. ');">⁸</span>

זוב דיהה ודומה ללובן ביצה המוזרת שכבת זרע קשורה ודומה ללובן ביצה שאינה מוזרת

and observed a discharge after the counted days she is clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is clean blood. ');">⁹</span>

דם היולדת שלא טבלה וכו'

while if she did not undergo immersion and observed a discharge she is unclean. The latter replied: The same law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is applicable to a woman after childbirth in the absence of zibah. ');">¹⁰</span>

תניא אמרו להן בית הלל לבית שמאי

applies,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To a childbirth in zibah: sc. the latter also is clean, if the discharge occurred after the unclean days of childbirth and the seven clean days after zibah had been counted, though she had undergone no immersion. ');">¹¹</span>

אי אתם מודים בנדה שלא טבלה וראתה דם שהיא טמאה

and this is our reply. This then implies that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. ');">¹²</span>

אמרו להם בית שמאי

are in disagreement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the uncleanness of one who was in childbirth during zibah. ');">¹³</span>

לא אם אמרתם בנדה שאפילו טבלה וראתה טמאה

But have we not learnt: THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. ');">¹²</span>

תאמרו ביולדת שאם טבלה וראתה שהיא טהורה

AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT IF SHE GAVE BIRTH WHILE IN <i>ZIBAH</i>, IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY? — This is no difficulty, since the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמרו להם

refers to one who already counted the prescribed days while the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">¹⁵</span>

יולדת בזוב תוכיח שאם טבלה וראתה לאחר ימי ספירה טהורה לא טבלה וראתה טמאה

refers to one who did not count them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the discharge occurred before the lapse of seven clean days after the zibah. As she is then still a zibah her discharge (unlike that of a woman in childbirth in the absence of zibah that is unclean only when wet) is unclean whether wet or dry. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמרו להם

And so it was also taught: If a woman who gave birth during <i>zibah</i> had counted the prescribed number of clean days but did not undergo ritual immersion and then observed a discharge. Beth Shammai gave their ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'went', ');">¹⁷</span>

הוא הדין והיא התשובה

in accordance with their own view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Expressed in the case of a childbirth that was free from zibah, viz., that even prior to immersion the discharge is clean if the prescribed number of clean days had been duly counted. ');">¹⁸</span>

למימרא דפליגי

and Beth Hillel ruled in accordance with their own view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That cleanness cannot be attained unless there was immersion as well as the due counting of the clean days. ');">¹⁹</span>

והתנן

It was stated: Rab said, [the blood discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After childbirth. ');">²⁰</span>

ומודים ביולדת בזוב שהיא מטמאה לח ויבש

emanates<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the prescribed unclean and clean days. ');">²¹</span>

לא קשיא כאן שספרה כאן שלא ספרה

from] one and the same source; but it is the Torah that declared it unclean during one period<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For seven days after the birth of a male child and for fourteen days after the birth of a female child. ');">²²</span>

והתניא

and clean during another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For thirty-three days after the seven in the case of the birth of a male and for sixty-six days after the fourteen in the case of the birth of a female. ');">²³</span>

יולדת בזוב שספרה ולא טבלה וראתה הלכו בית שמאי לשיטתן וב"ה לשיטתן

Levi, however, said, It emanates from two different sources. When the unclean one is closed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the end of seven and the fourteen days respectively (cf. prev. n. but one). ');">²⁴</span>

איתמר רב אמר

the clean one opens, and when the clean one closes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the termination (cf. prev. n. but one) of the forty and the eighty days respectively. ');">²⁵</span>

מעין אחד הוא התורה טמאתו והתורה טהרתו

the unclean one opens. What is the practical difference between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab and Levi. ');">²⁶</span>

ולוי אמר

— The practical difference between them is the case of a continuous discharge from within the seven days into the period following these seven days, or from within the fourteen days into the period after the fourteenth, or from within the forty days to the period after the forty days or from within the eighty days into the period following eighty days. According to Rab the law is to be relaxed in the first case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From within the seven and the fourteen days to the respective periods following them. Though the discharge was continuous it becomes clean, in accordance with the ordinance of the Torah, after the seventh and the fourteenth day respectively. ');">²⁷</span>

שני מעינות הם נסתם הטמא נפתח הטהור נסתם הטהור נפתח הטמא

and restricted in the latter;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From within the forty and the eighty days to the respective periods following them. Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. ');">²⁸</span>

מאי בינייהו

but according to Levi the law is to be restricted in the first case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one. Since the discharge was continuous it must be assumed that the unclean source had not yet closed. ');">²⁹</span>

איכא בינייהו

and relaxed in the latter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. ');">³⁰</span>

שופעת מתוך שבעה לאחר שבעה ומתוך ארבעה עשר לאחר ארבעה עשר ומתוך ארבעים לאחר ארבעים ומתוך שמנים לאחר שמנים לרב רישא לקולא וסיפא לחומרא ללוי רישא לחומרא וסיפא לקולא

An objection was raised: THE BLOOD OF A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH WHO DID NOT UNDERGO RITUAL IMMERSION, BETH SHAMMAI RULED, IS LIKE HER SPITTLE AND HER URINE, BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY, It was now presumed that this is a case where<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the termination of the unclean days. ');">³¹</span>

מיתיבי דם היולדת שלא טבלה בית שמאי אומרים

there was a break.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the continuity of the discharge. ');">³²</span>

כרוקה וכמימי רגליה וב"ה אומרים

This then is satisfactory according to Rab who said that the discharge emanates from one and the same source,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that it is only an ordinance of the Torah that brings about the distinction. ');">³³</span>

מטמא לח ויבש

for this reason it conveys uncleanness both when wet and dry.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the woman had not yet undergone ritual immersion the source must remain unclean and the discharge continues to convey uncleanness whether it is wet or dry. ');">³⁴</span>

קא ס"ד דפסקה בשלמא לרב דאמר מעין אחד הוא משום הכי מטמא לח ויבש אלא ללוי דאמר שני מעינות הן אמאי מטמא לח ויבש

But according to Levi who said that it emanated from two different sources why<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since at the termination of the unclean days the clean source opens. ');">³⁵</span>

אמר לך לוי

should it convey uncleanness both when wet and when dry? — Levi can answer you: We are here dealing with the case of a woman whose discharge was continuous.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. there was no break in it when the unclean period had ended, which is an indication that the unclean source had not yet been closed. ');">³⁶</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן בשופעת אי בשופעת

But if the discharge was continuous, what is Beth Shammai's reason? — Beth Shammai are of the opinion that there exists only once source. According to Levi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who stated that according to Beth Hillel there are two different sources. ');">³⁷</span>

מ"ט דב"ש

one can quite well see the point that divides Beth Shammai from Beth Hillel;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the latter, since the sources are two, and since the unclean one had not yet closed, the discharge must be unclean; while according to the former, since there is only one source and the Torah ordained that after the unclean days prescribed it becomes clean, the discharge must be clean. ');">³⁸</span>

קסברי ב"ש

but, according to Rab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who stated that there is only one source. ');">³⁹</span>

מעין אחד הוא

what<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If Beth Hillel uphold this view. ');">⁴⁰</span>

בשלמא ללוי היינו דאיכא בין ב"ש וב"ה אלא לרב מאי בינייהו

is the point that divides them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai from Beth Hillel, seeing that both agree that there is only one source for the clean and the unclean blood. ');">⁴¹</span>

איכא בינייהו יומי וטבילה דבית שמאי סברי ביומי תלה רחמנא וב"ה סברי ביומי וטבילה

— The point that divides them in the question whether<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To enable the woman to attain cleanness. ');">⁴²</span>

ת"ש

both the termination of the prescribed number of days and also ritual immersion are required; Beth Shammai holding that the All Merciful made the cleanness dependent on the days alone while Beth Hillel hold that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Irrespective of whether the discharge was continuous or ceased for a time at the termination of the unclean days. ');">⁴³</span>

ומודים ביולדת בזוב שהיא מטמאה לח ויבש

it is dependent on both the days and immersion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One without the other does not suffice for the attainment of cleanness. ');">⁴⁴</span>

ס"ד הכא נמי דפסקה בשלמא לרב דאמר מעין אחד הוא משום הכי מטמא לח ויבש אלא ללוי דאמר שני מעינות הן אמאי מטמא לח ויבש

Come and hear: THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT IF SHE GAVE BIRTH WHILE IN <i>ZIBAH</i>, IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY. It was now assumed that here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where, as was explained supra, the days prescribed for a childbirth had passed but the seven clean days that are to follow zibah had not yet been counted. ');">⁴⁵</span>

אמר לך

it is a case where there was a break.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the continuity of the discharge, at the conclusion of the unclean period. ');">⁴⁶</span>

הכא נמי בשופעת

Now, according to Rab who stated that there exists only one source one can quite well see the reason why the discharge conveys UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason being that the Torah ordained the blood to be regarded as unclean until the seven clean days that must follow zibah had passed. ');">⁴⁷</span>

אי בשופעת למאי איצטריך

but according to Levi who stated that the sources are two why does the discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which after the unclean period emanates from the clean source. ');">⁴⁸</span>

לב"ש איצטריך אף על גב דקאמרי בית שמאי מעין אחד הוא וביומי תלה רחמנא הני מילי ביולדת גרידתא דשלימו להו יומי אבל יולדת בזוב דבעי ספירה

CONVEY UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. while, by reason of its emanating from the source of a zab, it is rightly unclean when wet, why should it also be unclean when dry? ');">⁴⁹</span>

לא

— He can answer you: Here also it is a case of a continuous discharge. But if the discharge was continuous, what was the need of stating the law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH etc. ');">⁵⁰</span>

תא שמע

— It was necessary to state it for the sake of Beth Shammai: Although Beth Shammai maintain that there is only one source and that the All Merciful had ordained the uncleanness to be dependent entirely on the lapse of the prescribed number of days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the discharge after these unclean days have passed becomes naturally clean. ');">⁵¹</span>

(ויקרא יב, ב) דותה תטמא לרבות את בועלה דותה תטמא לרבות הלילות דותה תטמא לרבות היולדת בזוב שצריכה שתשב שבעה ימים נקיים

this applies only to a woman in normal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'alone'. ');">⁵²</span>

בשלמא לרב דאמר מעין אחד הוא משום הכי בעיא שבעה ימים נקיים

childbirth, the prescribed number of whose unclean days had passed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'completed'. ');">⁵³</span> but not to a woman who gave birth in <i>zibah</i> who is required also to count seven clean days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the zibah. So long as she had not counted these days she remains subject to the uncleanness of zibah. ');">⁵⁴</span> Come and hear: Her sickness shall be unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 2. ');">⁵⁵</span> includes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since otherwise the text is superfluous after the previous statement 'then she shall be unclean seven days as in the days of impurity' (ibid.). ');">⁵⁶</span> the man who had intercourse with her;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that he becomes as unclean as she. ');">⁵⁷</span> 'her sickness shall be unclean'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 2. ');">⁵⁵</span> includes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 246. n. 12. ');">⁵⁸</span> the nights;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the uncleanness is not restricted to the days, though 'days' only were spoken of in the context. ');">⁵⁹</span> 'her sickness shall she be unclean'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 2. ');">⁶⁰</span> includes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 246. n. 12. ');">⁵⁸</span> a woman who gave birth while in <i>zibah</i> who remains in her uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After all discharge had ceased. ');">⁶¹</span> until seven clean days have passed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 37b. ');">⁶²</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The last mentioned ruling. ');">⁶³</span> is quite intelligible according to Rab who said that there exists only one source, since it is for this reason that she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To attain cleanness. ');">⁶⁴</span> requires seven clean days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The discharge emanating from the same source as the unclean blood, the Torah (by its insertion of the superfluous text mentioned) ordained that cleanness cannot be attained before the woman had counted seven clean days. ');">⁶⁵</span>