Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 2, 2020 | ה׳ בטבת תש״פ

Niddah 71

A woman who dies – do we treat her clothes as clothes of a niddah (and require purification) or not? Why do Beit Shammai think we do? What is the status of blood that comes out of a woman as she is dying – does it carry impurities of niddah or of blood from a dead person which transfer impurity of a tent? What level of impurity is a woman considered when she is in her pure days following childbirth (after she goes to the mikveh for the first set of either 7 or 14)? What items can she touch and what can’t she touch? What is the status of a woman who sees blood for one day on her last day of being a zava – to what extent is she considered like a woman who normally sees one zava day who needs to wait out the wohle next day to see if she bleeds – as in this case, if she bleeds, she won’t be considered a zava but a niddah! What is she goes to the mikveh that night? Or the next morning and then slept with her husband without waiting out the day?

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

ויקדש עצמו בשעת תשמיש

and sanctify himself by acting modestly at the time of sexual intercourse.

אמרו הרבה עשו כן ולא הועילו אלא יבקש רחמים ממי שהבנים שלו שנאמר הנה נחלת ה׳ בנים שכר פרי הבטן

The sages of Alexandria said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Many people have done so, and it did not help them. Rabbi Yehoshua said: Rather, they should pray to receive sons from the One to Whom sons belong, as it is stated: “Behold, children are a heritage of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalms 127:3).

מאי קא משמע לן דהא בלא הא לא סגי

The Gemara again asks: Since the path to sons is through prayer, what is Rabbi Yehoshua teaching us when he said that one should marry an appropriate woman and conduct himself with modesty during intercourse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehoshua is teaching that this, prayer, without that, marrying an appropriate woman and being modest, does not suffice.

מאי שכר פרי הבטן אמר רבי חמא ברבי חנינא בשכר שמשהין עצמן בבטן כדי שתזריע אשתו תחילה נותן לו הקדוש ברוך הוא שכר פרי הבטן

With regard to the verse from Psalms, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: “The fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalms 127:3)? What act is rewarded here? Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: In reward for men withholding their semen in their belly in order to allow their wives to emit seed first, the Holy One, Blessed be He, gives him the reward of the fruit of the womb, i.e., sons.

בית שמאי אומרים [וכו׳] מאי טעמייהו דבית שמאי אי נימא משום דכתיב ותתחלחל המלכה ואמר רב מלמד שפרסה נדה הכא נמי אגב ביעתותא דמלאכא דמותא חזיא והאנן תנן שחרדה מסלקת את הדמים הא לא קשיא פחדא צמית ביעתותא מרפיא

§ The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai say: The status of all women when they die is as though they were menstruating women. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai? If we say that their opinion is due to that which is written: “Then the queen was exceedingly distressed [vatitḥalḥal]” (Esther 4:4), this is difficult. The Gemara first explains the derivation. And Rav said: This teaches that she began to menstruate out of fear, as the cavities [ḥalalim] of her body opened. Here too, when a woman is about to die, due to the fear of the Angel of Death she sees blood. This is difficult, as didn’t we learn in a mishna (39a) that trepidation eliminates the flow of menstrual blood? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Anxiety generated by extended worry contracts the muscles and prevents the blood from flowing, but sudden fear relaxes the muscles and causes the blood to flow.

אלא הא דתנן בית שמאי אומרים כל האנשים מתים זבין ובית הלל אומרים אין זב אלא מי שמת זב

But if the reason Beit Shammai hold that all women who die have the status of menstruating women is due to fear, then what about that which we learned in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: The status of all men when they die is as though they were zavim; and Beit Hillel say: Only a man who died with the impurity of a zav has the status of a zav. If the reason that Beit Shammai maintain that all women who die have the status of menstruating women is due to fear of the Angel of Death, presumably they also should consider all men who die to have the status of a zav for the same reason.

אקרי כאן מבשרו ולא מחמת אונסו

But this is difficult, as I will apply here the principle stated with regard to a zav: “An issue out of his flesh” (Leviticus 15:2) renders a man impure, but not an issue due to circumstances beyond his control. If a man has a discharge of ziva due to an illness or some accident, he does not become impure. Consequently, if he has a discharge due to fear after seeing the Angel of Death, he would not become ritually impure.

אלא טעמא דבית שמאי כדתניא בראשונה היו מטבילין כלים על גבי נדות מתות והיו נדות חיות מתביישות התקינו שיהו מטבילין על גבי כל הנשים מפני כבודן של נדות חיות

Rather, the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai is as it is taught in a baraita: At first they would ritually immerse all the utensils that had been used by women who died while menstruating, which had thereby contracted ritual impurity even if the utensils did not touch the women after their death. And as a result, the living menstruating women were embarrassed, as they saw that the status of a menstruating woman is so severe that it remains even after death. The Sages therefore instituted that one must immerse the utensils which had been used by all dying women, due to the honor of living menstruating women.

בראשונה היו מטבילין על גבי זבין מתין והיו זבין חיין מתביישין התקינו שיהו מטבילין על גבי כל האנשים מפני כבודן של זבין חיים

Similarly, at first they would immerse all the utensils that had been used by zavin, men suffering from gonorrhea, who died, as the utensils had thereby contracted ritual impurity even if the utensils did not touch the men after their death. And as a result, the living zavin were embarrassed. Therefore, the Sages instituted that one must immerse the utensils that had been used by all dying men, due to the honor of the living zavin.

מתני׳ האשה שמתה ויצאה ממנה רביעית דם מטמאה משום כתם ומטמאה באהל

MISHNA: With regard to a woman who died, and after her death a quarterlog of blood emerged from her body, although the blood emerged after death, it transmits ritual impurity by touching and carrying, due to the impurity of the spot of blood of a menstruating woman. This impurity as blood of menstruation applies to any amount of blood she emits, despite the halakha that generally, the blood of a corpse transmits impurity only if it is at least a quarter-log in volume. And as it is a quarter-log of blood, it transmits impurity in a tent, as it is the blood of a corpse.

רבי יהודה אומר אינה מטמאה משום כתם מפני שנעקר משמתה ומודה רבי יהודה ביושבת על משבר ומתה ויצאה ממנה רביעית דם שהיא מטמאה משום כתם אמר רבי יוסי לפיכך אינה מטמאה באהל

Rabbi Yehuda says: That quarter-log of blood does not transmit impurity due to the impurity of the spot of blood of a menstruating woman, because that blood was displaced after she died. And Rabbi Yehuda concedes in the case of a woman who is sitting in childbirth on the travailing chair [mashber] and she died, and a quarter-log of blood emerged from her body, that this blood transmits ritual impurity due to the impurity of the spot of blood of a menstruating woman. In that case, the blood was displaced while she was still alive. Rabbi Yosei said: For that reason, that quarter-log of blood does not transmit impurity in a tent, as it did not come from a corpse.

גמ׳ מכלל דתנא קמא סבר אף על גב דנעקר דם משמתה מטמאה משום כתם

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yehuda a quarter-log of blood that emerges from a woman after death does not transmit impurity due to the impurity of a spot of blood of a menstruating woman, despite the fact that it came from the uterus. The Gemara raises a difficulty: By inference one might think that the first tanna holds that even though the blood was displaced after she died, it renders one ritually impure due to the impurity of a blood spot. This is not reasonable, as a dead woman cannot attain the status of a menstruating woman.

אמר רבי זעירי מקור מקומו טמא איכא בינייהו

Rabbi Ze’eiri said: Even the first tanna agrees that blood from the uterus which leaves the body after death does not impart impurity as a spot. Rather, the difference between the opinions of the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda is whether the place of a woman’s source, i.e., her uterus, is impure, and therefore any blood that passes through there is impure, even if it left her body after death. The first tanna maintains that even blood that appears after her death transmits impurity like the blood of menstruation, as it passed through the uterus when she was still alive, whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that this blood does not transmit impurity as blood of menstruation, despite the fact that it passed through her uterus.

ומודה רבי יהודה

§ The mishna teaches: And Rabbi Yehuda concedes in the case of a woman who was sitting in childbirth when she died, that the quarter-log of blood which emerged from her body transmits the ritual impurity of the spot of the blood of a menstruating woman. And Rabbi Yosei said: For that reason, that quarter-log of blood does not transmit impurity in a tent.

מכלל דתנא קמא סבר באהל נמי מטמא אמר רב יהודה דם תבוסה איכא בינייהו

The Gemara asks: By inference, one might conclude that the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the blood which emerges from a woman who died during childbirth also transmits impurity in a tent. This cannot be correct, as the blood left her while she was still alive. Rav Yehuda said: The difference between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei is with regard to blood of submission discharged from a body at the time of death, which contains a mixture of blood that leaves a person when he is still alive and blood that emerges after his death. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the blood which emerges from a woman who dies during childbirth is blood of submission, which transmits impurity in a tent by rabbinic law. Rabbi Yosei maintains that it is clear that this blood emerged from her body before she died, and therefore it is not blood of submission.

דתניא איזהו דם תבוסה פירש רבי אלעזר ברבי יהודה הרוג שיצא ממנו דם בין בחייו בין במותו ספק בחייו יצא ספק במותו יצא ספק בחייו ובמותו זהו דם תבוסה

As it is taught in a baraita: What is blood of submission, which imparts ritual impurity (see 62b)? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yehuda, explained: The case is one of a person who was killed, from whom a quarter-log of blood emerged, a flow which began while he was alive and continued after his death, and it is uncertain whether a full quarter-log emerged while he was alive and therefore does not transmit ritual impurity, and it is uncertain whether it emerged out after his death, in which case it imparts ritual impurity by Torah law, and it is uncertain whether the quarter-log emerged partly while he was alive and partly after his death. That is blood of submission.

וחכמים אומרים ברשות היחיד ספקו טמא ברשות הרבים ספקו טהור

And the Rabbis say that this is not blood of submission, but a case of uncertain ritual impurity by Torah law, as it might all have emerged after death. Therefore, one applies the principle that in a private domain a case of uncertainty is considered to be ritually impure, whereas in a public domain a case of uncertainty is considered to be ritually pure.

אלא איזהו דם תבוסה הרוג שיצא הימנו רביעית דם בחייו ובמותו ועדיין לא פסק ספק רובו בחייו ומיעוטו במותו ספק מיעוטו בחייו ורובו במותו זהו דם תבוסה

Rather, what is blood of submission? The case is one of a person who has been killed from whom a quarterlog of blood emerged while he was alive and continued emerging after his death and has still not stopped coming out. It is clear that a full quarter-log did not emerge after his death, but it is uncertain whether the majority emerged while he was alive and the minority after his death, and equally uncertain whether the minority emerged while he was alive and the majority after his death. That is blood of submission.

רבי יהודה אומר הרוג שיצא ממנו רביעית דם והיה מוטל במטה ודמו מטפטף לגומא טמא מפני שהטפה של מיתה מעורבת בו וחכמים מטהרין מפני

Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of one who has been killed from whom a quarter-log of blood emerged, and he was lying in a bed and his blood was dripping into a hole in the ground, the blood in the ground is ritually impure, because the drop of death is mixed with it. And the Rabbis deem it ritually pure, because

שראשון ראשון נפסק שפיר קאמרי ליה רבנן לרבי יהודה רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר אין דם מבטל דם

each first drop and every other first drop is separated from the other drops of blood, i.e., it did not flow in a steady stream. Since the blood initially emerged while he was alive and is pure, every drop of blood which emerged after his death is nullified when it falls into that blood, and therefore the entire puddle of blood is ritually pure. The Gemara asks: The Rabbis are saying well to Rabbi Yehuda; how does he respond to their claim? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning, as he said: Blood does not nullify blood.

רבי שמעון אומר צלוב על העץ שדמו שותת לארץ ונמצא תחתיו רביעית דם טמא רבי יהודה מטהר שאני אומר טפה של מיתה עומדת לו על גב העץ

Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of one who is crucified on wood, whose blood does not drip but runs down the wood to the earth, and a quarter-log of blood is found underneath him, the blood is ritually impure. Rabbi Yehuda deems the blood ritually pure. He explains his reasoning: As I say that the quarter-log of blood found underneath the body came out while he was still alive, and the drop of blood that came out after his death remains on the wood.

ורבי יהודה נימא איהו לנפשיה שאני אומר טפה של מיתה עומדת על גב המטה שאני במטה דמחלחלה

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yehuda, let him say to himself with regard to one who was killed on a bed and his blood is dripping into a hole in the ground: As I say that all the blood found underneath the body emerged while he was still alive and the drop of blood that came out after his death remains on the bed. Why does Rabbi Yehuda deem the blood ritually impure in such a case? The Gemara answers: The case of the bed is different, as the blood seeps through the bed onto the floor, whereas in the case of one who is crucified some of the blood may remain on the tree.

מתני׳ בראשונה היו אומרים היושבת על דם טהור היתה מערה מים לפסח

MISHNA: Initially the Sages would say, with regard to a woman who gave birth and observed the seven or fourteen days of impurity for a male or female child, respectively, and then immersed in a ritual bath and who is observing the period of the blood of purity, that she would pour water from a vessel in her hands to rinse the Paschal offering. Although it is permitted for such a woman to engage in intercourse with her husband, her halakhic status is like that of one who immersed that day and the sun has not yet set. She therefore assumes second-degree ritual impurity and confers third-degree ritual impurity upon teruma with which she comes into contact. Consequently, she may touch the vessel, as second-degree ritual impurity does not render a vessel impure. She may not touch the water, as it is designated for rinsing the Paschal offering and therefore it is treated with the sanctity of sacrificial food, which is rendered impure by second-degree ritual impurity.

חזרו לומר הרי היא כמגע טמא מת לקדשים כדברי בית הלל בית שמאי אומרים אף כטמא מת

The Sages then said: Her status is like that of one who came into contact with one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, i.e., one with first-degree ritual impurity, who renders consecrated items impure. But with regard to all non-sacred items, even non-sacred items treated with the sanctity of sacrificial food, such as the water used to rinse the Paschal offering, she has second-degree ritual impurity. Consequently, it is permitted for her to touch not only the vessel, but the water inside it as well, in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: The status of the woman is even like that of one who is impure due to contact with a corpse, who is a primary source of ritual impurity and renders even a non-sacred vessel impure.

גמ׳ מערה אין נוגעת לא אלמא חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש כקדש דמו

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: A woman who gave birth, observed the days of impurity, immersed in a ritual bath, and who is now observing the period of the blood of purity would pour water from a vessel in her hands to rinse the Paschal offering. The Gemara infers: Pouring from a vessel, yes, this is permitted, but she may not touch the water itself. Apparently, non-sacred produce, e.g., even liquid such as the water for rinsing the Paschal offering, that was prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food, i.e., with the same stringencies as required for sacrificial food, is considered like sacrificial food.

אימא סיפא חזרו לומר הרי היא כמגע טמא מת לקדשים לקדשים אין לחולין לא אלמא חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש לאו כקדש דמו

But now say the latter clause of the mishna: The Sages then said: Her status is like that of one who came into contact with one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, i.e., one with first-degree ritual impurity, who renders consecrated items impure. This indicates that with regard to consecrated items, yes, she renders them impure, but with regard to non-sacred items, e.g., the water used to rinse the Paschal offering, she does not render them impure. Apparently, non-sacred produce that was prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food is not considered like sacrificial food.

מתניתין מני אבא שאול היא דתניא אבא שאול אומר טבול יום תחילה לקדש לטמא שנים ולפסול אחד

The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is expressed in the latter clause of the mishna? It is the opinion of Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: With regard to one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, he has the status of one who is impure with first-degree impurity with regard to sacrificial food, in that he renders two items of sacrificial food impure, and disqualifies one additional item. In other words, the first item of sacrificial food that he touches assumes the status of second-degree impurity. A second item that comes into contact with the first item assumes third-degree impurity. A third item that comes into contact with the second assumes fourth-degree impurity and is therefore disqualified from being eaten, but it does not impart impurity to other items.

מתני׳ ומודים שהיא אוכלת במעשר וקוצה לה חלה ומקפת וקורא לה שם

MISHNA: And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that a woman observing the days of purity partakes of second-tithe produce, as it is permitted for one who immersed that day to eat second-tithe produce. And she separates part of her dough as ḥalla, and she draws the vessel with the part of the dough that she separated near the rest of the dough, and she designates it with the name of ḥalla.

ואם נפל מרוקה ומדם טהרה על ככר של תרומה שהוא טהור

And Beit Shammai further concede to Beit Hillel that if a drop from her saliva or from the blood of purity fell onto a loaf of teruma, the loaf is ritually pure, as any liquid discharged from the body of one who immersed that day is ritually pure.

בית שמאי אומרים צריכה טבילה באחרונה ובית הלל אומרים אינה צריכה טבילה באחרונה

There is another dispute between the tanna’im with regard to a woman who completed her days of purity. Beit Shammai say: Her immersion at the end of the days of impurity does not render it permitted for her to enter the Temple or to partake of teruma; rather, she requires immersion even at the conclusion of the days of purity. And Beit Hillel say: She does not require immersion at the conclusion of the days of purity to render it permitted for her to partake of teruma, as the immersion at the end of the days of impurity is sufficient.

גמ׳ דאמר מר טבל ועלה אוכל במעשר

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that the woman observing the days of purity partakes of second-tithe produce. The Gemara explains that the reason is as the Master said: When the period of ritual impurity of a zav or leper has been completed, and he immersed during the day and ascended from the ritual bath, he may partake of second tithe immediately.

וקוצה לה חלה חולין הטבולין לחלה לאו כחלה דמו

The mishna teaches: And she separates part of her dough as ḥalla. The Gemara explains that non-consecrated food that is untithed produce with regard to ḥalla, as it has not had ḥalla separated from it, e.g., this dough from which a piece has been set aside for the future separation of ḥalla, is not considered like ḥalla, and therefore is not rendered impure by the contact of a woman observing the days of purity.

ומקפת דאמר מר מצוה לתרום מן המוקף

The mishna also teaches that she draws the vessel with the part of the dough that she separated near the rest of the dough. The Gemara explains that this is as the Master said: It is a mitzva to separate teruma from produce that is situated nearby the produce it comes to exempt, ab initio.

וקורא לה שם סלקא דעתך אמינא נגזור דלמא אתי למנגע בה מאבראי קא משמע לן

The mishna states: And she designates it with the name of ḥalla. The Gemara explains that it is necessary for the tanna to teach this halakha, as it might enter your mind to say: Let us decree lest she comes to touch the ḥalla from the outside. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that there is no such decree.

ואם נפל מרוקה דתנן משקה טבול יום (משקין היוצאין ממנו) כמשקין הנוגע בהם ואלו ואלו אינן מטמאין חוץ ממשקה הזב שהוא אב הטומאה

The mishna teaches: And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that if a drop from her saliva or from the blood of purity fell onto a loaf of teruma, that the loaf is ritually pure, as any liquid discharged from the body of one who immersed that day is ritually pure. The Gemara explains that the reason is as we learned in a mishna (Tevul Yom 2:1): The halakha with regard to liquids that emerge from one who immersed himself that day from his state of ritual impurity is like that of liquids that he touches. And both these and those, the liquids that emanated from him and the liquids that he touched, do not transmit ritual impurity. This is the halakha except for liquids that come from a zav, who is a primary source of ritual impurity.

בית שמאי מאי בינייהו אמר רב קטינא טבול יום ארוך איכא בינייהו

The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai say: Her immersion at the end of the days of impurity does not render her permitted; rather, she requires immersion even at the end of the days of purity. And Beit Hillel say: The immersion at the end of the days of impurity is sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them, i.e., what is the basis of their dispute? Rav Ketina said: The difference between them is with regard to the status of one who immersed that day, i.e., at the end of his time of impurity, and a long time has passed since the immersion. Beit Shammai hold that as a long time has passed, i.e., thirty-three days after the birth of a boy or sixty-six days after the birth of a girl, she may not rely on that immersion. Beit Hillel maintain that she may still rely on that initial immersion.

מתני׳ הרואה יום אחד עשר וטבלה לערב ומשמשה

MISHNA: There is a dispute with regard to a woman who sees blood on the eleventh day, which is the final day of the period fit for the flow of a zava. It is permitted for her to engage in intercourse with her husband after observing one clean day corresponding to the one day that she saw blood, but in this case, she failed to observe one clean day. Rather, she immersed in a ritual bath that evening, the eve of the twelfth day, and then engaged in intercourse with her husband.

בית שמאי אומר מטמאין משכב ומושב וחייבין בקרבן

Beit Shammai say: Since she did not observe that corresponding clean day, she retains the status of a zava. Therefore both she, the zava, and her husband, who engaged in intercourse with a zava, transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting, to the extent that these transmit impurity to food and drink that came in contact with them, and in her case, to people as well. And each of them is liable to bring a sin offering for participating in intercourse involving a zava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 71

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 71

ויקדש עצמו בשעת תשמיש

and sanctify himself by acting modestly at the time of sexual intercourse.

אמרו הרבה עשו כן ולא הועילו אלא יבקש רחמים ממי שהבנים שלו שנאמר הנה נחלת ה׳ בנים שכר פרי הבטן

The sages of Alexandria said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Many people have done so, and it did not help them. Rabbi Yehoshua said: Rather, they should pray to receive sons from the One to Whom sons belong, as it is stated: “Behold, children are a heritage of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalms 127:3).

מאי קא משמע לן דהא בלא הא לא סגי

The Gemara again asks: Since the path to sons is through prayer, what is Rabbi Yehoshua teaching us when he said that one should marry an appropriate woman and conduct himself with modesty during intercourse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehoshua is teaching that this, prayer, without that, marrying an appropriate woman and being modest, does not suffice.

מאי שכר פרי הבטן אמר רבי חמא ברבי חנינא בשכר שמשהין עצמן בבטן כדי שתזריע אשתו תחילה נותן לו הקדוש ברוך הוא שכר פרי הבטן

With regard to the verse from Psalms, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: “The fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalms 127:3)? What act is rewarded here? Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: In reward for men withholding their semen in their belly in order to allow their wives to emit seed first, the Holy One, Blessed be He, gives him the reward of the fruit of the womb, i.e., sons.

בית שמאי אומרים [וכו׳] מאי טעמייהו דבית שמאי אי נימא משום דכתיב ותתחלחל המלכה ואמר רב מלמד שפרסה נדה הכא נמי אגב ביעתותא דמלאכא דמותא חזיא והאנן תנן שחרדה מסלקת את הדמים הא לא קשיא פחדא צמית ביעתותא מרפיא

§ The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai say: The status of all women when they die is as though they were menstruating women. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai? If we say that their opinion is due to that which is written: “Then the queen was exceedingly distressed [vatitḥalḥal]” (Esther 4:4), this is difficult. The Gemara first explains the derivation. And Rav said: This teaches that she began to menstruate out of fear, as the cavities [ḥalalim] of her body opened. Here too, when a woman is about to die, due to the fear of the Angel of Death she sees blood. This is difficult, as didn’t we learn in a mishna (39a) that trepidation eliminates the flow of menstrual blood? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Anxiety generated by extended worry contracts the muscles and prevents the blood from flowing, but sudden fear relaxes the muscles and causes the blood to flow.

אלא הא דתנן בית שמאי אומרים כל האנשים מתים זבין ובית הלל אומרים אין זב אלא מי שמת זב

But if the reason Beit Shammai hold that all women who die have the status of menstruating women is due to fear, then what about that which we learned in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: The status of all men when they die is as though they were zavim; and Beit Hillel say: Only a man who died with the impurity of a zav has the status of a zav. If the reason that Beit Shammai maintain that all women who die have the status of menstruating women is due to fear of the Angel of Death, presumably they also should consider all men who die to have the status of a zav for the same reason.

אקרי כאן מבשרו ולא מחמת אונסו

But this is difficult, as I will apply here the principle stated with regard to a zav: “An issue out of his flesh” (Leviticus 15:2) renders a man impure, but not an issue due to circumstances beyond his control. If a man has a discharge of ziva due to an illness or some accident, he does not become impure. Consequently, if he has a discharge due to fear after seeing the Angel of Death, he would not become ritually impure.

אלא טעמא דבית שמאי כדתניא בראשונה היו מטבילין כלים על גבי נדות מתות והיו נדות חיות מתביישות התקינו שיהו מטבילין על גבי כל הנשים מפני כבודן של נדות חיות

Rather, the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai is as it is taught in a baraita: At first they would ritually immerse all the utensils that had been used by women who died while menstruating, which had thereby contracted ritual impurity even if the utensils did not touch the women after their death. And as a result, the living menstruating women were embarrassed, as they saw that the status of a menstruating woman is so severe that it remains even after death. The Sages therefore instituted that one must immerse the utensils which had been used by all dying women, due to the honor of living menstruating women.

בראשונה היו מטבילין על גבי זבין מתין והיו זבין חיין מתביישין התקינו שיהו מטבילין על גבי כל האנשים מפני כבודן של זבין חיים

Similarly, at first they would immerse all the utensils that had been used by zavin, men suffering from gonorrhea, who died, as the utensils had thereby contracted ritual impurity even if the utensils did not touch the men after their death. And as a result, the living zavin were embarrassed. Therefore, the Sages instituted that one must immerse the utensils that had been used by all dying men, due to the honor of the living zavin.

מתני׳ האשה שמתה ויצאה ממנה רביעית דם מטמאה משום כתם ומטמאה באהל

MISHNA: With regard to a woman who died, and after her death a quarterlog of blood emerged from her body, although the blood emerged after death, it transmits ritual impurity by touching and carrying, due to the impurity of the spot of blood of a menstruating woman. This impurity as blood of menstruation applies to any amount of blood she emits, despite the halakha that generally, the blood of a corpse transmits impurity only if it is at least a quarter-log in volume. And as it is a quarter-log of blood, it transmits impurity in a tent, as it is the blood of a corpse.

רבי יהודה אומר אינה מטמאה משום כתם מפני שנעקר משמתה ומודה רבי יהודה ביושבת על משבר ומתה ויצאה ממנה רביעית דם שהיא מטמאה משום כתם אמר רבי יוסי לפיכך אינה מטמאה באהל

Rabbi Yehuda says: That quarter-log of blood does not transmit impurity due to the impurity of the spot of blood of a menstruating woman, because that blood was displaced after she died. And Rabbi Yehuda concedes in the case of a woman who is sitting in childbirth on the travailing chair [mashber] and she died, and a quarter-log of blood emerged from her body, that this blood transmits ritual impurity due to the impurity of the spot of blood of a menstruating woman. In that case, the blood was displaced while she was still alive. Rabbi Yosei said: For that reason, that quarter-log of blood does not transmit impurity in a tent, as it did not come from a corpse.

גמ׳ מכלל דתנא קמא סבר אף על גב דנעקר דם משמתה מטמאה משום כתם

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yehuda a quarter-log of blood that emerges from a woman after death does not transmit impurity due to the impurity of a spot of blood of a menstruating woman, despite the fact that it came from the uterus. The Gemara raises a difficulty: By inference one might think that the first tanna holds that even though the blood was displaced after she died, it renders one ritually impure due to the impurity of a blood spot. This is not reasonable, as a dead woman cannot attain the status of a menstruating woman.

אמר רבי זעירי מקור מקומו טמא איכא בינייהו

Rabbi Ze’eiri said: Even the first tanna agrees that blood from the uterus which leaves the body after death does not impart impurity as a spot. Rather, the difference between the opinions of the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda is whether the place of a woman’s source, i.e., her uterus, is impure, and therefore any blood that passes through there is impure, even if it left her body after death. The first tanna maintains that even blood that appears after her death transmits impurity like the blood of menstruation, as it passed through the uterus when she was still alive, whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that this blood does not transmit impurity as blood of menstruation, despite the fact that it passed through her uterus.

ומודה רבי יהודה

§ The mishna teaches: And Rabbi Yehuda concedes in the case of a woman who was sitting in childbirth when she died, that the quarter-log of blood which emerged from her body transmits the ritual impurity of the spot of the blood of a menstruating woman. And Rabbi Yosei said: For that reason, that quarter-log of blood does not transmit impurity in a tent.

מכלל דתנא קמא סבר באהל נמי מטמא אמר רב יהודה דם תבוסה איכא בינייהו

The Gemara asks: By inference, one might conclude that the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the blood which emerges from a woman who died during childbirth also transmits impurity in a tent. This cannot be correct, as the blood left her while she was still alive. Rav Yehuda said: The difference between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei is with regard to blood of submission discharged from a body at the time of death, which contains a mixture of blood that leaves a person when he is still alive and blood that emerges after his death. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the blood which emerges from a woman who dies during childbirth is blood of submission, which transmits impurity in a tent by rabbinic law. Rabbi Yosei maintains that it is clear that this blood emerged from her body before she died, and therefore it is not blood of submission.

דתניא איזהו דם תבוסה פירש רבי אלעזר ברבי יהודה הרוג שיצא ממנו דם בין בחייו בין במותו ספק בחייו יצא ספק במותו יצא ספק בחייו ובמותו זהו דם תבוסה

As it is taught in a baraita: What is blood of submission, which imparts ritual impurity (see 62b)? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yehuda, explained: The case is one of a person who was killed, from whom a quarter-log of blood emerged, a flow which began while he was alive and continued after his death, and it is uncertain whether a full quarter-log emerged while he was alive and therefore does not transmit ritual impurity, and it is uncertain whether it emerged out after his death, in which case it imparts ritual impurity by Torah law, and it is uncertain whether the quarter-log emerged partly while he was alive and partly after his death. That is blood of submission.

וחכמים אומרים ברשות היחיד ספקו טמא ברשות הרבים ספקו טהור

And the Rabbis say that this is not blood of submission, but a case of uncertain ritual impurity by Torah law, as it might all have emerged after death. Therefore, one applies the principle that in a private domain a case of uncertainty is considered to be ritually impure, whereas in a public domain a case of uncertainty is considered to be ritually pure.

אלא איזהו דם תבוסה הרוג שיצא הימנו רביעית דם בחייו ובמותו ועדיין לא פסק ספק רובו בחייו ומיעוטו במותו ספק מיעוטו בחייו ורובו במותו זהו דם תבוסה

Rather, what is blood of submission? The case is one of a person who has been killed from whom a quarterlog of blood emerged while he was alive and continued emerging after his death and has still not stopped coming out. It is clear that a full quarter-log did not emerge after his death, but it is uncertain whether the majority emerged while he was alive and the minority after his death, and equally uncertain whether the minority emerged while he was alive and the majority after his death. That is blood of submission.

רבי יהודה אומר הרוג שיצא ממנו רביעית דם והיה מוטל במטה ודמו מטפטף לגומא טמא מפני שהטפה של מיתה מעורבת בו וחכמים מטהרין מפני

Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of one who has been killed from whom a quarter-log of blood emerged, and he was lying in a bed and his blood was dripping into a hole in the ground, the blood in the ground is ritually impure, because the drop of death is mixed with it. And the Rabbis deem it ritually pure, because

שראשון ראשון נפסק שפיר קאמרי ליה רבנן לרבי יהודה רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר אין דם מבטל דם

each first drop and every other first drop is separated from the other drops of blood, i.e., it did not flow in a steady stream. Since the blood initially emerged while he was alive and is pure, every drop of blood which emerged after his death is nullified when it falls into that blood, and therefore the entire puddle of blood is ritually pure. The Gemara asks: The Rabbis are saying well to Rabbi Yehuda; how does he respond to their claim? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning, as he said: Blood does not nullify blood.

רבי שמעון אומר צלוב על העץ שדמו שותת לארץ ונמצא תחתיו רביעית דם טמא רבי יהודה מטהר שאני אומר טפה של מיתה עומדת לו על גב העץ

Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of one who is crucified on wood, whose blood does not drip but runs down the wood to the earth, and a quarter-log of blood is found underneath him, the blood is ritually impure. Rabbi Yehuda deems the blood ritually pure. He explains his reasoning: As I say that the quarter-log of blood found underneath the body came out while he was still alive, and the drop of blood that came out after his death remains on the wood.

ורבי יהודה נימא איהו לנפשיה שאני אומר טפה של מיתה עומדת על גב המטה שאני במטה דמחלחלה

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yehuda, let him say to himself with regard to one who was killed on a bed and his blood is dripping into a hole in the ground: As I say that all the blood found underneath the body emerged while he was still alive and the drop of blood that came out after his death remains on the bed. Why does Rabbi Yehuda deem the blood ritually impure in such a case? The Gemara answers: The case of the bed is different, as the blood seeps through the bed onto the floor, whereas in the case of one who is crucified some of the blood may remain on the tree.

מתני׳ בראשונה היו אומרים היושבת על דם טהור היתה מערה מים לפסח

MISHNA: Initially the Sages would say, with regard to a woman who gave birth and observed the seven or fourteen days of impurity for a male or female child, respectively, and then immersed in a ritual bath and who is observing the period of the blood of purity, that she would pour water from a vessel in her hands to rinse the Paschal offering. Although it is permitted for such a woman to engage in intercourse with her husband, her halakhic status is like that of one who immersed that day and the sun has not yet set. She therefore assumes second-degree ritual impurity and confers third-degree ritual impurity upon teruma with which she comes into contact. Consequently, she may touch the vessel, as second-degree ritual impurity does not render a vessel impure. She may not touch the water, as it is designated for rinsing the Paschal offering and therefore it is treated with the sanctity of sacrificial food, which is rendered impure by second-degree ritual impurity.

חזרו לומר הרי היא כמגע טמא מת לקדשים כדברי בית הלל בית שמאי אומרים אף כטמא מת

The Sages then said: Her status is like that of one who came into contact with one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, i.e., one with first-degree ritual impurity, who renders consecrated items impure. But with regard to all non-sacred items, even non-sacred items treated with the sanctity of sacrificial food, such as the water used to rinse the Paschal offering, she has second-degree ritual impurity. Consequently, it is permitted for her to touch not only the vessel, but the water inside it as well, in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: The status of the woman is even like that of one who is impure due to contact with a corpse, who is a primary source of ritual impurity and renders even a non-sacred vessel impure.

גמ׳ מערה אין נוגעת לא אלמא חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש כקדש דמו

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: A woman who gave birth, observed the days of impurity, immersed in a ritual bath, and who is now observing the period of the blood of purity would pour water from a vessel in her hands to rinse the Paschal offering. The Gemara infers: Pouring from a vessel, yes, this is permitted, but she may not touch the water itself. Apparently, non-sacred produce, e.g., even liquid such as the water for rinsing the Paschal offering, that was prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food, i.e., with the same stringencies as required for sacrificial food, is considered like sacrificial food.

אימא סיפא חזרו לומר הרי היא כמגע טמא מת לקדשים לקדשים אין לחולין לא אלמא חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש לאו כקדש דמו

But now say the latter clause of the mishna: The Sages then said: Her status is like that of one who came into contact with one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, i.e., one with first-degree ritual impurity, who renders consecrated items impure. This indicates that with regard to consecrated items, yes, she renders them impure, but with regard to non-sacred items, e.g., the water used to rinse the Paschal offering, she does not render them impure. Apparently, non-sacred produce that was prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food is not considered like sacrificial food.

מתניתין מני אבא שאול היא דתניא אבא שאול אומר טבול יום תחילה לקדש לטמא שנים ולפסול אחד

The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is expressed in the latter clause of the mishna? It is the opinion of Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: With regard to one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, he has the status of one who is impure with first-degree impurity with regard to sacrificial food, in that he renders two items of sacrificial food impure, and disqualifies one additional item. In other words, the first item of sacrificial food that he touches assumes the status of second-degree impurity. A second item that comes into contact with the first item assumes third-degree impurity. A third item that comes into contact with the second assumes fourth-degree impurity and is therefore disqualified from being eaten, but it does not impart impurity to other items.

מתני׳ ומודים שהיא אוכלת במעשר וקוצה לה חלה ומקפת וקורא לה שם

MISHNA: And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that a woman observing the days of purity partakes of second-tithe produce, as it is permitted for one who immersed that day to eat second-tithe produce. And she separates part of her dough as ḥalla, and she draws the vessel with the part of the dough that she separated near the rest of the dough, and she designates it with the name of ḥalla.

ואם נפל מרוקה ומדם טהרה על ככר של תרומה שהוא טהור

And Beit Shammai further concede to Beit Hillel that if a drop from her saliva or from the blood of purity fell onto a loaf of teruma, the loaf is ritually pure, as any liquid discharged from the body of one who immersed that day is ritually pure.

בית שמאי אומרים צריכה טבילה באחרונה ובית הלל אומרים אינה צריכה טבילה באחרונה

There is another dispute between the tanna’im with regard to a woman who completed her days of purity. Beit Shammai say: Her immersion at the end of the days of impurity does not render it permitted for her to enter the Temple or to partake of teruma; rather, she requires immersion even at the conclusion of the days of purity. And Beit Hillel say: She does not require immersion at the conclusion of the days of purity to render it permitted for her to partake of teruma, as the immersion at the end of the days of impurity is sufficient.

גמ׳ דאמר מר טבל ועלה אוכל במעשר

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that the woman observing the days of purity partakes of second-tithe produce. The Gemara explains that the reason is as the Master said: When the period of ritual impurity of a zav or leper has been completed, and he immersed during the day and ascended from the ritual bath, he may partake of second tithe immediately.

וקוצה לה חלה חולין הטבולין לחלה לאו כחלה דמו

The mishna teaches: And she separates part of her dough as ḥalla. The Gemara explains that non-consecrated food that is untithed produce with regard to ḥalla, as it has not had ḥalla separated from it, e.g., this dough from which a piece has been set aside for the future separation of ḥalla, is not considered like ḥalla, and therefore is not rendered impure by the contact of a woman observing the days of purity.

ומקפת דאמר מר מצוה לתרום מן המוקף

The mishna also teaches that she draws the vessel with the part of the dough that she separated near the rest of the dough. The Gemara explains that this is as the Master said: It is a mitzva to separate teruma from produce that is situated nearby the produce it comes to exempt, ab initio.

וקורא לה שם סלקא דעתך אמינא נגזור דלמא אתי למנגע בה מאבראי קא משמע לן

The mishna states: And she designates it with the name of ḥalla. The Gemara explains that it is necessary for the tanna to teach this halakha, as it might enter your mind to say: Let us decree lest she comes to touch the ḥalla from the outside. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that there is no such decree.

ואם נפל מרוקה דתנן משקה טבול יום (משקין היוצאין ממנו) כמשקין הנוגע בהם ואלו ואלו אינן מטמאין חוץ ממשקה הזב שהוא אב הטומאה

The mishna teaches: And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that if a drop from her saliva or from the blood of purity fell onto a loaf of teruma, that the loaf is ritually pure, as any liquid discharged from the body of one who immersed that day is ritually pure. The Gemara explains that the reason is as we learned in a mishna (Tevul Yom 2:1): The halakha with regard to liquids that emerge from one who immersed himself that day from his state of ritual impurity is like that of liquids that he touches. And both these and those, the liquids that emanated from him and the liquids that he touched, do not transmit ritual impurity. This is the halakha except for liquids that come from a zav, who is a primary source of ritual impurity.

בית שמאי מאי בינייהו אמר רב קטינא טבול יום ארוך איכא בינייהו

The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai say: Her immersion at the end of the days of impurity does not render her permitted; rather, she requires immersion even at the end of the days of purity. And Beit Hillel say: The immersion at the end of the days of impurity is sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them, i.e., what is the basis of their dispute? Rav Ketina said: The difference between them is with regard to the status of one who immersed that day, i.e., at the end of his time of impurity, and a long time has passed since the immersion. Beit Shammai hold that as a long time has passed, i.e., thirty-three days after the birth of a boy or sixty-six days after the birth of a girl, she may not rely on that immersion. Beit Hillel maintain that she may still rely on that initial immersion.

מתני׳ הרואה יום אחד עשר וטבלה לערב ומשמשה

MISHNA: There is a dispute with regard to a woman who sees blood on the eleventh day, which is the final day of the period fit for the flow of a zava. It is permitted for her to engage in intercourse with her husband after observing one clean day corresponding to the one day that she saw blood, but in this case, she failed to observe one clean day. Rather, she immersed in a ritual bath that evening, the eve of the twelfth day, and then engaged in intercourse with her husband.

בית שמאי אומר מטמאין משכב ומושב וחייבין בקרבן

Beit Shammai say: Since she did not observe that corresponding clean day, she retains the status of a zava. Therefore both she, the zava, and her husband, who engaged in intercourse with a zava, transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting, to the extent that these transmit impurity to food and drink that came in contact with them, and in her case, to people as well. And each of them is liable to bring a sin offering for participating in intercourse involving a zava.

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top