Niddah 69

Niddah 69

לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַהוּ? תְּחִלָּתָן וְסוֹפָן בָּעֵינַן, וְהָכָא תְּחִלָּתָן אִיכָּא סוֹפָן לֵיכָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא תְּחִלָּתָן אַף עַל גַּב שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן?

according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that if they examined themselves on the first and seventh days they are considered to be pure during the intermediate days as well, what is the halakha? Do we require the first and last days of the seven, and if so, here there is an examination on the first day, and yet there is no examination on the last day, but only on the eighth day? Or perhaps Rabbi Eliezer requires an examination only on the first of the days, and this is sufficient even though there is no examination on the last of the seven days.

אָמַר רַב: הִיא הִיא תְּחִלָּתָן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן, וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: תְּחִלָּתָן וְסוֹפָן בָּעֵינַן, הָכָא תְּחִלָּתָן אִיכָּא, סוֹפָן לֵיכָּא.

Rav said: This case of examining on the first and eighth days is the same as that of examining on the first and seventh days, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer requires an examination only on the first of the days, and this examination is sufficient even though there is no examination on the last of the days. And Rabbi Ḥanina said: We require an examination on the first and last days of the seven, and here there is an examination on the first day but there is no examination on the last day. Consequently, Rabbi Eliezer would not permit a zav or a zava to count any of the days in this case.

מֵיתִיבִי: וְשָׁוִין בְּזָב וּבְזָבָה שֶׁבָּדְקוּ עַצְמָן יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן וְיוֹם שְׁמִינִי וּמָצְאוּ טָהוֹר, שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אֶלָּא שְׁמִינִי בִּלְבַד. מַאן שָׁוִין? לָאו רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ?

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: And the Sages agree with regard to a zav and a zava who examined themselves on the first day and on the eighth day and found themselves to be ritually pure, that they have only the eighth day as part of their count. The Gemara asks: Who are the Sages who agree to this? Are they not Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua? These two Sages, who disagree in a case where the zav and zava examined themselves on the first and seventh days, are evidently the ones who agree in the case of a woman who performed an examination on the first and the eighth days. This seems to contradict Rav’s opinion.

לָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, the Sages referred to here are Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva. Both of them agree that in this case the first day is not included in the count. Conversely, Rabbi Eliezer would say that the first seven days are included in the count and the eighth day is unnecessary, as there is a presumptive status of ritual purity from her examination on the first day.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַב: נִדָּה שֶׁהִפְרִישָׁה בְּטׇהֳרָה בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁלָּהּ — סוֹפַרְתּוֹ לְמִנְיַן שִׁבְעָה נְקִיִּים.

§ The Gemara cites another discussion with regard to which days are included in the count of seven clean days. Rav Sheshet says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: A menstruating woman who performed the examination marking the first step in her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on her third day counts that day as part of the number of seven clean days.

נִדָּה, סְפִירָה לְמָה לַהּ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: זָבָה שֶׁהִפְרִישָׁה בְּטׇהֳרָה בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁלָּהּ — סוֹפַרְתּוֹ לְמִנְיַן שִׁבְעָה נְקִיִּים.

The Gemara asks: Why does a menstruating woman require any kind of counting? If this is during her days when she is expected to menstruate she may immerse after the conclusion of seven days, whether or not those days were clean. Rather, say that Rav meant as follows: A zava who performed the examination marking the first step in her transition from ritual impurity to ritual purity on her third day counts that day as part of the number of seven clean days.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת לְרַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: רַב כְּכוּתָאֵי אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? דְּאָמְרִי: יוֹם שֶׁפּוֹסֶקֶת בּוֹ סוֹפַרְתּוֹ לְמִנְיַן שִׁבְעָה!

Rav Sheshet said to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: Did Rav say his halakha in accordance with the opinion of the Samaritans, who say that the day on which a zava ceases to experience the emission of ziva counts toward the number of seven clean days, and she does not need to count seven complete days?

כִּי קָאָמַר רַב, לְבַר מִשְּׁלִישִׁי. בַּר מִשְּׁלִישִׁי? פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, כְּגוֹן דְּלֹא בָּדְקָה עַד שְׁבִיעִי.

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba replied: When Rav says his halakha, he meant apart from the third day. Rav Sheshet challenged: If Rav meant apart from the third day, that is obvious; there is no need for him to issue such a statement at all. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba replied: No, the statement that she begins counting immediately after the third day is necessary for a case where once she saw that she was clean after the third day of her ziva emissions she did not examine herself again until the seventh day.

וְאַשְׁמְעִינַן הָתָם — תְּחִלָּתָן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן, וְהָכָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — סוֹפָן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין תְּחִלָּתָן.

And Rav is teaching us two halakhot. There, in the previous discussion with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, Rav stated that an examination at the beginning is sufficient, even though there is no examination at the end of the seven days. And here he teaches us that an examination at the end of the seven days is sufficient, even though there is no examination at the beginning of the seven days, but only on the day when she ceased experiencing bleeding.

דְּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: תְּחִלָּתָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן הוּא דְּאָמְרִינַן, דְּאוֹקְמִינְהוּ אַחֶזְקַיְיהוּ, אֲבָל סוֹפָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין תְּחִלָּתָן — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Rav Yirmeya adds that it is necessary to teach both halakhot, lest you say that we say that an examination at the beginning is sufficient even though there is no examination at the end of the seven days, as we establish the clean days in accordance with their presumptive status. But one might have thought that Rav would not permit her to consider all the days to have been clean in a case of an examination at the end of the seven days even though there is no examination at the beginning of the seven days, where no presumptive status was established. Therefore, this second statement of Rav teaches us that even if she only examined herself at the end of the seven clean days it is sufficient.

אִינִי? וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר: מֵתִיב רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא ״טוֹעָה״.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav Yirmeya’s explanation. Is that so? But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that a woman who is uncertain whether or not she miscarried an actual fetus must bring an offering (see 29a). The reason is that the majority of pregnant women carry actual fetuses. Rabbi Yosef objected to this from the case of a woman who was forgetful, i.e., a woman who left town when she was pregnant, and later returned no longer pregnant. It is unknown whether she miscarried an actual fetus, and if it was a fetus, whether it was male or female. The conclusion there was that she does not have any days when blood she discharges is considered ritually pure, which is the halakha following a birth, as her miscarriage might not have been a fetus at all. Apparently, here one does not follow the principle that the majority of pregnant women carry actual fetuses.

וְלָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ, דְּקַיְימָא לַן: שָׁבוּעַ קַמָּא דְּאָתְיָא לְקַמַּן — בְּלֵילָוָתָא מַטְבְּלִינַן לַהּ, בִּימָמָא לָא מַטְבְּלִינַן לַהּ.

Ravin continues: And I do not know what his objection is, as the reason that she does not have any days when blood she discharges is considered ritually pure is not only due to the uncertainty as to whether or not she miscarried a fetus, but because it is also unknown when that miscarriage occurred, i.e., even if she miscarried a fetus, perhaps the days when blood she discharges is considered ritually pure had already been completed. As we maintain that the first week that she comes before us, when the court is uncertain with regard to her impurity, we tell her to immerse every night of that week, in the manner of a woman purifying herself after menstruation or childbirth, but we do not tell her to immerse during the daytime, as she has not counted seven clean days (see 29b).

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לָא בָּעֵינַן סְפוּרִין לְפָנֵינוּ, בִּימָמָא נָמֵי נַטְבְּלִינַהּ, דִּילְמָא יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר בְּזוֹב הִיא, וְעָבְדָה לַהּ סְפוּרִין! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בָּעֵינַן סְפוּרִין בְּפָנֵינוּ!

The Gemara explains how this discussion apparently contradicts Rav Yirmeya’s explanation. And if it enters your mind that we do not require all seven clean days to be counted before us, i.e., if an examination on the seventh day is sufficient, let us tell her to immerse also during the daytime, as perhaps she gave birth to a male baby during her days of ziva, and already performed her seven days of counting before she came before the court. The Gemara concludes: Rather, must one not conclude from this statement of Ravin that we require that her seven clean days be counted before us, which is why the court does not instruct her to immerse during the daytime.

וְלָאו מִי אוֹקֵימְנָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: בָּעֵינַן סְפוּרִין לְפָנֵינוּ?!

The Gemara rejects this contention. But didn’t we interpret that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that we require her seven clean days to be counted before us? By contrast, Rav’s statement was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the days do not need to be counted before us.

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דִּלְרַבָּנַן לָא בָּעֵינַן סְפוּרִין לְפָנֵינוּ? דִּתְנַן: טוֹעָה שֶׁאָמְרָה ״יוֹם אֶחָד טָמֵא רָאִיתִי״, מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ תֵּשַׁע טְבִילוֹת.

§ The Gemara stated earlier that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the seven clean days do not need to be counted before us. The Gemara analyzes their opinion: And from where do you say that according to the opinion of the Rabbis we do not require that the seven days be counted before us? This is as we learned in a baraita: With regard to a woman who was forgetful and does not know whether she is now in her days of menstruation or days of ziva, who said: I saw blood on one day of impurity, the court instructs her to immerse nine immersions.

שְׁבַע לְנִדָּה, וּתְרֵי לְזִיבָה. ״בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת טָמֵא רָאִיתִי״ — מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה טְבִילוֹת.

The baraita clarifies: Since there is no way of knowing whether she is a woman purifying herself after menstruation or after ziva, she must immerse seven immersions on the following seven nights, for purification from menstruation, as each of these days might be the last of the seven days of menstruation. And she must also immerse during two days as purification from ziva, i.e., on the day that she arrives, in case she experienced bleeding the day before, and on the following day, as perhaps she experienced bleeding on the day of her arrival. But if this woman says: I saw blood at twilight that renders me impure, the court instructs her to immerse eleven immersions.

אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה מַאי עֲבִידְתַּיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה מִדִּפְתִּי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּאת לְפָנֵינוּ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת,

The Gemara asks: These eleven days, what is their purpose? If she would normally require nine immersions, why does she require an extra two immersions if she experienced bleeding at twilight? Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: The baraita is referring specifically to a case where she came before us at twilight and says that she also experienced bleeding at twilight, but it is not clear whether she experienced bleeding on a previous day at twilight, or today at twilight.

וְהָוְיָין תַּמְנֵי לְנִדָּה וּתְלָת לְזִיבָה.

Rav Yirmeya explains: Therefore, she requires eight immersions to purify herself from menstruation, seven in case each of the following nights is the night after the seventh day of menstruation, and the eighth in case she experienced bleeding during twilight of the day she arrived, and this occurred in a time which was actually part of the next day, such that she needs to immerse also on the eighth night from her arrival, and three additional immersions during the day to purify herself from ziva. She must immerse during the day three times: She must immerse immediately, because if she experienced bleeding on the previous day during twilight it may have still been day, and right now, at twilight, it might still be day; she must immerse on the next day, because if she experienced bleeding on the previous day during twilight it may have already been night; and she must immerse during the day following the next day, because perhaps she experienced bleeding this twilight after it was night.

״לֹא רָאִיתִי כׇּל עִיקָּר״ — מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה טְבִילוֹת. אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי דִּינָא דְּלָא דִּינָא, דָּיְינִי בְּגַלָּחֵי, דְּאִית לֵיהּ תּוֹרָא — לִירְעֵי חַד יוֹמָא, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ תּוֹרָא — לִירְעֵי תְּרֵי יוֹמֵי.

If this woman who is forgetful with regard to her cycle of menstruation and ziva says: I have not seen any blood at all, the court instructs her to immerse fifteen immersions. Rava said, in reference to this final halakha in the baraita: This halakha is not a logical halakha. Rather, it is like the halakha that they judge in a place named Galaḥi. In that place they follow the behavior of Sodom, and say that with regard to one who has one ox, he must shepherd the local flocks one day, and one who does not have an ox must shepherd the local flocks for two days. It is not logical that a woman who has not experienced a flow of blood must immerse more times than one who has experienced a flow of blood.

אִתְרְמִי לְהוּ יַתְמָא בַּר אַרְמַלְתָּא, יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ תּוֹרֵי, אֲזַל נַכְסִינְהוּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: דְּאִית לֵיהּ תּוֹרָא — לִשְׁקוֹל חַד מַשְׁכָּא, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ תּוֹרָא — לִשְׁקוֹל תְּרֵי מַשְׁכֵי. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: מַאי הַאי דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: סוֹף דִּינָא כִּתְחִלַּת דִּינָא, תְּחִלַּת דִּינָא — לָאו מַאן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עֲדִיף? סוֹף דִּינָא נָמֵי — מַאן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עָדִיף.

Apropos the mention of Galaḥi, the Gemara relates an incident that occurred in that place. There was an orphan in that town, the son of a widow [armelata], who had no oxen of his own. The people of that town gave him their oxen to shepherd. This orphan went and slaughtered all of the oxen. He said to the townspeople: Whoever has an ox should take one skin, while one who does not have an ox should take two skins. The people of Galaḥi said to the orphan: What is this that you are saying, i.e., what is the reason? He said to them: The end of the law is like the beginning of the law: Isn’t the beginning of the law that one who has no ox is preferred, and must shepherd the oxen for two days? So too, with regard to the end of the law, one who has no ox is preferred and should receive two hides.

הָכָא נָמֵי, וּמָה הֵיכָא דְּאָמְרָה ״רָאִיתִי״ — סַגִּי לָהּ אִי בְּתֵשַׁע טְבִילוֹת אִי בְּאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה טְבִילוֹת, הֵיכָא דְּקָאָמְרָה אִיהִי ״לָא רָאִיתִי״ — בָּעֲיָא חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה טְבִילוֹת?

The Gemara returns to discuss Rava’s comment with regard to the ruling of the baraita: Here too one can claim: And if in a case where she says: I saw blood, it is sufficient for her to immerse either nine immersions or eleven immersions, so too, in a case where she says: I did not see any flow of blood at all, is it logical that she requires fifteen immersions?

אֶלָּא אֵימָא הָכִי: ״רָאִיתִי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה רָאִיתִי, אִי בִּימֵי נִדָּה רָאִיתִי אוֹ בִּימֵי זִיבָה רָאִיתִי״ — מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה טְבִילוֹת. אֲתַאי קַמַּן בִּימָמָא — יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ שַׁב לְנִדָּה

Rather, say that this is what the baraita means: If a woman says: I saw a flow of blood but I do not know how many days I saw blood, and likewise I do not know whether I saw the flow during the days of menstruation or if I saw the flow during the days of ziva, in such a case, the court instructs her to immerse fifteen immersions. The reason for these immersions is as follows: If she comes before us during the daytime, we give her seven immersions, beginning from that night, to remove the impurity of menstruation. Any of those seven nights might be the night after the last of her days of menstruation.

וְתַמְנֵי לְזִיבָה, אֲתַאי קַמַּן בְּלֵילָוָתָא — יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ תַּמְנֵי לְנִדָּה וְשַׁב לְזִיבָה.

And she requires eight immersions during the day to purify her from her ziva, as it is possible that she experienced bleeding for three consecutive days, rendering her a greater zava, and one of those was on this day that she came before the court, and it is also possible that the day she arrived she did not experience bleeding, and she was a zava during her last clean day and had to immerse that day. If she comes before us at night, we give her eight immersions to purify herself from her menstruation, including one on the night that she comes before the court, and seven immersions during the day to purify herself from her ziva.

זִיבָה, תַּמְנֵי בָּעֲיָא! אֶלָּא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי — שַׁב לְנִדָּה, וְתַמְנֵי לְזִיבָה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to her ziva, she still requires eight immersions. Since it is possible that she experienced bleeding for the third day on the day before coming to the court, she might be a greater zava, who starts her clean days only the day after she arrived. In addition, any of the first seven days may be the last clean day, on which she has to immerse herself. The Gemara answers: Rather, in both this case and that case she requires seven immersions to purify herself from the impurity of menstruation, and eight immersions to purify herself from the impurity of ziva.

בְּלֵילָוָתָא, תַּמְנֵי לְנִדָּה בָּעֵי!

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: If the woman comes at night to the court, she requires eight immersions to purify herself from her impurity of menstruation. Why does the baraita require her to immerse a total of only fifteen times when there are cases where she must immerse sixteen times?

זִיבָה דִּפְסִיקָא לֵיהּ, דְּלָא שְׁנָא כִּי אָתְיָא קַמַּן בִּימָמָא, לָא שְׁנָא כִּי אָתְיָא קַמַּן בְּלֵילְיָא — חֲשִׁיב לַהּ. נִדָּה דְּלָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ, דְּכִי אָתְיָא קַמַּן בְּלֵילָוָתָא — בָּעֵי תַּמְנֵי, בִּימָמָא — לָא קָבָעֵי תַּמְנֵי, לָא קָחָשֵׁיב לַהּ.

The Gemara answers: With regard to purifying herself from the impurity of ziva, which can be taught in a distinct manner, as there is no difference whether she comes before us during the day and there is no difference whether she comes before us at night, the baraita counts the fixed amount of eight immersions. By contrast, with regard to purifying herself from menstruation, which the tanna cannot teach in a distinct manner, as when she comes before us at night she requires eight immersions but if she comes before us during the day she does not require eight immersions, the tanna did not count both options, but mentioned only seven immersions, which is the minimum number required.

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ סְפוּרִין לְפָנֵינוּ בָּעֵינַן — כֹּל הָנֵי טְבִילוֹת לְמָה לִי? תִּסְפּוֹר שַׁב וַהֲדַר תִּטְבּוֹל! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַבָּנַן הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: לָא בָּעֵינַן סְפוּרִין לְפָנֵינוּ.

The Gemara returns to the initial purpose of this discussion, which was to indicate that the Rabbis do not require all seven days of counting before the court. And if it enters your mind that we require seven days of counting before us, why do I need all of these immersions? She should count seven clean days and only afterward immerse. Rather, must one not conclude from this that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and who say that we do not require seven days of counting before us?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לָאו תָּרוֹצֵי קָמְתָרְצִינַן לַהּ? תָּרֵיץ וְאֵימָא הָכִי: ״סָפַרְתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדַעַת כַּמָּה סָפַרְתִּי, אִם בִּימֵי נִדָּה סָפַרְתִּי וְאִם בִּימֵי זִיבָה סָפַרְתִּי״ — מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה טְבִילוֹת.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi, in rejection of this proof: But didn’t you resolve a difficulty in the baraita? Since you admit that the baraita in any event requires revision, resolve this difficulty too, and say this: If a woman comes and says: I counted clean days but I do not know how many days I counted, and I do not know whether I counted during the days of menstruation or whether I counted during the days of ziva, the court instructs her to immerse fifteen immersions. If so, there is no proof that the Rabbis hold that the counting does not need to be before the court.

״סָפַרְתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדַעַת כַּמָּה סָפַרְתִּי״ — חַד יוֹמָא מִיהָא אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא סָפְרָה, חָסְרָה לָהּ טְבִילָה!

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this interpretation of the baraita: If it is referring to a case where the woman said: I counted clean days but I do not know how many days I counted, it is impossible that she did not count at least one clean day. If so, she should not be required to immerse on the eighth day, in which case she is lacking one immersion, as the baraita rules that she must immerse fifteen times.

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: ״אֵינִי יוֹדַעַת אִם סָפַרְתִּי אִם לֹא סָפַרְתִּי״.

The Gemara answers: Rather, say that she claims: I do not know if I counted any clean days or I did not count any clean days. Likewise, she does not know whether she saw the blood during her days of menstruation or during her days of ziva. Therefore, she must immerse fifteen times, as it is possible that she has not yet counted at all.

מַתְנִי’ הַזָּב, וְהַזָּבָה, וְהַנִּדָּה, וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת, וְהַמְּצוֹרָע שֶׁמֵּתוּ — מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַשָּׂא, עַד שֶׁיִּמּוֹק הַבָּשָׂר. נׇכְרִי שֶׁמֵּת — טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא.

MISHNA: The corpses of a zav, and a zava, and a menstruating woman, and a woman after childbirth, and a leper, who died, transmit ritual impurity by carrying their corpses, until the flesh decays. With regard to the corpse of a gentile who died, although when alive he transmits impurity like a zav, once he dies he is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים מֵתוֹת נִדּוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין נִדָּה אֶלָּא שֶׁמֵּתָה נִדָּה.

Beit Shammai say: The status of all women when they die is as though they were menstruating women at the time of death. Therefore, the garments that they were wearing before they died are impure and require immersion. And Beit Hillel say: Only a woman who died with the impurity of a menstruating woman has the status of a menstruating woman after death.

גְּמָ’ מַאי בְּמַשָּׂא? אִילֵּימָא בְּמַשָּׂא מַמָּשׁ — אַטּוּ כֹּל מֵת מִי לָא מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא!

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the corpse of one of these impure people transmits ritual impurity by carrying. The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean by the term: By carrying? If we say that it literally means by carrying, that is difficult: Is that to say that every other corpse does not impart ritual impurity by carrying? Since every corpse imparts impurity through carrying, why does the mishna need to specify this halakha in these specific cases?

אֶלָּא מַאי בְּמַשָּׂא? בְּאֶבֶן מְסָמָא,

Rather, what does the mishna mean when it states: By carrying [bemassa]? It means imparting impurity through a very heavy stone [even mesama]. There is a unique halakha with regard to the ritual impurity of a zav and a menstruating woman. If they sit on an item, even one that cannot become ritually impure, and beneath that item there is a vessel, although the weight of the zav or the menstruating woman has no physical effect on the vessel, it becomes ritually impure.

דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֵיתָיִת אֶבֶן חֲדָא וְשׂוּמַת עַל פּוּם גּוּבָּא״.

The Gemara notes that the word mesama is based on a verse, as it is written: “And a stone was brought and placed [vesumat] upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel” (Daniel 6:18). Accordingly, the mishna is teaching that although a corpse does not normally impart ritual impurity to vessels under a heavy stone, these specific types of corpses do transmit impurity in this manner.

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב: גְּזֵרָה, שֶׁמָּא יִתְעַלְּפֶה.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages decreed that these specific types of corpses impart ritual impurity through a heavy stone? Rav said: It is a decree due to the possibility that perhaps one of these people might faint while sitting on the heavy stone, and it might be mistakenly thought they are dead and do not impart impurity to the vessels beneath.

תָּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמְרוּ: עַד שֶׁיִּבָּקַע כְּרֵיסוֹ.

A tanna taught in a baraita that the Sages said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: All of these types of corpses listed in the mishna impart ritual impurity through a heavy stone until the belly of the corpse bursts. The Sages imposed their decree only in cases where the corpse resembles a person who has fainted. Once the corpse is clearly no longer alive, it no longer imparts ritual impurity through a heavy stone.

נׇכְרִי שֶׁמֵּת [כּוּ׳]. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ נׇכְרִי שֶׁמֵּת טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין טוּמְאָתוֹ מֵחַיִּים מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the corpse of a gentile who died, although when alive he transmits impurity like a zav, once he dies he is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: For what reason did the Sages say that the corpse of a gentile who died is ritually pure and is prevented from transmitting impurity by carrying? Because his impurity that he transmits even when alive is not by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. The Sages decreed that every living gentile imparts ritual impurity in the manner of a zav; they did not extend their decree to include the corpse of a gentile in the manner of the corpse of a zav.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים שָׁאֲלוּ אַנְשֵׁי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חִינָּנָא, שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּבְרֵי חָכְמָה, שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּבְרֵי הַגָּדָה, שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּבְרֵי בוּרוּת, שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּבְרֵי דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ.

§ The Sages taught: The wise people of Alexandria asked twelve matters of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥinnana. Three of them were matters of wisdom, three were matters of aggada, three were matters of ignorance, and three were matters of behavior.

שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּבְרֵי חָכְמָה: הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וְהַנִּדָּה וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת וְהַמְּצוֹרָע שֶׁמֵּתוּ, עַד מָתַי מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַשָּׂא? אָמַר לָהֶן: עַד שֶׁיִּמּוֹק הַבָּשָׂר.

The Gemara lists the questions. Three were matters of wisdom: The first question was with regard to a zav and a zava and a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth and the leper, who died: Until when do they transmit ritual impurity by carrying? Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Until the flesh decays. This is the halakha taught in the mishna.

בַּת מְשׁוּלַּחַת, מָה הִיא לְכֹהֵן?

The second question referred to the daughter of a wife who had been sent away by her husband, i.e., divorced, who then married another, but after her divorce from her second husband or his death she returned and remarried her first husband, to whom she is forbidden (see Deuteronomy 24:1–4), and a daughter was born from this marriage. What is her, i.e., the daughter’s, status with regard to marrying a priest?

מִי אָמְרִינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וּמָה אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרָהּ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל — בְּנָהּ פָּגוּם, זוֹ שֶׁאִיסּוּרָהּ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁבְּנָהּ פָּגוּם? אוֹ דִילְמָא: מָה לְאַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — שֶׁהִיא עַצְמָהּ מִתְחַלֶּלֶת.

Do we say an a fortiori inference: And if in the case of a widow married to a High Priest, whose prohibition does not apply to all, i.e., it is prohibited for her only to marry a High Priest (see Leviticus 21:13–15), and yet the lineage of her son is flawed, as he is disqualified from the priesthood, then in the case of this daughter of a remarried divorcée, whose prohibition applies equally to all men, is it not right that her son should be of flawed lineage? Or perhaps this comparison can be refuted: What is notable about a widow married to a High Priest? It is notable in that she herself is disqualified from the priesthood, i.e., if a High Priest engages in intercourse with her she is disqualified from partaking of teruma, whereas a remarried divorcée is not disqualified from partaking of teruma.

אָמַר לָהֶן:

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: