Niddah 73

אזל שילא אמר לדביתהו

Shila proceeded to his wife and said to her, 'prepare for me my shroud in order that he have no opportunity of going to Rab and saying things about me'. She prepared his shroud for him; and when the soul of Shila came to its eternal rest people saw a myrtle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was customary to lay a myrtle on a bier (Rashi). ');">¹</span>

צבית לי זוודתא דלא ליזיל ולימא ליה לרב מילי עילואי

flying from the one bier to the other. 'We may conclude', they said, 'that the Rabbis have been reconciled.'

צביתה ליה זוודתא נח נפשיה דשילא

Raba enquired: Does labour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was accompanied by bleeding. ');">²</span>

חזו דפרחא אסא מהאי פוריא להאי פוריא אמרי

render all previous counting in <i>zibah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prescribed seven days. ');">³</span>

ש"מ עבדו רבנן פייסא

void? Does any discharge that causes uncleanness render all previous counting void and, therefore, this also [does it, since] it causes uncleanness like the days of menstruation; or is it possible that only that which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By appearing on three days. ');">⁴</span>

בעי רבא

causes the uncleanness of <i>zibah</i> that renders all the previous counting void, and this, therefore, [does not do it, since] it is no cause of such uncleanness? — Abaye replied: A <i>zibah</i> that is due to an accident provides the answer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., proves'. ');">⁵</span>

קושי מהו שתסתור בזיבה

for this is no cause of the uncleanness of <i>zibah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was stated supra. ');">⁶</span>

דבר המטמא סותר והאי נמי מטמא כימי נדה הוא או דילמא

and yet renders all previous counting void.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. ');">⁷</span>

דבר הגורם סותר והאי לאו גורם הוא

The other retorted: Indeed, this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zibah that is due to an accident. ');">⁸</span>

א"ל אביי

also is a cause of the uncleanness of <i>zibah</i>, for we have learnt: If he observed a first discharge he must be examined, if he observed a second discharge he must be examined, but if he observed a third he need not be examined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zabim II, 2. Thus it is shown that a third discharge, even if it was due to an accident, provided the first two discharges were not due to such a cause, renders a person a confirmed or major zab. ');">⁹</span>

אונס בזיבה יוכיח שאינו גורם וסותר

But according to R. Eliezer who ruled, 'Even after a third discharge he must be examined'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zabim l.c., which proves that zibah that is due to an accident never causes a person to be a confirmed zab. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ליה

would you also maintain that, since it is no cause of the uncleanness of <i>zibah</i>, it does not render the previous counting void? — The other replied: According to R. Eliezer the law is so indeed.

לאיי האי נמי גורם הוא

Come and hear: R. Eliezer ruled, Even after a third discharge he must be examined, but after a fourth one he need not be examined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 35a, Naz. 65b. ');">¹¹</span>

דתנן ראה ראייה ראשונה בודקין אותו שניה בודקין אותו שלישית אין בודקין אותו

Does not this refer to the rendering of previous counting void?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An objection against Raba, who laid down that that which is no cause of the uncleanness of zibah does not render void the previous counting. ');">¹²</span>

ולרבי אליעזר דאמר אף בשלישי' בודקין אותו ה"נ כיון דלא גרים לא סתר

— No, to the imposition on that drop of an uncleanness that may be conveyed through carriage.

אמר ליה

Come and hear: After a third discharge. R. Eliezer ruled, he must be examined; after a fourth one he need not be examined; and it is in regard to a sacrifice that I said this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an examination is necessary. ');">¹³</span>

לרבי אליעזר ה"נ

but not in regard to the rendering void of all previous counting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The counting being always void and is in no way dependent on an examination. Now does not this then prove that even that which causes no uncleanness of zibah renders the counting void? ');">¹⁴</span>

ת"ש רבי אליעזר אומר

But the fact is that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Contrary to what has been explained before. ');">¹⁵</span>

אף בשלישית בודקין אותו ברביעית אין בודקין אותו

according to R. Eliezer you may well solve from here that even that which causes no uncleanness of <i>zibah</i> renders all previous counting void. What, however, [it is asked], is the solution of the problem according to the Rabbis? — Come and hear what the father of R. Abin learnt: 'What had his <i>zibah</i> caused him? Seven days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');">¹⁶</span>

מאי לאו לסתירה

Hence it renders void the counting of seven days. What had his emission of semen caused him? The [uncleanness of] one day. Hence it renders void the counting of one day'. Now what is meant by 'seven days'? If it be suggested that it causes him to be unclean for seven days, [the objection would arise that] in that case it should have been said: As on account of his <i>zibah</i> he is unclean for seven days. Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expression used was 'caused'. ');">¹⁷</span>

לא לטמויה לההיא טיפה במשא

it follows, that only that which causes the uncleanness of <i>zibah</i> renders void the counting of the seven days, but that which does not cause the uncleanness of <i>zibah</i> does not render void all previous counting. This is conclusive. Abaye stated: We have an accepted tradition that labour does not render void all previous counting in <i>zibah</i>; and should you find a Tanna who said that it did render the counting void, that must be R. Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that zibah due to an accident, though it causes no zibah uncleanness, renders void all previous counting. ');">¹⁸</span>

ת"ש בשלישית רבי אליעזר אומר

It was taught: R. Marinus ruled, A birth does not render void the previous counting after a <i>zibah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the counting was interrupted by a birth it may be continued after the birth had taken place. ');">¹⁹</span>

בודקין אותו ברביעית אין בודקין אותו לקרבן אמרתי ולא לסתירה

The question was raised: Is it included in the counting?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if the birth took place during the seven days following a zibah, and the days following it were free from all discharge, are these days counted as clean ones and make up the required number of seven? ');">²⁰</span>

אלא לר"א תפשוט דדבר שאינו גורם סותר לרבנן מאי

— Abaye replied: It neither renders void the days that were previously counted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The counting must be resumed after the clean days of birth have passed. ');">²¹</span>

ת"ש דתני אבוה דרבי אבין

nor is it counted in the prescribed days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The counting must be resumed after the clean days of birth have passed. ');">²¹</span>

מה גרם לו זובו שבעה לפיכך סותר שבעה מה גרם לו קריו יום אחד לפיכך סותר יום אחד

Raba replied: It does not render void the days counted and it is counted among the prescribed days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the days after birth were free from all discharge. ');">²²</span>

מאי שבעה

Whence, said Raba, do I derive this? From what was taught: And after that she shall be clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV. 28. ');">²³</span>

אילימא דמטמא שבעה האי מה זובו טמא שבעה מבעי ליה אלא לאו

'after' means after all of them, implying that no uncleanness may intervene between them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 33b. ');">²⁴</span>

דבר הגורם סותר דבר שאינו גורם אינו סותר ש"מ

Now if you agree that [these days]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That follow a birth. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר אביי

are included one can well see the justification for saying that no uncleanness may intervene between them, but if you contend that these days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That follow a birth. ');">²⁵</span>

נקטינן אין קושי סותר בזיבה

are not included the birth, surely, would cause a break between them. And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How in view of this argument can he maintain his view? ');">²⁶</span>

ואי משכחת תנא דאמר סותר ההוא ר"א היא

— He can answer you: The meaning is that the uncleanness of <i>zibah</i> shall not intervene between them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of childbirth does not matter. ');">²⁷</span>

תניא רבי מרינוס אומר

Whence, said Raba, do I derive this? From what was taught: Of her issue,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV. 28. ');">²³</span>

אין לידה סותרת בזיבה

'of her issue' implies but not of her leprosy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. as soon as she counted the days prescribed for zibah (cf. Lev. XV, 28) she brings the required sacrifice, and attains cleanness from zibah irrespective of whether she was or was not still afflicted with leprosy. ');">²⁸</span>

איבעיא להו

'of her issue' but not of her childbirth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon as she is free from her zibah she begins to count the seven days and need not wait until the unclean days of childbirth had passed. It is thus obvious that a birth during the days of zibah does not render void the previous counting and that the days following birth are included in the counting. ');">²⁹</span>

מהו שתעלה

And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How in view of this argument can he maintain his view? ');">³⁰</span>

אביי אמר

— He can answer you: Deduce once 'Of her issue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 28. ');">³¹</span>

אינה סותרת ואינה עולה

but not of her leprosy' and do not deduce again, 'but not of her childbirth'. And Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can he make two deductions from the same expression? ');">³²</span>

רבא אמר

— What an argument is this!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., that, what'. ');">³³</span>

אינה סותרת ועולה

If you agree that 'of her issue'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 28. ');">³¹</span>

אמר רבא

implies 'but not of her childbirth' one can well justify the text; for since it was required for the deduction about childbirth, leprosy also was mentioned on account of childbirth; but if you contend that 'of her issue' implies only 'but not of her leprosy', [the objection would arise] that this could be deduced from And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 13. ');">³⁴</span>

מנא אמינא לה דתניא (ויקרא טו, כח) ואחר תטהר אחר אחר לכולן שלא תהא טומאה מפסקת ביניהם

which implies 'of his issue' and not of his leprosy. And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How in view of this argument can he maintain his view? ');">³⁰</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא עולה היינו דלא מפסקת טומאה אלא אי אמרת אינה עולה אפסיק ליה לידה

— One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the two texts cited. ');">³⁵</span>

ואביי אמר לך

refers to a <i>zab</i> and the other to a zabah, both being necessary. For if the All Merciful had only written

שלא תהא טומאת זיבה מפסקת ביניהם

אמר רבא

מנא אמינא לה דתניא מזובה מזובה ולא מנגעה מזובה ולא מלידתה

ואביי אמר לך

תני חדא מזובה ולא מנגעה ולא תתני ולא מלידתה

ורבא האי מאי

אי אמרת בשלמא מזובה ולא מלידתה איידי דאצטריך ליה לידה תנא נגעה אטו לידה אלא אי אמרת מזובה ולא מנגעה האי {ויקרא טו } מוכי יטהר הזב מזובו נפקא מזובו ולא מנגעו

ואביי חד בזב וחד בזבה

וצריכי דאי כתב רחמנא