A zav who sees once transfers impurity only by touching, one who sees twice transfers impurity also by carrying and by sitting/lying and is impure for seven days, one who sees three times, needs to also bring a sacrifice. If a leper saw one discharge of ziva, would this be considered like liquids that come out of a lepers body which transfer impurity also by carrying ot only by touching like a zav who sees once as maybe it’s not considered like a “maayan”? Rav Huna says that a zav who sees once, is impure even if it is due to external factors, which differs from one who sees twice who would not be impure from a discharge caused by external factors. The gemara brings several questions on Rav Huna. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel debate whether a woman who gave birth – what is the status of blood during her pure days if she did not go to the mikveh after the impure days? The gemara brings a debate between Rav and Levi regarding the understanding of the difference between the pure and impure blood – is it coming from the same source and the Torah declared those impure and those pure? Or is the blood that comes from differenct sources. The gemara explains the relevant differences between the opinions and also explains their debate as it connects to Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel’s debate. The gemara brings several questions against Levi.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark Goldstein in honor of his wife, Rena Septee Goldstein, on the occasion of their 44th anniversary.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Fally Klein in memory of her Uncle Shimon Lemmer, Shimon Ben Naftali Menachem z”l. “He found such comfort in his daily daf, especially toward the end of his life. May the Torah that brought him comfort be an aliyah for his neshamah. We’ll miss you terribly.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark Goldstein in honor of his wife, Rena Septee Goldstein, on the occasion of their 44th anniversary.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Fally Klein in memory of her Uncle Shimon Lemmer, Shimon Ben Naftali Menachem z”l. “He found such comfort in his daily daf, especially toward the end of his life. May the Torah that brought him comfort be an aliyah for his neshamah. We’ll miss you terribly.”
Niddah 35
לַאֲחֵרִים גּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה, לְעַצְמוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּזָב מְצוֹרָע,
there is no need for the verse to teach this. After all, if this drop of ziva causes impurity for others, i.e., if the person emitting the drop imparts impurity through carrying, is it not all the more so that the drop itself imparts impurity through carrying? Rather, it is obvious that the verse is referring to a drop of ziva from a zav who is also a leper. And it was necessary for the verse to teach this halakha, as it could not be derived by means of the a fortiori inference. This is because this drop of ziva is not what causes the leper to impart impurity through carrying; rather, it is his leprosy that causes him to impart impurity through carrying.
וּמִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי בִּרְאִיָּיה שְׁנִיָּה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מְקוֹם זִיבָה לָאו מַעְיָן הוּא.
Rava concludes: And as the verse mentions the word “issue” twice, it is evident that it is referring to a second sighting of ziva. From the fact that a verse was necessary to include a second sighting of ziva of a leper, teaching that his ziva imparts impurity through carrying, conclude from it that the place of ziva is not considered a source. If it were a source, then even the first sighting of ziva would impart impurity through carrying.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה מִדִּסְקַרְתָּא לְרָבָא: מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ בְּזָב גְּרֵידָא, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ לַאֲחֵרִים גּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה, לְעַצְמוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן — שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁגּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה לַאֲחֵרִים, וְהוּא עַצְמוֹ טָהוֹר!
Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said to Rava: From where do you know that the verse is referring to a zav who is also a leper? Actually, perhaps I will say to you that the verse is referring to the ziva of one who is just a zav. And as for that a fortiori inference that you said: If this drop of ziva causes impurity for others, is it not all the more so that the drop itself imparts impurity through carrying, one can counter that inference. The case of the scapegoat brought on Yom Kippur will prove that this a fortiori inference is not valid, as it causes impurity to others, since the dispatcher of the scapegoat is rendered ritually impure, and yet the goat itself is pure, as a living animal cannot be rendered impure.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי תִּבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, וְהָא הוּא דְּאָמַר ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב״ — בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן, וְכֵיוָן דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהָתָם, אִיַּיתַּר לֵיהּ ״לַזָּכָר״ לְרַבּוֹת מְצוֹרָע לְמַעְיְנוֹתָיו, (נקבה) [״וְלַנְּקֵבָה״] לְרַבּוֹת מְצוֹרַעַת לְמַעְיְנוֹתֶיהָ.
With regard to the dilemma raised by Rav Yosef about the first sighting of ziva of a leper, Abaye said: What is the reason he raises such a dilemma? But it was he who said that when the verse states: “This is the law of the zav” (Leviticus 15:32), it thereby teaches that the halakhot of a zav apply whether he is an adult or whether he is a minor. And since he derives this halakha from there, the verse: “And of them that have an issue [vehazav] of ziva, whether it be a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:33), remains available for him to derive as follows: “Whether it be a male” serves to include a male leper with regard to his sources of bodily emissions, and “or a female” serves to include a female leper with regard to her sources of bodily emissions.
וְאַקְּשֵׁיהּ רַחֲמָנָא מְצוֹרָע לְזָב גָּמוּר — מָה זָב גָּמוּר מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא, אַף רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא.
And as this verse discusses a full-fledged zav, and the word “issue” is mentioned twice, the Merciful One compares a leper to a full-fledged zav: Just as a full-fledged zav imparts impurity through carrying, so too, the first sighting of ziva of a leper imparts impurity through carrying.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל זָב מְטַמְּאָה בְּאוֹנֶס, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב וַאֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״, מָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, אַף רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל זָב מְטַמְּאָה בְּאוֹנֶס.
§ Rav Huna says: The first sighting of ziva of a zav imparts ritual impurity to one who comes into contact with it, even if the emission occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, as it is stated: “This is the law of the zav, and of him from whom the flow of seed goes out” (Leviticus 15:32). The verse compares the first sighting of ziva to a seminal emission: Just as semen imparts impurity even if it occurs due to circumstances beyond his control, so too, the first sighting of a zav imparts impurity even if it occurs due to circumstances beyond his control.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רָאָה רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה — בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. מַאי לַָאו לְטוּמְאָה? לָא, לְקׇרְבָּן.
The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rav Huna: Come and hear a mishna (Zavim 2:2): With regard to a man who saw a first sighting of ziva, one examines him to determine whether the discharge was caused by circumstances beyond his control. What, is it not that the purpose of this examination is to clarify that he does not have ritual impurity, i.e., if the discharge was due to circumstances beyond his control he remains pure, which contradicts the statement of Rav Huna? The Gemara responds: No, the purpose of this examination is to determine whether he will be obligated to bring an offering if he experiences another two discharges of ziva. If the first sighting was caused by circumstances beyond his control, it is not counted toward the three sightings that render one liable to bring an offering.
תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּשְּׁנִיָּה בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְקׇרְבָּן, אֲבָל לְטוּמְאָה לָא? אִקְּרִי כָּאן ״מִבְּשָׂרוֹ״ וְלֹא מֵחֲמַת אוֹנְסוֹ! אֶלָּא לָאו לְטוּמְאָה, וּמִדְּסֵיפָא לְטוּמְאָה — רֵישָׁא נָמֵי לְטוּמְאָה?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the latter clause of the same mishna: When he experiences the second sighting of ziva, one examines him to determine whether the discharge was caused by circumstances beyond his control. For what purpose does one examine him? If we say that it is to exempt him from bringing an offering in the event that he experiences a third discharge but not to clarify that he does not have ritual impurity, this is untenable, as one may read here the verse: “An issue out of his flesh” (Leviticus 15:2), from which it is derived that one is not rendered a zav if the discharge occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. Rather, is it not that the examination serves to clarify that he does not have ritual impurity? And from the fact that the examination in the latter clause is for purposes of impurity, one may conclude that the examination of the first clause is also for purposes of impurity.
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַאּ, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַאּ.
The Gemara rejects this: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. In other words, it is possible that each examination is intended for a different purpose. In particular, the first examination is meant to exempt him from bringing an offering, and the second examination pertains to both the offering and ritual impurity.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַקׇּרְבָּן, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא מִפְּנֵי הַטּוּמְאָה קָאָמַר!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the same mishna, which states that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even after the third discharge one examines him, because of the offering. In other words, if the third discharge occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, he is not liable to bring an offering. From the fact that according to Rabbi Eliezer the examination is due to the offering, one may conclude by inference that the first tanna is saying the examinations are for ritual impurity. If so, then according to the mishna one who has an initial discharge of ziva due to circumstances beyond his control remains pure.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְקׇרְבָּן, וְהָכָא בְּ״אֶתִּים״ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: רַבָּנַן לָא דָּרְשִׁי ״אֶתִּים״, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דָּרֵישׁ ״אֶתִּים״.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is not the proper explanation of the mishna. Rather, everyone agrees that the examination serves to exempt him from bringing an offering. And here they disagree with regard to whether one interprets instances of the word “et” in a verse. With regard to a zav, the verse states: “And of them that have an issue of ziva [vehazav et zovo], whether it be a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:33). The Rabbis do not interpret instances of the word “et,” and Rabbi Eliezer interprets instances of the word “et.”
רַבָּנַן לָא דָּרְשִׁי ״אֶתִּים״: ״הַזָּב״ — חֲדָא, ״זוֹבוֹ״ — תַּרְתֵּי, ״לַזָּכָר״ — בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי אַקְּשֵׁיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְקֵבָה.
The Gemara elaborates: The Rabbis do not interpret instances of the word “et.” Therefore, they explain the verse as follows: “Hazav” is referring to one sighting; “zovo” makes two sightings, and when the verse states: “Whether it be a male,” this indicates that for the third sighting the Merciful One compares the halakha of a male to that of a female, i.e., just as a woman is rendered impure even through an emission of ziva due to circumstances beyond her control, so too, the third sighting of ziva by a man renders him impure even if it occurs due to circumstances beyond his control. Accordingly, the Rabbis maintain that there is no need for an examination after the third sighting.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דָּרֵישׁ ״אֶתִּים״: ״הַזָּב״ — חֲדָא, ״אֶת״ — תַּרְתֵּי, ״זוֹבוֹ״ — תְּלָת, בָּרְבִיעִי אַקְּשֵׁיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְקֵבָה.
And Rabbi Eliezer interprets instances of the word “et.” Therefore, he explains the verse as follows: “Hazav” is referring to one sighting; “et” makes two sightings; “zovo” totals three sightings. Accordingly, even for the third sighting of ziva one must examine whether it was caused due to circumstances beyond his control. If it was, he is not liable to bring an offering. When the verse states: “Whether it be a male,” this indicates that for the fourth sighting the Merciful One compares the halakha of a male to that of a female, in that it is counted as a sighting even if it occurred due to circumstances beyond his control.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר, וַהֲלֹא זָב בִּכְלַל בַּעַל קֶרִי הָיָה, וְלָמָּה יָצָא — לְהָקֵל עָלָיו וּלְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו; לְהָקֵל עָלָיו — שֶׁאֵין מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, וּלְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו —
The Gemara attempts to refute the statement of Rav Huna: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yitzḥak says: But wasn’t a zav included in the category of one who experienced a seminal emission? Why, then, was he taken out and discussed in a separate passage? In order to be lenient with him and to be stringent with him relative to the halakhot of one who experienced a seminal emission. Rabbi Yitzḥak elaborates: The separate passage serves to be lenient with him, as he is not rendered impure through an emission that occurs due to circumstances beyond his control, unlike one who experienced a seminal emission. And the separate passage serves to be stringent with him,
שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב.
as he renders impure the bedding upon which he lies and the seat upon which he sits, like a primary source of ritual impurity, which is not the case for one who experienced a seminal emission.
אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא בִּרְאִיָּיה שְׁנִיָּה — הֵיכָא הֲוָה בִּכְלַל בַּעַל קֶרִי? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בִּרְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְקָתָנֵי לְהָקֵל עָלָיו שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס!
The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement: When does this statement apply, i.e., to which sighting of ziva is Rabbi Yitzḥak referring? If we say he is referring to the second sighting this is untenable, for where in the verse was such a person included in the category of one who experienced a seminal emission? After the second sighting one is considered a full-fledged zav. Rather, it is obvious that he is referring to the first sighting. And yet Rabbi Yitzḥak teaches: The separate passage discussing a zav serves to be lenient with him, as a zav is not rendered impure through an emission that occurs due to circumstances beyond his control. This contradicts the statement of Rav Huna.
וְתִסְבְּרָא לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, בִּרְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה בַּר מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב הוּא?
The Gemara rejects this: And how can you understand that Rabbi Yitzḥak is referring to the first sighting of ziva? But Rabbi Yitzḥak also says: The separate passage serves to be stringent with him, as he renders impure the bedding upon which he lies and the seat upon which he sits. With the first sighting of ziva is one fit to render impure his bedding or his seat?
אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר, רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: וַהֲלֹא זָב בִּכְלַל בַּעַל קֶרִי הָיָה בִּרְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְלָמָּה יָצָא בִּרְאִיָּיה שְׁנִיָּיה — לְהָקֵל עָלָיו וּלְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו, לְהָקֵל עָלָיו — שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, וּלְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו — שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב.
Rather, this is what he is saying: Rabbi Yitzḥak says: But wasn’t a zav with his first sighting included in the category of one who experienced a seminal emission? Why, then, was he taken out and discussed in a separate passage with regard to his second sighting? In order to be lenient with him and to be stringent with him. In other words, the passage serves to be lenient with him, as he is not rendered impure through an emission that occurs due to circumstances beyond his control. And it serves to be stringent with him, as he renders impure the bedding upon which he lies and the seat upon which he sits.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זוֹב דּוֹמֶה לְמֵי בָצֵק שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים. זוֹב בָּא מִבְּשַׂר הַמֵּת, שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בָּא מִבְּשַׂר הַחַי. זוֹב — דֵּיהֶה, וְדוֹמֶה לְלוֹבֶן בֵּיצָה הַמּוּזֶרֶת, שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע קְשׁוּרָה, וְדוֹמָה לְלוֹבֶן בֵּיצָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּזֶרֶת.
With regard to ziva, Rav Huna says: The discharge of ziva is similar to water of barley dough. Whereas the discharge of ziva comes from dead flesh, i.e., when one’s penis is flaccid, semen comes from living flesh, when one’s penis is erect. Moreover, the discharge of ziva is runny, and is similar in appearance to the white of a unfertilized egg. By contrast, semen is viscous, and it is similar in appearance to the white of an egg that is not unfertilized, i.e., a fertilized egg.
דַּם הַיּוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה וְכוּ׳.
§ The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the blood of a woman who gave birth and reached the conclusion of her days of impurity, but did not yet immerse in a ritual bath. Beit Shammai say: The blood does not retain the halakhic status of menstrual blood; rather, it imparts impurity only while moist. And Beit Hillel say: Since she did not immerse in a ritual bath, her blood is considered like that of a menstruating woman, and it imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.
תַּנְיָא, אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים בְּנִדָּה שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה דָּם, שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה? אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: לֹא, אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בְּנִדָּה שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה טְמֵאָה, תֹּאמְרוּ בְּיוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁאִם טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה.
With regard to this dispute, it is taught in a baraita that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Do you not concede with regard to a menstruating woman who did not immerse after seven days and thereafter saw blood, that she is impure as a menstruating woman in every sense? If so, a woman who failed to immerse after childbirth should likewise be impure as a menstruating woman. Beit Shammai said to them: No, this is not a legitimate comparison. Even if you say this is true with regard to a menstruating woman, there the halakha is that even in a case where she immersed and immediately saw blood thereafter, she is impure. Will you say that this halakha applies with regard to a woman who gave birth, where the halakha is that if she immersed and then saw blood she is pure? Therefore, even if a woman who gave birth neglected to immerse and experienced bleeding, she is not considered a full-fledged menstruating woman, and the blood does not impart impurity whether it is moist or dry.
אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאִם טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה לְאַחַר יְמֵי סְפִירָה — טְהוֹרָה, לֹא טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה — טְמֵאָה!
Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: The halakha of a woman who gives birth as a zava will prove this is in fact a legitimate comparison. A woman who gives birth as a zava may immerse only after experiencing seven clean days. The halakha is that if she immersed in her days of purity and then saw blood after the seven days of counting for ziva, she is pure, as she is in her days of purity. But if she did not immerse and she saw blood, she is impure. If so, the same should apply to a woman who gave birth and did not immerse at the conclusion of her days of impurity: She should be considered a full-fledged menstruating woman as long as she has not immersed.
אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: הוּא הַדִּין, וְהִיא הַתְּשׁוּבָה.
Beit Shammai said to them: The same is true and this is the refutation, i.e., we maintain that even in the case of a woman who gave birth as a zava and failed to immerse after seven clean days, her blood imparts impurity only while moist. Accordingly, one cannot compare this case to that of a typical menstruating woman.
לְמֵימְרָא דִּפְלִיגִי? וְהָתְנַן: וּמוֹדִים בְּיוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה לַח וְיָבֵשׁ!
The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to a woman who gave birth as a zava and counted seven clean days but did not immerse? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel in the case of a woman who gives birth as a zava, that any blood she sees imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry?
לָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן שֶׁסָּפְרָה, כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא סָפְרָה.
The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, in the baraita, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree with regard to a woman who counted seven clean days for her ziva. In such a case Beit Shammai maintain that any blood she sees imparts impurity only when moist. There, in the mishna, they agree with regard to a woman who did not yet count seven clean days for her ziva. In such an instance, even Beit Shammai concede that her blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.
וְהָתַנְיָא: יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁסָּפְרָה וְלֹא טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה, הָלְכוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְשִׁיטָתָן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל לְשִׁיטָתָן.
The Gemara notes: And it is taught likewise in a baraita: With regard to a woman who gives birth as a zava, who counted seven clean days after the conclusion of her days of impurity but did not yet immerse, and she subsequently saw blood, Beit Shammai follow their opinion with regard to any woman who gave birth and concluded her days of impurity but did not yet immerse, and Beit Hillel likewise follow their opinion. In other words, according to Beit Shammai her blood imparts impurity only while moist, whereas according to Beit Hillel it imparts impurity whether moist or dry.
אִיתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא — הַתּוֹרָה טִמְּאַתּוּ וְהַתּוֹרָה טִהֲרַתּוּ.
§ With regard to blood emitted by a woman during her days of purity after childbirth, it was stated that there is a dispute between the Sages. Rav says: It is from one source in a woman’s body that pure and impure blood are emitted, but the Torah rendered impure the blood emitted during her days of impurity and the Torah rendered pure the blood emitted during her days of purity.
וְלֵוִי אָמַר: שְׁנֵי מַעְיָנוֹת הֵם — נִסְתָּם הַטָּמֵא נִפְתָּח הַטָּהוֹר, נִסְתָּם הַטָּהוֹר נִפְתָּח הַטָּמֵא.
And Levi says: There are two sources in a woman’s body. Blood emitted during her days of impurity emerges from one source, while blood emitted during her days of purity emerges from the other, and these two sources are not active simultaneously. Rather, when the source of the impure blood is closed, i.e., following her days of impurity, the source of the pure blood opens, and when the source of the pure blood is closed, at the conclusion of her days of purity, either thirty-three days for a male child or sixty-six days for a female child, the source of the impure blood is opened.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ: שׁוֹפַעַת מִתּוֹךְ שִׁבְעָה לְאַחַר שִׁבְעָה, וּמִתּוֹךְ אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְאַחַר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וּמִתּוֹךְ אַרְבָּעִים לְאַחַר אַרְבָּעִים, וּמִתּוֹךְ שְׁמֹנִים לְאַחַר שְׁמֹנִים.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rav and Levi? The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the following cases: A woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within seven days of giving birth to a male until sometime after those seven days, during her days of purity; and likewise, a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within fourteen days of giving birth to a female until sometime after those fourteen days, during her days of purity; and a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within forty days of giving birth to a male until sometime after those forty days, i.e., after the conclusion of her days of purity; and a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within eighty days of giving birth to a female until sometime after those eighty days, i.e., after the conclusion of her days of purity.
לְרַב — רֵישָׁא לְקוּלָּא, וְסֵיפָא לְחוּמְרָא;
The Gemara elaborates: According to Rav, who maintains that both pure and impure blood emerge from the same source, in the cases described in the first clause, i.e., if she continuously discharged menstrual blood from within her days of impurity until sometime during her days of purity, one is to be lenient, In other words, any blood emitted during her days of purity is pure, since the Torah rendered it pure. And in the cases described in the latter clause, when the discharge begins during her days of purity and continues until after the conclusion of her days of purity, one is to be stringent, as the Torah deemed impure any blood emitted after her days of purity.
לְלֵוִי — רֵישָׁא לְחוּמְרָא, וְסֵיפָא לְקוּלָּא.
According to Levi, who says that there are two different sources in the body, in the cases described in the first clause one is to be stringent, as the continuous flow of blood indicates this blood is emanating from the source of the impure blood, and the Torah deemed pure only the blood that emerges from the source of the pure blood. And in the cases described in the latter clause one is to be lenient, as the continuous flow of blood indicates this blood is from the source of the pure blood.
מֵיתִיבִי: דַּם הַיּוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כְּרוּקָּהּ וּכְמֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ.
The Gemara raises an objection from the mishna: With regard to the blood of a woman who gave birth and reached the conclusion of her days of impurity but did not yet immerse, Beit Shammai say: The blood is like her saliva and urine, and it imparts impurity only while moist. And Beit Hillel say: Her blood is considered like that of a menstruating woman, and it imparts impurity whether moist or dry.
קָא סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּפָסְקָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ. אֶלָּא לְלֵוִי, דְּאָמַר: שְׁנֵי מַעְיָנוֹת הֵן, אַמַּאי מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ?
It enters your mind to explain that the mishna is referring to a case where a woman’s discharge of menstrual blood ceased during her days of impurity, and she subsequently experienced bleeding after the conclusion of her days of impurity. If so, granted the mishna is clear according to the opinion of Rav, who said pure and impure blood emanate from one source, as it is due to that reason that Beit Hillel maintain that the blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry, since she did not yet immerse. But according to the opinion of Levi, who said there are two separate sources, why do Beit Hillel maintain that the blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry? After all, blood emitted during her days of purity comes from the source of pure blood.
אָמַר לָךְ לֵוִי: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּשׁוֹפַעַת, אִי בְּשׁוֹפַעַת, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? קָסָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא.
The Gemara explains that Levi could say to you: Here we are dealing with a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within her days of impurity until sometime during her days of purity. Since the continuous flow of blood indicates that this blood emanates from the source of the impure blood, Beit Hillel rule that it imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry. The Gemara asks: If the mishna is dealing with a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood, what is the reason that Beit Shammai maintain this blood imparts impurity only while moist? Isn’t it evident that it is impure menstrual blood? The Gemara responds: Beit Shammai hold that it is from one source that pure and impure blood emanate, and the Torah deemed pure any blood emitted during her days of purity.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְלֵוִי, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא בֵּין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, אֶלָּא לְרַב מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?
The Gemara questions the opinion of Rav: Granted, the mishna is clear according to Levi, who maintains there are two separate sources, as that is how there is a practical difference between the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Beit Hillel hold there are two sources, and the continuous flow of blood from her days of impurity into her days of purity indicates that the blood emanates from the source of the impure blood, whereas Beit Shammai contend that pure and impure blood emanate from one source, and the Torah deemed pure the blood of her days of purity. But according to Rav, what is the reason for the difference between them?
אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ יוֹמֵי וּטְבִילָה, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: בְּיוֹמֵי תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: בְּיוֹמֵי וּטְבִילָה.
The Gemara responds: The difference between them is due to their opinions with regard to the significance of the days and the immersion at the conclusion of her days of impurity. As, Beit Shammai hold that the Merciful One rendered the purity of her blood dependent on days, which means that once she begins her days of purity her blood is pure regardless of whether or not she immersed. And Beit Hillel hold that it is dependent on both days and immersion. Accordingly, if she fails to immerse after her days of impurity, any blood she sees is impure.
תָּא שְׁמַע, וּמוֹדִים בְּיוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה לַח וְיָבֵשׁ. סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הָכָא נָמֵי דְּפָסְקָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the mishna: And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel in the case of a woman who gives birth as a zava, that any blood she sees imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry. It enters your mind to explain that here too, the mishna is referring to a case where a woman’s discharge of menstrual blood ceased during her days of impurity, and she then experienced bleeding during her days of purity. Since she is still a zava at the beginning of her days of purity, the blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ. אֶלָּא לְלֵוִי, דְּאָמַר: שְׁנֵי מַעְיָנוֹת הֵן, אַמַּאי מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ?
The Gemara continues: If so, granted, the mishna is clear according to Rav, who said that pure and impure blood emanate from one source, as it is due to that reason that the blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry, since she is still a zava and the Torah has not yet deemed her pure. But according to Levi, who said there are two sources, why does the blood impart impurity whether it is moist or dry? Let it be considered like the saliva or urine of a zava, which imparts impurity only when moist.
אָמַר לָךְ: הָכָא נָמֵי — בְּשׁוֹפַעַת. אִי בְּשׁוֹפַעַת, לְמַאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ?
The Gemara explains that Levi could say to you: Here too, we are dealing with a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within her days of impurity until her days of purity. The continuous flow of blood indicates that the blood emanates from the source of the impure blood. The Gemara asks: If the mishna is dealing with a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood, for what purpose was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? It is obvious that this blood is impure.
לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, וּבְיוֹמֵי תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא — הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּיוֹלֶדֶת גְּרֵידְתָּא, דִּשְׁלִימוּ לְהוּ יוֹמֵי, אֲבָל יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב דְּבָעֵי סְפִירָה — לָא.
The Gemara answers that it was necessary for the opinion of Beit Shammai. The mishna is teaching that even though Beit Shammai say there is one source, and the Merciful One rendered the purity of her blood dependent on days alone, that statement applies only in the case of a woman who only gave birth, as her days of impurity have been completed at this point. But with regard to a woman who gives birth as a zava, who requires the counting of seven clean days from the end of her days of impurity, that statement does not apply, and blood emitted before she counted seven clean days imparts impurity whether moist or dry, like the blood of a menstruating woman.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita, which addresses the verse: “If a woman be delivered, and bear a male, then she shall be impure seven days; as in the days of her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” (Leviticus 12:2). The superfluous phrase “her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” serves to include a man who engages in intercourse with her, teaching that he is rendered impure like a menstruating woman and imparts impurity like her.
״דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַלֵּילוֹת, ״דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַיּוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁצְּרִיכָה שֶׁתֵּשֵׁב שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב דְּאָמַר מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי בָּעֲיָא שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים,
Furthermore, the phrase “Her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” serves to include the nights; although the verse states: “As in the days,” she is impure during the night as well. Finally, “her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” serves to include a woman who gives birth as a zava, teaching that she must observe seven clean days. The Gemara analyzes this baraita: Granted, the baraita is clear according to Rav, who said there is one source, as it is due to that reason that a woman who gives birth as a zava requires seven clean days.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy in Early Rabbinic Law, Part 2 of 3: The Law of Niddah
Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Niddah, Prakim Bet and Gimel
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
Berlin, Germany
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Richmond, CA, United States
Minnesota, United States
Philadelphia, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
Berlin, Germany
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
Niddah 35
לַאֲחֵרִים גּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה, לְעַצְמוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּזָב מְצוֹרָע,
there is no need for the verse to teach this. After all, if this drop of ziva causes impurity for others, i.e., if the person emitting the drop imparts impurity through carrying, is it not all the more so that the drop itself imparts impurity through carrying? Rather, it is obvious that the verse is referring to a drop of ziva from a zav who is also a leper. And it was necessary for the verse to teach this halakha, as it could not be derived by means of the a fortiori inference. This is because this drop of ziva is not what causes the leper to impart impurity through carrying; rather, it is his leprosy that causes him to impart impurity through carrying.
וּמִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי בִּרְאִיָּיה שְׁנִיָּה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מְקוֹם זִיבָה לָאו מַעְיָן הוּא.
Rava concludes: And as the verse mentions the word “issue” twice, it is evident that it is referring to a second sighting of ziva. From the fact that a verse was necessary to include a second sighting of ziva of a leper, teaching that his ziva imparts impurity through carrying, conclude from it that the place of ziva is not considered a source. If it were a source, then even the first sighting of ziva would impart impurity through carrying.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה מִדִּסְקַרְתָּא לְרָבָא: מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ בְּזָב גְּרֵידָא, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ לַאֲחֵרִים גּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה, לְעַצְמוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן — שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁגּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה לַאֲחֵרִים, וְהוּא עַצְמוֹ טָהוֹר!
Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said to Rava: From where do you know that the verse is referring to a zav who is also a leper? Actually, perhaps I will say to you that the verse is referring to the ziva of one who is just a zav. And as for that a fortiori inference that you said: If this drop of ziva causes impurity for others, is it not all the more so that the drop itself imparts impurity through carrying, one can counter that inference. The case of the scapegoat brought on Yom Kippur will prove that this a fortiori inference is not valid, as it causes impurity to others, since the dispatcher of the scapegoat is rendered ritually impure, and yet the goat itself is pure, as a living animal cannot be rendered impure.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי תִּבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, וְהָא הוּא דְּאָמַר ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב״ — בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן, וְכֵיוָן דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהָתָם, אִיַּיתַּר לֵיהּ ״לַזָּכָר״ לְרַבּוֹת מְצוֹרָע לְמַעְיְנוֹתָיו, (נקבה) [״וְלַנְּקֵבָה״] לְרַבּוֹת מְצוֹרַעַת לְמַעְיְנוֹתֶיהָ.
With regard to the dilemma raised by Rav Yosef about the first sighting of ziva of a leper, Abaye said: What is the reason he raises such a dilemma? But it was he who said that when the verse states: “This is the law of the zav” (Leviticus 15:32), it thereby teaches that the halakhot of a zav apply whether he is an adult or whether he is a minor. And since he derives this halakha from there, the verse: “And of them that have an issue [vehazav] of ziva, whether it be a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:33), remains available for him to derive as follows: “Whether it be a male” serves to include a male leper with regard to his sources of bodily emissions, and “or a female” serves to include a female leper with regard to her sources of bodily emissions.
וְאַקְּשֵׁיהּ רַחֲמָנָא מְצוֹרָע לְזָב גָּמוּר — מָה זָב גָּמוּר מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא, אַף רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא.
And as this verse discusses a full-fledged zav, and the word “issue” is mentioned twice, the Merciful One compares a leper to a full-fledged zav: Just as a full-fledged zav imparts impurity through carrying, so too, the first sighting of ziva of a leper imparts impurity through carrying.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל זָב מְטַמְּאָה בְּאוֹנֶס, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב וַאֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״, מָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, אַף רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל זָב מְטַמְּאָה בְּאוֹנֶס.
§ Rav Huna says: The first sighting of ziva of a zav imparts ritual impurity to one who comes into contact with it, even if the emission occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, as it is stated: “This is the law of the zav, and of him from whom the flow of seed goes out” (Leviticus 15:32). The verse compares the first sighting of ziva to a seminal emission: Just as semen imparts impurity even if it occurs due to circumstances beyond his control, so too, the first sighting of a zav imparts impurity even if it occurs due to circumstances beyond his control.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רָאָה רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה — בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. מַאי לַָאו לְטוּמְאָה? לָא, לְקׇרְבָּן.
The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rav Huna: Come and hear a mishna (Zavim 2:2): With regard to a man who saw a first sighting of ziva, one examines him to determine whether the discharge was caused by circumstances beyond his control. What, is it not that the purpose of this examination is to clarify that he does not have ritual impurity, i.e., if the discharge was due to circumstances beyond his control he remains pure, which contradicts the statement of Rav Huna? The Gemara responds: No, the purpose of this examination is to determine whether he will be obligated to bring an offering if he experiences another two discharges of ziva. If the first sighting was caused by circumstances beyond his control, it is not counted toward the three sightings that render one liable to bring an offering.
תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּשְּׁנִיָּה בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְקׇרְבָּן, אֲבָל לְטוּמְאָה לָא? אִקְּרִי כָּאן ״מִבְּשָׂרוֹ״ וְלֹא מֵחֲמַת אוֹנְסוֹ! אֶלָּא לָאו לְטוּמְאָה, וּמִדְּסֵיפָא לְטוּמְאָה — רֵישָׁא נָמֵי לְטוּמְאָה?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the latter clause of the same mishna: When he experiences the second sighting of ziva, one examines him to determine whether the discharge was caused by circumstances beyond his control. For what purpose does one examine him? If we say that it is to exempt him from bringing an offering in the event that he experiences a third discharge but not to clarify that he does not have ritual impurity, this is untenable, as one may read here the verse: “An issue out of his flesh” (Leviticus 15:2), from which it is derived that one is not rendered a zav if the discharge occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. Rather, is it not that the examination serves to clarify that he does not have ritual impurity? And from the fact that the examination in the latter clause is for purposes of impurity, one may conclude that the examination of the first clause is also for purposes of impurity.
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַאּ, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַאּ.
The Gemara rejects this: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. In other words, it is possible that each examination is intended for a different purpose. In particular, the first examination is meant to exempt him from bringing an offering, and the second examination pertains to both the offering and ritual impurity.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַקׇּרְבָּן, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא מִפְּנֵי הַטּוּמְאָה קָאָמַר!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the same mishna, which states that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even after the third discharge one examines him, because of the offering. In other words, if the third discharge occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, he is not liable to bring an offering. From the fact that according to Rabbi Eliezer the examination is due to the offering, one may conclude by inference that the first tanna is saying the examinations are for ritual impurity. If so, then according to the mishna one who has an initial discharge of ziva due to circumstances beyond his control remains pure.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְקׇרְבָּן, וְהָכָא בְּ״אֶתִּים״ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: רַבָּנַן לָא דָּרְשִׁי ״אֶתִּים״, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דָּרֵישׁ ״אֶתִּים״.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is not the proper explanation of the mishna. Rather, everyone agrees that the examination serves to exempt him from bringing an offering. And here they disagree with regard to whether one interprets instances of the word “et” in a verse. With regard to a zav, the verse states: “And of them that have an issue of ziva [vehazav et zovo], whether it be a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:33). The Rabbis do not interpret instances of the word “et,” and Rabbi Eliezer interprets instances of the word “et.”
רַבָּנַן לָא דָּרְשִׁי ״אֶתִּים״: ״הַזָּב״ — חֲדָא, ״זוֹבוֹ״ — תַּרְתֵּי, ״לַזָּכָר״ — בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי אַקְּשֵׁיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְקֵבָה.
The Gemara elaborates: The Rabbis do not interpret instances of the word “et.” Therefore, they explain the verse as follows: “Hazav” is referring to one sighting; “zovo” makes two sightings, and when the verse states: “Whether it be a male,” this indicates that for the third sighting the Merciful One compares the halakha of a male to that of a female, i.e., just as a woman is rendered impure even through an emission of ziva due to circumstances beyond her control, so too, the third sighting of ziva by a man renders him impure even if it occurs due to circumstances beyond his control. Accordingly, the Rabbis maintain that there is no need for an examination after the third sighting.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דָּרֵישׁ ״אֶתִּים״: ״הַזָּב״ — חֲדָא, ״אֶת״ — תַּרְתֵּי, ״זוֹבוֹ״ — תְּלָת, בָּרְבִיעִי אַקְּשֵׁיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְקֵבָה.
And Rabbi Eliezer interprets instances of the word “et.” Therefore, he explains the verse as follows: “Hazav” is referring to one sighting; “et” makes two sightings; “zovo” totals three sightings. Accordingly, even for the third sighting of ziva one must examine whether it was caused due to circumstances beyond his control. If it was, he is not liable to bring an offering. When the verse states: “Whether it be a male,” this indicates that for the fourth sighting the Merciful One compares the halakha of a male to that of a female, in that it is counted as a sighting even if it occurred due to circumstances beyond his control.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר, וַהֲלֹא זָב בִּכְלַל בַּעַל קֶרִי הָיָה, וְלָמָּה יָצָא — לְהָקֵל עָלָיו וּלְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו; לְהָקֵל עָלָיו — שֶׁאֵין מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, וּלְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו —
The Gemara attempts to refute the statement of Rav Huna: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yitzḥak says: But wasn’t a zav included in the category of one who experienced a seminal emission? Why, then, was he taken out and discussed in a separate passage? In order to be lenient with him and to be stringent with him relative to the halakhot of one who experienced a seminal emission. Rabbi Yitzḥak elaborates: The separate passage serves to be lenient with him, as he is not rendered impure through an emission that occurs due to circumstances beyond his control, unlike one who experienced a seminal emission. And the separate passage serves to be stringent with him,
שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב.
as he renders impure the bedding upon which he lies and the seat upon which he sits, like a primary source of ritual impurity, which is not the case for one who experienced a seminal emission.
אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא בִּרְאִיָּיה שְׁנִיָּה — הֵיכָא הֲוָה בִּכְלַל בַּעַל קֶרִי? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בִּרְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְקָתָנֵי לְהָקֵל עָלָיו שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס!
The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement: When does this statement apply, i.e., to which sighting of ziva is Rabbi Yitzḥak referring? If we say he is referring to the second sighting this is untenable, for where in the verse was such a person included in the category of one who experienced a seminal emission? After the second sighting one is considered a full-fledged zav. Rather, it is obvious that he is referring to the first sighting. And yet Rabbi Yitzḥak teaches: The separate passage discussing a zav serves to be lenient with him, as a zav is not rendered impure through an emission that occurs due to circumstances beyond his control. This contradicts the statement of Rav Huna.
וְתִסְבְּרָא לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, בִּרְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה בַּר מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב הוּא?
The Gemara rejects this: And how can you understand that Rabbi Yitzḥak is referring to the first sighting of ziva? But Rabbi Yitzḥak also says: The separate passage serves to be stringent with him, as he renders impure the bedding upon which he lies and the seat upon which he sits. With the first sighting of ziva is one fit to render impure his bedding or his seat?
אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר, רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: וַהֲלֹא זָב בִּכְלַל בַּעַל קֶרִי הָיָה בִּרְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְלָמָּה יָצָא בִּרְאִיָּיה שְׁנִיָּיה — לְהָקֵל עָלָיו וּלְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו, לְהָקֵל עָלָיו — שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, וּלְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו — שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב.
Rather, this is what he is saying: Rabbi Yitzḥak says: But wasn’t a zav with his first sighting included in the category of one who experienced a seminal emission? Why, then, was he taken out and discussed in a separate passage with regard to his second sighting? In order to be lenient with him and to be stringent with him. In other words, the passage serves to be lenient with him, as he is not rendered impure through an emission that occurs due to circumstances beyond his control. And it serves to be stringent with him, as he renders impure the bedding upon which he lies and the seat upon which he sits.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זוֹב דּוֹמֶה לְמֵי בָצֵק שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים. זוֹב בָּא מִבְּשַׂר הַמֵּת, שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בָּא מִבְּשַׂר הַחַי. זוֹב — דֵּיהֶה, וְדוֹמֶה לְלוֹבֶן בֵּיצָה הַמּוּזֶרֶת, שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע קְשׁוּרָה, וְדוֹמָה לְלוֹבֶן בֵּיצָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּזֶרֶת.
With regard to ziva, Rav Huna says: The discharge of ziva is similar to water of barley dough. Whereas the discharge of ziva comes from dead flesh, i.e., when one’s penis is flaccid, semen comes from living flesh, when one’s penis is erect. Moreover, the discharge of ziva is runny, and is similar in appearance to the white of a unfertilized egg. By contrast, semen is viscous, and it is similar in appearance to the white of an egg that is not unfertilized, i.e., a fertilized egg.
דַּם הַיּוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה וְכוּ׳.
§ The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to the blood of a woman who gave birth and reached the conclusion of her days of impurity, but did not yet immerse in a ritual bath. Beit Shammai say: The blood does not retain the halakhic status of menstrual blood; rather, it imparts impurity only while moist. And Beit Hillel say: Since she did not immerse in a ritual bath, her blood is considered like that of a menstruating woman, and it imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.
תַּנְיָא, אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים בְּנִדָּה שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה דָּם, שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה? אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: לֹא, אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בְּנִדָּה שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה טְמֵאָה, תֹּאמְרוּ בְּיוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁאִם טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה.
With regard to this dispute, it is taught in a baraita that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Do you not concede with regard to a menstruating woman who did not immerse after seven days and thereafter saw blood, that she is impure as a menstruating woman in every sense? If so, a woman who failed to immerse after childbirth should likewise be impure as a menstruating woman. Beit Shammai said to them: No, this is not a legitimate comparison. Even if you say this is true with regard to a menstruating woman, there the halakha is that even in a case where she immersed and immediately saw blood thereafter, she is impure. Will you say that this halakha applies with regard to a woman who gave birth, where the halakha is that if she immersed and then saw blood she is pure? Therefore, even if a woman who gave birth neglected to immerse and experienced bleeding, she is not considered a full-fledged menstruating woman, and the blood does not impart impurity whether it is moist or dry.
אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאִם טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה לְאַחַר יְמֵי סְפִירָה — טְהוֹרָה, לֹא טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה — טְמֵאָה!
Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: The halakha of a woman who gives birth as a zava will prove this is in fact a legitimate comparison. A woman who gives birth as a zava may immerse only after experiencing seven clean days. The halakha is that if she immersed in her days of purity and then saw blood after the seven days of counting for ziva, she is pure, as she is in her days of purity. But if she did not immerse and she saw blood, she is impure. If so, the same should apply to a woman who gave birth and did not immerse at the conclusion of her days of impurity: She should be considered a full-fledged menstruating woman as long as she has not immersed.
אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: הוּא הַדִּין, וְהִיא הַתְּשׁוּבָה.
Beit Shammai said to them: The same is true and this is the refutation, i.e., we maintain that even in the case of a woman who gave birth as a zava and failed to immerse after seven clean days, her blood imparts impurity only while moist. Accordingly, one cannot compare this case to that of a typical menstruating woman.
לְמֵימְרָא דִּפְלִיגִי? וְהָתְנַן: וּמוֹדִים בְּיוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה לַח וְיָבֵשׁ!
The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to a woman who gave birth as a zava and counted seven clean days but did not immerse? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel in the case of a woman who gives birth as a zava, that any blood she sees imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry?
לָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן שֶׁסָּפְרָה, כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא סָפְרָה.
The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, in the baraita, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree with regard to a woman who counted seven clean days for her ziva. In such a case Beit Shammai maintain that any blood she sees imparts impurity only when moist. There, in the mishna, they agree with regard to a woman who did not yet count seven clean days for her ziva. In such an instance, even Beit Shammai concede that her blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.
וְהָתַנְיָא: יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁסָּפְרָה וְלֹא טָבְלָה וְרָאֲתָה, הָלְכוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְשִׁיטָתָן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל לְשִׁיטָתָן.
The Gemara notes: And it is taught likewise in a baraita: With regard to a woman who gives birth as a zava, who counted seven clean days after the conclusion of her days of impurity but did not yet immerse, and she subsequently saw blood, Beit Shammai follow their opinion with regard to any woman who gave birth and concluded her days of impurity but did not yet immerse, and Beit Hillel likewise follow their opinion. In other words, according to Beit Shammai her blood imparts impurity only while moist, whereas according to Beit Hillel it imparts impurity whether moist or dry.
אִיתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא — הַתּוֹרָה טִמְּאַתּוּ וְהַתּוֹרָה טִהֲרַתּוּ.
§ With regard to blood emitted by a woman during her days of purity after childbirth, it was stated that there is a dispute between the Sages. Rav says: It is from one source in a woman’s body that pure and impure blood are emitted, but the Torah rendered impure the blood emitted during her days of impurity and the Torah rendered pure the blood emitted during her days of purity.
וְלֵוִי אָמַר: שְׁנֵי מַעְיָנוֹת הֵם — נִסְתָּם הַטָּמֵא נִפְתָּח הַטָּהוֹר, נִסְתָּם הַטָּהוֹר נִפְתָּח הַטָּמֵא.
And Levi says: There are two sources in a woman’s body. Blood emitted during her days of impurity emerges from one source, while blood emitted during her days of purity emerges from the other, and these two sources are not active simultaneously. Rather, when the source of the impure blood is closed, i.e., following her days of impurity, the source of the pure blood opens, and when the source of the pure blood is closed, at the conclusion of her days of purity, either thirty-three days for a male child or sixty-six days for a female child, the source of the impure blood is opened.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ: שׁוֹפַעַת מִתּוֹךְ שִׁבְעָה לְאַחַר שִׁבְעָה, וּמִתּוֹךְ אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְאַחַר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וּמִתּוֹךְ אַרְבָּעִים לְאַחַר אַרְבָּעִים, וּמִתּוֹךְ שְׁמֹנִים לְאַחַר שְׁמֹנִים.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rav and Levi? The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the following cases: A woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within seven days of giving birth to a male until sometime after those seven days, during her days of purity; and likewise, a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within fourteen days of giving birth to a female until sometime after those fourteen days, during her days of purity; and a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within forty days of giving birth to a male until sometime after those forty days, i.e., after the conclusion of her days of purity; and a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within eighty days of giving birth to a female until sometime after those eighty days, i.e., after the conclusion of her days of purity.
לְרַב — רֵישָׁא לְקוּלָּא, וְסֵיפָא לְחוּמְרָא;
The Gemara elaborates: According to Rav, who maintains that both pure and impure blood emerge from the same source, in the cases described in the first clause, i.e., if she continuously discharged menstrual blood from within her days of impurity until sometime during her days of purity, one is to be lenient, In other words, any blood emitted during her days of purity is pure, since the Torah rendered it pure. And in the cases described in the latter clause, when the discharge begins during her days of purity and continues until after the conclusion of her days of purity, one is to be stringent, as the Torah deemed impure any blood emitted after her days of purity.
לְלֵוִי — רֵישָׁא לְחוּמְרָא, וְסֵיפָא לְקוּלָּא.
According to Levi, who says that there are two different sources in the body, in the cases described in the first clause one is to be stringent, as the continuous flow of blood indicates this blood is emanating from the source of the impure blood, and the Torah deemed pure only the blood that emerges from the source of the pure blood. And in the cases described in the latter clause one is to be lenient, as the continuous flow of blood indicates this blood is from the source of the pure blood.
מֵיתִיבִי: דַּם הַיּוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כְּרוּקָּהּ וּכְמֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ.
The Gemara raises an objection from the mishna: With regard to the blood of a woman who gave birth and reached the conclusion of her days of impurity but did not yet immerse, Beit Shammai say: The blood is like her saliva and urine, and it imparts impurity only while moist. And Beit Hillel say: Her blood is considered like that of a menstruating woman, and it imparts impurity whether moist or dry.
קָא סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּפָסְקָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ. אֶלָּא לְלֵוִי, דְּאָמַר: שְׁנֵי מַעְיָנוֹת הֵן, אַמַּאי מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ?
It enters your mind to explain that the mishna is referring to a case where a woman’s discharge of menstrual blood ceased during her days of impurity, and she subsequently experienced bleeding after the conclusion of her days of impurity. If so, granted the mishna is clear according to the opinion of Rav, who said pure and impure blood emanate from one source, as it is due to that reason that Beit Hillel maintain that the blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry, since she did not yet immerse. But according to the opinion of Levi, who said there are two separate sources, why do Beit Hillel maintain that the blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry? After all, blood emitted during her days of purity comes from the source of pure blood.
אָמַר לָךְ לֵוִי: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּשׁוֹפַעַת, אִי בְּשׁוֹפַעַת, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? קָסָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא.
The Gemara explains that Levi could say to you: Here we are dealing with a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within her days of impurity until sometime during her days of purity. Since the continuous flow of blood indicates that this blood emanates from the source of the impure blood, Beit Hillel rule that it imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry. The Gemara asks: If the mishna is dealing with a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood, what is the reason that Beit Shammai maintain this blood imparts impurity only while moist? Isn’t it evident that it is impure menstrual blood? The Gemara responds: Beit Shammai hold that it is from one source that pure and impure blood emanate, and the Torah deemed pure any blood emitted during her days of purity.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְלֵוִי, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא בֵּין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, אֶלָּא לְרַב מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?
The Gemara questions the opinion of Rav: Granted, the mishna is clear according to Levi, who maintains there are two separate sources, as that is how there is a practical difference between the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Beit Hillel hold there are two sources, and the continuous flow of blood from her days of impurity into her days of purity indicates that the blood emanates from the source of the impure blood, whereas Beit Shammai contend that pure and impure blood emanate from one source, and the Torah deemed pure the blood of her days of purity. But according to Rav, what is the reason for the difference between them?
אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ יוֹמֵי וּטְבִילָה, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: בְּיוֹמֵי תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: בְּיוֹמֵי וּטְבִילָה.
The Gemara responds: The difference between them is due to their opinions with regard to the significance of the days and the immersion at the conclusion of her days of impurity. As, Beit Shammai hold that the Merciful One rendered the purity of her blood dependent on days, which means that once she begins her days of purity her blood is pure regardless of whether or not she immersed. And Beit Hillel hold that it is dependent on both days and immersion. Accordingly, if she fails to immerse after her days of impurity, any blood she sees is impure.
תָּא שְׁמַע, וּמוֹדִים בְּיוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה לַח וְיָבֵשׁ. סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הָכָא נָמֵי דְּפָסְקָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the mishna: And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel in the case of a woman who gives birth as a zava, that any blood she sees imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry. It enters your mind to explain that here too, the mishna is referring to a case where a woman’s discharge of menstrual blood ceased during her days of impurity, and she then experienced bleeding during her days of purity. Since she is still a zava at the beginning of her days of purity, the blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ. אֶלָּא לְלֵוִי, דְּאָמַר: שְׁנֵי מַעְיָנוֹת הֵן, אַמַּאי מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ?
The Gemara continues: If so, granted, the mishna is clear according to Rav, who said that pure and impure blood emanate from one source, as it is due to that reason that the blood imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry, since she is still a zava and the Torah has not yet deemed her pure. But according to Levi, who said there are two sources, why does the blood impart impurity whether it is moist or dry? Let it be considered like the saliva or urine of a zava, which imparts impurity only when moist.
אָמַר לָךְ: הָכָא נָמֵי — בְּשׁוֹפַעַת. אִי בְּשׁוֹפַעַת, לְמַאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ?
The Gemara explains that Levi could say to you: Here too, we are dealing with a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood from within her days of impurity until her days of purity. The continuous flow of blood indicates that the blood emanates from the source of the impure blood. The Gemara asks: If the mishna is dealing with a woman who continuously discharges menstrual blood, for what purpose was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? It is obvious that this blood is impure.
לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, וּבְיוֹמֵי תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא — הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּיוֹלֶדֶת גְּרֵידְתָּא, דִּשְׁלִימוּ לְהוּ יוֹמֵי, אֲבָל יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב דְּבָעֵי סְפִירָה — לָא.
The Gemara answers that it was necessary for the opinion of Beit Shammai. The mishna is teaching that even though Beit Shammai say there is one source, and the Merciful One rendered the purity of her blood dependent on days alone, that statement applies only in the case of a woman who only gave birth, as her days of impurity have been completed at this point. But with regard to a woman who gives birth as a zava, who requires the counting of seven clean days from the end of her days of impurity, that statement does not apply, and blood emitted before she counted seven clean days imparts impurity whether moist or dry, like the blood of a menstruating woman.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita, which addresses the verse: “If a woman be delivered, and bear a male, then she shall be impure seven days; as in the days of her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” (Leviticus 12:2). The superfluous phrase “her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” serves to include a man who engages in intercourse with her, teaching that he is rendered impure like a menstruating woman and imparts impurity like her.
״דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַלֵּילוֹת, ״דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַיּוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב שֶׁצְּרִיכָה שֶׁתֵּשֵׁב שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב דְּאָמַר מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי בָּעֲיָא שִׁבְעָה יָמִים נְקִיִּים,
Furthermore, the phrase “Her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” serves to include the nights; although the verse states: “As in the days,” she is impure during the night as well. Finally, “her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” serves to include a woman who gives birth as a zava, teaching that she must observe seven clean days. The Gemara analyzes this baraita: Granted, the baraita is clear according to Rav, who said there is one source, as it is due to that reason that a woman who gives birth as a zava requires seven clean days.
