Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 3, 2020 | 讜壮 讘讟讘转 转砖状驻

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Niddah 72

What is the status of a woman who bleeds on the eleventh day of her zava days? To what extent, on her twelfth day is she similar to a woman who is shomeret yom k’neged yom. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about that? After she goes to the mikveh on day 12, if she slept with her husband or dealt with pure items, what is the law? Is it dependent on whether she bleeds or not throughout that day? If a woman sees on day ten, is she considered a shomeret yom k’neged yom – because she cannot become a zava gedola. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish debate this.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉


And Beit Hillel say: Although they transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting, they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. Since the twelfth day is unfit for the flow of a zava, and even if she were to experience bleeding on the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth days she would not become a greater zava, one who experiences bleeding on the eleventh does not need to observe a corresponding clean day.


讟讘诇讛 讘讬讜诐 砖诇 讗讞专讬讜 讜砖诪砖讛 讗转 讘讬转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 专讗转讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉


If the woman immersed on the day following the eleventh day and she engaged in intercourse with the man of her house, i.e., her husband, on that twelfth day and then saw blood, Beit Shammai say: They transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting by rabbinic law, as the Sages issued a decree of impurity in the case when the second day is the twelfth day, due to a case when the second day is within the eleven days fit for the flow of a zava. And they are exempt from bringing the sin offering, as she observed part of the twelfth day, and the bleeding she experienced after engaging in intercourse, which occurred during her period of menstruation, is not fit to be appended to the discharge of the zava on the eleventh day.


讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讙专讙专谉 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘专讜讗讛 讘转讜讱 讗讞讚 注砖专 讬讜诐 讜讟讘诇讛 诇注专讘 讜砖诪砖讛 砖诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉


And Beit Hillel say: That husband is a glutton, as he could not wait for the conclusion of the twelfth day before engaging in intercourse. Nevertheless, the Sages did not issue a decree of impurity. And Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai in a case where the woman sees blood in the midst of the eleven-day period, and she immersed in the evening and engaged in intercourse with her husband without observing a corresponding clean day, that they transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting. And each of them is liable to bring a sin offering for participating in intercourse involving a zava.


讟讘诇讛 讘讬讜诐 砖诇 讗讞专讬讜 讜砖诪砖讛 讛专讬 讝讛 转专讘讜转 专注讛 讜诪讙注谉 讜讘注讬诇转谉 转诇讜讬讬谉


If she saw blood in the midst of the eleven days and observed part of a corresponding clean day and immersed on the day following the day that she saw blood and engaged in intercourse with her husband, that is wayward conduct, as the possibility exists that she will experience bleeding after intercourse that will be appended to the bleeding of the previous day, rendering her a zava and disqualifying the immersion. And the status of ritually impure items with which they came into contact and the status of their intercourse is contingent upon whether she experiences bleeding on the day of her immersion, in which case the ritually pure items become impure and they are liable to bring a sin offering, or whether she does not experience bleeding that day, in which case the ritually pure items remain pure and the woman and man are exempt from bringing a sin offering.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖讜讬谉 讘讟讜讘诇转 诇讬诇讛 诇讝讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讜砖讜讬谉 讘专讜讗讛 讘转讜讱 讗讞讚 注砖专 讬讜诐 讜讟讘诇讛 诇注专讘 讜砖诪砖讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉


GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree with regard to a woman who immersed at night to purify herself after having been a lesser zava, that it is not a valid immersion. And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel also agree with regard to a woman who sees blood in the midst of her eleven days of ziva, rendering her a lesser zava who must wait one clean day and immerse the day after, but she immersed in the first evening without waiting one clean day and engaged in intercourse with her husband, that she transmits impurity to items designated for lying or sitting that came in contact with the couple, and she and her husband are liable to bring a sin offering.


诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注砖专 讬讜诐 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 驻讜讟专讬谉 诪拽专讘谉


They disagree only in the case of a woman who sees blood on the eleventh day of her days of ziva, and immersed that evening, and engaged in intercourse with her husband. As Beit Shammai say: They transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting and are liable to bring a sin offering, and Beit Hillel deem them exempt from bringing a sin offering.


讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注砖专 诪讬讜诐 转讜讱 讗讞讚 注砖专 讗诐 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉


The baraita continues: Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: What the difference between the eleventh day itself and another day in the midst of the eleven days of ziva? If you equate the eleventh day to the other days with regard to ritual impurity, will you not equate it with regard to liability to bring an offering?


讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘转讜讱 讗讞讚 注砖专 讬讜诐 砖讻谉 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 诪爪讟专祝 注诪讜 诇讝讬讘讛 转讗诪专讜 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注砖专 砖讗讬谉 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 砖谞爪讟专祝 注诪讜 诇讝讬讘讛


Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: No, if you say that she is liable to bring an offering if she experiences bleeding in the midst of the eleven days, that is because the following day combines with it as a day of ziva. Will you say the same with regard to the eleventh day, when the following day does not combine with it as a day of ziva?


讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛砖讜讜 诪讚讜转讬讻诐 讗诐 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉 讜讗诐 诇讗 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉 诇讗 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛


Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Apply your method equally. If you equate the two cases, bleeding on the eleventh day and bleeding on one of the other days of ziva, with regard to ritual impurity, equate them also with regard to liability to bring an offering. And if you do not equate them with regard to liability to bring an offering, do not equate them with regard to ritual impurity either.


讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诐 讛讘讬讗谞讜讛讜 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讛讞诪讬专 诇讗 谞讘讬讗讛讜 诇讬讚讬 拽专讘谉 诇讛拽诇


Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Even if we have brought a woman who experiences bleeding on the eleventh day and the man who engages in intercourse with her to ritual impurity, due to a decree to be stringent, so that people should not confuse one who experiences bleeding on the eleventh day with one who experiences bleeding during the other days with regard to ritual impurity, we will not bring them to the liability of bringing an offering, to be lenient. It would be a leniency to permit them to bring an unnecessary and therefore a non-sacred animal into the Temple courtyard.


讜注讜讚 诪讚讘专讬讻诐 讗转诐 谞讜砖讻讬谉 砖讗转诐 讗讜诪专讬谉 讟讘诇讛 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讜砖诪砖讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 专讗转讛 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 讗祝 讗转诐 讛砖讜讜 诪讚讜转讬讻诐 讗诐 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉


And furthermore, from your own statement you are refuted, as you say that if she immersed on the following day and engaged in intercourse, and afterward she saw blood, she transmits impurity to items designated for lying or sitting, but she is exempt from bringing the offering. You too should apply your method equally. If you equate a zava who immersed on the twelfth day with one who immersed on the night after the eleventh day with regard to ritual impurity, equate these cases also with regard to liability to bring an offering.


讜讗诐 诇讗 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉 诇讗 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜诇讗 诇讛拽诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜诇讗 诇讛拽诇


And if you do not equate them with regard to liability to bring an offering, do not equate them with regard to ritual impurity either. Beit Hillel continued: Rather, you agree with us that the two are equated to be stringent, but not to be lenient. We say that here too, the two should be equated to be stringent but not to be lenient.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪砖讻讘讛 讜诪讜砖讘讛 砖讘砖谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讟讘诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 专讗转讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讞讝讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讬讗


Rav Huna says, in further clarification of Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion: If a woman experiences bleeding during the eleven days of ziva and must observe one clean day, but did not wait until the conclusion of that second day before immersing, with regard to her items designated for lying or sitting, on the second day, Beit Shammai render them impure by rabbinic law. This is the halakha even though she has immersed in a ritual bath and even though she did not see any blood after her immersion. What is the reason? Since if she would see blood she would render these surfaces ritually impure by Torah law, now too she renders them ritually impure by rabbinic law.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讟讘诇讛 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讜砖诪砖讛 讗转 讘讬转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 专讗转讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟诪讗讛 诪砖讻讘讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉


Rav Yosef said: What is Rav Huna teaching us? We already learn in the mishna: If the woman immersed on the day following the eleventh day and she engaged in intercourse with the man of her house on that twelfth day and then saw blood, Beit Shammai say: They transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting by rabbinic law. And they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. Her impurity applies by rabbinic law, lest this case be confused with one where she experiences bleeding during the eleven days when she would be impure by Torah law. By inference, if she experienced bleeding on one of her eleven days and immersed on the following day, she would likewise render items designated for lying or sitting ritually impure by rabbinic law.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 专讗转讛 砖讗谞讬


Rav Kahana said: Rav Huna is teaching that Beit Shammai render her ritually impure even if she does not experience bleeding. Based on the mishna alone, one might have thought that the case where she saw blood is different, and it is only in this situation that Beit Shammai render her impure by rabbinic law.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻讬 专讗转讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 专讗讬讬讛 讚谞讚讛 讛讬讗


Rav Yosef said, in refutation of Rav Kahana鈥檚 claim: And if she saw blood on the twelfth day, what of it? A discharge of blood on the twelfth day is a sighting of a menstruating woman, which does not render her a zava by Torah law. Therefore, it is comparable to a case where she experienced bleeding on one day during her eleven days of ziva and immersed on the following day, and she does not experience bleeding on that following day at all.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚专讗转讛 讙讝专讬谞谉 专讗讬讬讛 讚谞讚讛 讗讟讜 专讗讬讬讛 讚讝讘讛 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 专讗转讛 诪讗讬 谞讙讝专 讘讛


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This is what is difficult for Rav Kahana: Granted, in a case where she saw blood on the twelfth day, it stands to reason that we decree impurity with regard to a sighting of a menstruating woman due to a sighting of a zava. But in a case where she did not see any blood at all, for what reason should the Sages decree impurity upon her?


讜注讜讚 转谞谉 讛专讜讗讛 专讗讬讬讛 讗讞转 砖诇 讝讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讘注诇 拽专讬


Abaye continues: And furthermore, we learned in a mishna (Zavim 1:1): If a man sees one sighting of ziva (see 35b), Beit Shammai say: His status on the following day is like that of a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge. In other words, he must immerse and observe that day in purity, and if he touches tithes their status is suspended, since if he sees another discharge on that day, they are retroactively impure. And Beit Hillel say: His status is like that of a man who experiences a seminal emission, who is purified by his immersion, and therefore any tithes this man touches on the second day remain pure even if he later experiences a second discharge.


讜转谞讬讗 讛诪住讬讟 讗转 讛专讗讬讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讜诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讟讛专讬谉


And it is taught in a baraita: If one moves the discharge seen by a zav on the first day, Beit Shammai say: Due to the uncertainty, his status of ritual purity is contingent upon whether he sees another emission. If the zav sees a discharge a second time he will retroactively have been a full-fledged zav and his discharge renders one who moves it impure. But if he does not see another discharge he will remain like one who experienced a seminal emission, which means that his discharge does not render one who moves it impure. And Beit Hillel deem him pure. The discharge has the status of a seminal emission and does not transmit impurity to one who moves it.


诪砖讻讘讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 砖讘讬谉 专讗讬讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇专讗讬讬讛 砖谞讬讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 转讜诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讟讛专讬谉


The baraita continues: With regard to items designated for lying or sitting and their status between the first sighting and the second sighting, Beit Shammai say: Due to the uncertainty their status of ritual purity is contingent upon whether he sees another emission, and Beit Hillel deem them pure.


讜拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讛专讜讗讛 专讗讬讬讛 讗讞转 砖诇 讝讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讗诇诪讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 转讜诇讬谉


Abaye explains Rav Kahana鈥檚 difficulty with Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion: It is taught in the first clause of the baraita that if a man sees one sighting of ziva, Beit Shammai say: His status is like that of a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge. Apparently, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai the ritual purity status of a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge is contingent upon whether she experiences an emission of blood. This is difficult for Rav Huna, who explains that Beit Shammai hold that a woman who observes a clean day for each day of discharge is definitely impure, by rabbinic law.


诇讗 转讬诪讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讘讜注诇 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐


The Gemara answers that Rav Huna would explain: Do not say that his status is like that of a woman who observes a clean day for a day. Rather, say that he is like one who engages in intercourse with a woman who observes a clean day for a day after she has immersed. Rav Huna agrees that items designated for lying or sitting that this man sits or lies on is ritually impure only if she experiences bleeding before the end of the day.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬讛讜 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬讛讬 讚诪讟诪讬讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to him, a man who engages in intercourse with a woman who is observing a clean day for a day, that he does not transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting, and what is different with regard to her, that woman herself, that she does transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting?


讗讬讛讜 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讘讬讛 讚诪讬诐 诇讗 讙讝讜专 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讗讬讛讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讘讛 讚诪讬诐 讙讝讜专 讘讛 专讘谞谉


The Gemara explains: With regard to him, as he does not frequently see blood, the Sages did not issue a decree rendering him impure to such an extent, if the woman has not seen blood on the second day. Whereas with regard to her, as she does frequently see blood, the Sages did issue a decree rendering her definitely impure to this degree.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讚诪讟诪讬讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讜注诇 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara further inquires: And since a decree was applied to her, as she commonly sees blood, what is different with regard to items designated for lying or sitting, that she transmits impurity to them, and what is different with regard to the one who engages in intercourse with her, that she does not render him impure?


诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讚砖讻讬讞 诪讟诪讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讜注诇 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗


The Gemara answers: With regard to items designated for lying or sitting, she renders them ritually impure because she frequently sits or lies on them, whereas with regard to one who engages in intercourse with her, which is not nearly as frequent, she does not render him ritually impure.


转谞谉 讟讘诇讛 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讜砖诪砖讛 讛专讬 讝讜 转专讘讜转 专注讛


The Gemara raises another difficulty with regard to Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion. We learned in the mishna: If she saw blood on the eleventh day and observed part of a corresponding clean day and immersed on the day following the day that she saw blood and engaged in intercourse with her husband, that is wayward conduct, as the possibility exists that she will experience bleeding after intercourse that will be appended to the bleeding of the previous day, rendering her a zava and disqualifying the immersion.


诪讙注谉 讜讘注讬诇转谉 转诇讜讬讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗


The mishna adds: And the status of ritually impure items with which they came into contact and the status of their intercourse is contingent upon whether she experiences bleeding on the day of her immersion. The Gemara explains the difficulty. What, is it not correct to say that all, i.e., Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agree with this clause of the mishna? If so, Beit Shammai concur that this woman renders items impure only due to uncertainty. This is not in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna.


诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讻讬 诇讝讜 讗转诐 拽讜专讬谉 转专讘讜转 专注讛 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讝讛 讗诇讗 诇讘注讜诇 讗转 讛谞讚讛 谞讚讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱


The Gemara answers: No, this clause of the mishna is only in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said to Beit Hillel: Do you call this type of behavior wayward conduct? But he intended only to engage in intercourse with a menstruating woman. The Gemara questions the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement. Can it enter your mind that he intended to engage in intercourse with a menstruating woman? The mishna and baraita are not referring to a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman.


讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讘注讜诇 讗转 讛讝讘讛 讝讘讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讘注讜诇 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐


Rather, say that Rabbi Yehuda meant that this man intended only to engage in intercourse with a zava. The Gemara rejects this formulation as well: Can it enter your mind that Rabbi Yehuda said he intended to engage in intercourse with a zava? The mishna and baraita are not referring to a man who engages in intercourse with a zava either. Rather, say that Rabbi Yehuda meant that this man intended to engage in intercourse with a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge. This baraita indicates that the latter clause of the mishna is only according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, as Rabbi Yehuda directed his comments specifically to them.


讗讬转诪专 注砖讬专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 注砖讬专讬 讻转砖讬注讬 诪讛 转砖讬注讬 讘注讬 砖讬诪讜专 讗祝 注砖讬专讬 讘注讬 砖讬诪讜专


搂 The Gemara cites another discussion concerning a woman who experiences bleeding toward the end of her eleven days of ziva. It was stated with regard to a woman who experiences bleeding on the tenth day of her eleven days of ziva, that Rav Yo岣nan says: The tenth day is considered like the ninth, i.e., just as the ninth day requires the observance of a day clean from discharges on the following day, so too does the tenth day require observance of a day in case she experiences bleeding on the eleventh day.


专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 注砖讬专讬 讻讗讞讚 注砖专 诪讛 讗讞讚 注砖专 诇讗 讘注讬 砖讬诪讜专 讗祝 注砖讬专讬 诇讗 讘注讬 砖讬诪讜专


Reish Lakish says: The tenth day is considered like the eleventh day, as in such a case it is impossible for her to experience bleeding for the three consecutive days within the eleven days of ziva. Just as the eleventh day does not require the observance of a day clean from discharges, so too the tenth day does not require the observance of a day clean from discharges, since even if she experiences bleeding on both the eleventh and the twelfth days, the last of the three consecutive days was already the start of her days of menstruation, and therefore she does not become a greater zava.


讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗转讛 诪专讘讛 讘砖诪谉 [讘砖诪谉] 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讗讬谞讬 砖讜诪注 诇讱 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 诇转讜讚讛 讜专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 讜讗讞讚 注砖专 讬讜诐 砖讘讬谉 谞讚讛 诇谞讚讛 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬


There are those who teach the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish with regard to this case: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to Rabbi Akiva: Even if you were to amplify and derive halakhot from the repeated terms 鈥渋n oil,鈥 鈥渋n oil,鈥 stated with regard to the thanks offering (see Leviticus 7:12) for the entire day, I would not listen to you and accept your claim. Rather, the halakha that one-half of a log is the requisite amount of oil for the thanks offering, and the halakha that one-quarter of a log is the amount of wine for a nazirite, and the halakha that a woman who experiences an emission of blood during the eleven days that are between one period of menstruation and the next period of menstruation is a zava, each of these is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. None of the halakhot are derived from verses.


诪讗讬 讛诇讻讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讗讞讚 注砖专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讛诇讻讜转 讗讞讚 注砖专


The Gemara asks: What is the halakha mentioned here with regard to the eleven days between one period of menstruation and the next? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is referring to the halakha that distinguishes the first ten days from the eleventh day. Reish Lakish says: It is referring to two halakhot that distinguish the first ten days from the eleventh.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讗讞讚 注砖专 讗讞讚 注砖专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬 砖讬诪讜专 讛讗 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 注讘讬讚 砖讬诪讜专 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讛诇讻讜转 讗讞讚 注砖专 诇讗 讗讞讚 注砖专 讘注讬 砖讬诪讜专 讜诇讗 砖讬诪讜专 诇注砖讬专讬 讛讜讬


The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yo岣nan says that this is referring to the halakha which distinguishes the first ten days from the eleventh. It is the eleventh that does not require the observance of a day clean from discharges, but for the other ten days she must perform observance. And Reish Lakish says: It is referring to two halakhot that distinguish the first ten days from the eleventh. The eleventh day does not require observance, and it does not serve as a day of observance for the tenth day, i.e., the tenth day also does not require observance. The tenth day does not require observing since day eleven is excluded from being a day of observation for the previous day.


讛谞讬 讛诇讻讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讛专讜讗讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讘转讞讬诇转 谞讚讛 专爪讜驻讬诐 转讛讗 讝讘讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya鈥檚 claim that the eleven days of ziva is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Are these halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai? Not so; rather, these are derived from verses. As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one who sees blood for three consecutive days at the beginning of the days of menstruation will be a zava and is required to count seven clean days and to bring an offering afterward (see Leviticus 15:28鈥30).


讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗砖讛 讻讬 转讛讬讛 讝讘讛 讚诐 讬讛讬讛 讝讘讛 讘专讜讗讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 (讗讘诇 讛专讜讗讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讘转讞讬诇讛 转讛讬讛 讝讘讛) 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专


And if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd if a woman has a flow, and her flow on her flesh be blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days; and whoever touches her shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:19)? This is referring to one who sees blood on only one day. But perhaps one who sees blood for three days at the beginning of her days of menstruation should become a zava? The verse states:


  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

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 72

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 72

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉


And Beit Hillel say: Although they transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting, they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. Since the twelfth day is unfit for the flow of a zava, and even if she were to experience bleeding on the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth days she would not become a greater zava, one who experiences bleeding on the eleventh does not need to observe a corresponding clean day.


讟讘诇讛 讘讬讜诐 砖诇 讗讞专讬讜 讜砖诪砖讛 讗转 讘讬转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 专讗转讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉


If the woman immersed on the day following the eleventh day and she engaged in intercourse with the man of her house, i.e., her husband, on that twelfth day and then saw blood, Beit Shammai say: They transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting by rabbinic law, as the Sages issued a decree of impurity in the case when the second day is the twelfth day, due to a case when the second day is within the eleven days fit for the flow of a zava. And they are exempt from bringing the sin offering, as she observed part of the twelfth day, and the bleeding she experienced after engaging in intercourse, which occurred during her period of menstruation, is not fit to be appended to the discharge of the zava on the eleventh day.


讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讙专讙专谉 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘专讜讗讛 讘转讜讱 讗讞讚 注砖专 讬讜诐 讜讟讘诇讛 诇注专讘 讜砖诪砖讛 砖诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉


And Beit Hillel say: That husband is a glutton, as he could not wait for the conclusion of the twelfth day before engaging in intercourse. Nevertheless, the Sages did not issue a decree of impurity. And Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai in a case where the woman sees blood in the midst of the eleven-day period, and she immersed in the evening and engaged in intercourse with her husband without observing a corresponding clean day, that they transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting. And each of them is liable to bring a sin offering for participating in intercourse involving a zava.


讟讘诇讛 讘讬讜诐 砖诇 讗讞专讬讜 讜砖诪砖讛 讛专讬 讝讛 转专讘讜转 专注讛 讜诪讙注谉 讜讘注讬诇转谉 转诇讜讬讬谉


If she saw blood in the midst of the eleven days and observed part of a corresponding clean day and immersed on the day following the day that she saw blood and engaged in intercourse with her husband, that is wayward conduct, as the possibility exists that she will experience bleeding after intercourse that will be appended to the bleeding of the previous day, rendering her a zava and disqualifying the immersion. And the status of ritually impure items with which they came into contact and the status of their intercourse is contingent upon whether she experiences bleeding on the day of her immersion, in which case the ritually pure items become impure and they are liable to bring a sin offering, or whether she does not experience bleeding that day, in which case the ritually pure items remain pure and the woman and man are exempt from bringing a sin offering.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖讜讬谉 讘讟讜讘诇转 诇讬诇讛 诇讝讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讜砖讜讬谉 讘专讜讗讛 讘转讜讱 讗讞讚 注砖专 讬讜诐 讜讟讘诇讛 诇注专讘 讜砖诪砖讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉


GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree with regard to a woman who immersed at night to purify herself after having been a lesser zava, that it is not a valid immersion. And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel also agree with regard to a woman who sees blood in the midst of her eleven days of ziva, rendering her a lesser zava who must wait one clean day and immerse the day after, but she immersed in the first evening without waiting one clean day and engaged in intercourse with her husband, that she transmits impurity to items designated for lying or sitting that came in contact with the couple, and she and her husband are liable to bring a sin offering.


诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注砖专 讬讜诐 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 驻讜讟专讬谉 诪拽专讘谉


They disagree only in the case of a woman who sees blood on the eleventh day of her days of ziva, and immersed that evening, and engaged in intercourse with her husband. As Beit Shammai say: They transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting and are liable to bring a sin offering, and Beit Hillel deem them exempt from bringing a sin offering.


讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注砖专 诪讬讜诐 转讜讱 讗讞讚 注砖专 讗诐 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉


The baraita continues: Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: What the difference between the eleventh day itself and another day in the midst of the eleven days of ziva? If you equate the eleventh day to the other days with regard to ritual impurity, will you not equate it with regard to liability to bring an offering?


讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘转讜讱 讗讞讚 注砖专 讬讜诐 砖讻谉 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 诪爪讟专祝 注诪讜 诇讝讬讘讛 转讗诪专讜 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注砖专 砖讗讬谉 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 砖谞爪讟专祝 注诪讜 诇讝讬讘讛


Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: No, if you say that she is liable to bring an offering if she experiences bleeding in the midst of the eleven days, that is because the following day combines with it as a day of ziva. Will you say the same with regard to the eleventh day, when the following day does not combine with it as a day of ziva?


讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛砖讜讜 诪讚讜转讬讻诐 讗诐 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉 讜讗诐 诇讗 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉 诇讗 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛


Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Apply your method equally. If you equate the two cases, bleeding on the eleventh day and bleeding on one of the other days of ziva, with regard to ritual impurity, equate them also with regard to liability to bring an offering. And if you do not equate them with regard to liability to bring an offering, do not equate them with regard to ritual impurity either.


讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诐 讛讘讬讗谞讜讛讜 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讛讞诪讬专 诇讗 谞讘讬讗讛讜 诇讬讚讬 拽专讘谉 诇讛拽诇


Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Even if we have brought a woman who experiences bleeding on the eleventh day and the man who engages in intercourse with her to ritual impurity, due to a decree to be stringent, so that people should not confuse one who experiences bleeding on the eleventh day with one who experiences bleeding during the other days with regard to ritual impurity, we will not bring them to the liability of bringing an offering, to be lenient. It would be a leniency to permit them to bring an unnecessary and therefore a non-sacred animal into the Temple courtyard.


讜注讜讚 诪讚讘专讬讻诐 讗转诐 谞讜砖讻讬谉 砖讗转诐 讗讜诪专讬谉 讟讘诇讛 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讜砖诪砖讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 专讗转讛 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 讗祝 讗转诐 讛砖讜讜 诪讚讜转讬讻诐 讗诐 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉


And furthermore, from your own statement you are refuted, as you say that if she immersed on the following day and engaged in intercourse, and afterward she saw blood, she transmits impurity to items designated for lying or sitting, but she is exempt from bringing the offering. You too should apply your method equally. If you equate a zava who immersed on the twelfth day with one who immersed on the night after the eleventh day with regard to ritual impurity, equate these cases also with regard to liability to bring an offering.


讜讗诐 诇讗 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉 诇讗 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜诇讗 诇讛拽诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜诇讗 诇讛拽诇


And if you do not equate them with regard to liability to bring an offering, do not equate them with regard to ritual impurity either. Beit Hillel continued: Rather, you agree with us that the two are equated to be stringent, but not to be lenient. We say that here too, the two should be equated to be stringent but not to be lenient.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪砖讻讘讛 讜诪讜砖讘讛 砖讘砖谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讟讘诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 专讗转讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讞讝讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讬讗


Rav Huna says, in further clarification of Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion: If a woman experiences bleeding during the eleven days of ziva and must observe one clean day, but did not wait until the conclusion of that second day before immersing, with regard to her items designated for lying or sitting, on the second day, Beit Shammai render them impure by rabbinic law. This is the halakha even though she has immersed in a ritual bath and even though she did not see any blood after her immersion. What is the reason? Since if she would see blood she would render these surfaces ritually impure by Torah law, now too she renders them ritually impure by rabbinic law.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讟讘诇讛 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讜砖诪砖讛 讗转 讘讬转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 专讗转讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讟诪讗讛 诪砖讻讘讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉


Rav Yosef said: What is Rav Huna teaching us? We already learn in the mishna: If the woman immersed on the day following the eleventh day and she engaged in intercourse with the man of her house on that twelfth day and then saw blood, Beit Shammai say: They transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting by rabbinic law. And they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. Her impurity applies by rabbinic law, lest this case be confused with one where she experiences bleeding during the eleven days when she would be impure by Torah law. By inference, if she experienced bleeding on one of her eleven days and immersed on the following day, she would likewise render items designated for lying or sitting ritually impure by rabbinic law.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 专讗转讛 砖讗谞讬


Rav Kahana said: Rav Huna is teaching that Beit Shammai render her ritually impure even if she does not experience bleeding. Based on the mishna alone, one might have thought that the case where she saw blood is different, and it is only in this situation that Beit Shammai render her impure by rabbinic law.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻讬 专讗转讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 专讗讬讬讛 讚谞讚讛 讛讬讗


Rav Yosef said, in refutation of Rav Kahana鈥檚 claim: And if she saw blood on the twelfth day, what of it? A discharge of blood on the twelfth day is a sighting of a menstruating woman, which does not render her a zava by Torah law. Therefore, it is comparable to a case where she experienced bleeding on one day during her eleven days of ziva and immersed on the following day, and she does not experience bleeding on that following day at all.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚专讗转讛 讙讝专讬谞谉 专讗讬讬讛 讚谞讚讛 讗讟讜 专讗讬讬讛 讚讝讘讛 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 专讗转讛 诪讗讬 谞讙讝专 讘讛


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This is what is difficult for Rav Kahana: Granted, in a case where she saw blood on the twelfth day, it stands to reason that we decree impurity with regard to a sighting of a menstruating woman due to a sighting of a zava. But in a case where she did not see any blood at all, for what reason should the Sages decree impurity upon her?


讜注讜讚 转谞谉 讛专讜讗讛 专讗讬讬讛 讗讞转 砖诇 讝讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讘注诇 拽专讬


Abaye continues: And furthermore, we learned in a mishna (Zavim 1:1): If a man sees one sighting of ziva (see 35b), Beit Shammai say: His status on the following day is like that of a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge. In other words, he must immerse and observe that day in purity, and if he touches tithes their status is suspended, since if he sees another discharge on that day, they are retroactively impure. And Beit Hillel say: His status is like that of a man who experiences a seminal emission, who is purified by his immersion, and therefore any tithes this man touches on the second day remain pure even if he later experiences a second discharge.


讜转谞讬讗 讛诪住讬讟 讗转 讛专讗讬讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讜诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讟讛专讬谉


And it is taught in a baraita: If one moves the discharge seen by a zav on the first day, Beit Shammai say: Due to the uncertainty, his status of ritual purity is contingent upon whether he sees another emission. If the zav sees a discharge a second time he will retroactively have been a full-fledged zav and his discharge renders one who moves it impure. But if he does not see another discharge he will remain like one who experienced a seminal emission, which means that his discharge does not render one who moves it impure. And Beit Hillel deem him pure. The discharge has the status of a seminal emission and does not transmit impurity to one who moves it.


诪砖讻讘讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 砖讘讬谉 专讗讬讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇专讗讬讬讛 砖谞讬讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 转讜诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讟讛专讬谉


The baraita continues: With regard to items designated for lying or sitting and their status between the first sighting and the second sighting, Beit Shammai say: Due to the uncertainty their status of ritual purity is contingent upon whether he sees another emission, and Beit Hillel deem them pure.


讜拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讛专讜讗讛 专讗讬讬讛 讗讞转 砖诇 讝讜讘 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讗诇诪讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 转讜诇讬谉


Abaye explains Rav Kahana鈥檚 difficulty with Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion: It is taught in the first clause of the baraita that if a man sees one sighting of ziva, Beit Shammai say: His status is like that of a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge. Apparently, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai the ritual purity status of a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge is contingent upon whether she experiences an emission of blood. This is difficult for Rav Huna, who explains that Beit Shammai hold that a woman who observes a clean day for each day of discharge is definitely impure, by rabbinic law.


诇讗 转讬诪讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讘讜注诇 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐


The Gemara answers that Rav Huna would explain: Do not say that his status is like that of a woman who observes a clean day for a day. Rather, say that he is like one who engages in intercourse with a woman who observes a clean day for a day after she has immersed. Rav Huna agrees that items designated for lying or sitting that this man sits or lies on is ritually impure only if she experiences bleeding before the end of the day.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬讛讜 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬讛讬 讚诪讟诪讬讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to him, a man who engages in intercourse with a woman who is observing a clean day for a day, that he does not transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting, and what is different with regard to her, that woman herself, that she does transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting?


讗讬讛讜 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讘讬讛 讚诪讬诐 诇讗 讙讝讜专 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讗讬讛讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讘讛 讚诪讬诐 讙讝讜专 讘讛 专讘谞谉


The Gemara explains: With regard to him, as he does not frequently see blood, the Sages did not issue a decree rendering him impure to such an extent, if the woman has not seen blood on the second day. Whereas with regard to her, as she does frequently see blood, the Sages did issue a decree rendering her definitely impure to this degree.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讚诪讟诪讬讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讜注诇 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara further inquires: And since a decree was applied to her, as she commonly sees blood, what is different with regard to items designated for lying or sitting, that she transmits impurity to them, and what is different with regard to the one who engages in intercourse with her, that she does not render him impure?


诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讚砖讻讬讞 诪讟诪讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讜注诇 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗


The Gemara answers: With regard to items designated for lying or sitting, she renders them ritually impure because she frequently sits or lies on them, whereas with regard to one who engages in intercourse with her, which is not nearly as frequent, she does not render him ritually impure.


转谞谉 讟讘诇讛 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讜砖诪砖讛 讛专讬 讝讜 转专讘讜转 专注讛


The Gemara raises another difficulty with regard to Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion. We learned in the mishna: If she saw blood on the eleventh day and observed part of a corresponding clean day and immersed on the day following the day that she saw blood and engaged in intercourse with her husband, that is wayward conduct, as the possibility exists that she will experience bleeding after intercourse that will be appended to the bleeding of the previous day, rendering her a zava and disqualifying the immersion.


诪讙注谉 讜讘注讬诇转谉 转诇讜讬讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗


The mishna adds: And the status of ritually impure items with which they came into contact and the status of their intercourse is contingent upon whether she experiences bleeding on the day of her immersion. The Gemara explains the difficulty. What, is it not correct to say that all, i.e., Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agree with this clause of the mishna? If so, Beit Shammai concur that this woman renders items impure only due to uncertainty. This is not in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna.


诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讻讬 诇讝讜 讗转诐 拽讜专讬谉 转专讘讜转 专注讛 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 讝讛 讗诇讗 诇讘注讜诇 讗转 讛谞讚讛 谞讚讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱


The Gemara answers: No, this clause of the mishna is only in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said to Beit Hillel: Do you call this type of behavior wayward conduct? But he intended only to engage in intercourse with a menstruating woman. The Gemara questions the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement. Can it enter your mind that he intended to engage in intercourse with a menstruating woman? The mishna and baraita are not referring to a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman.


讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讘注讜诇 讗转 讛讝讘讛 讝讘讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讘注讜诇 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐


Rather, say that Rabbi Yehuda meant that this man intended only to engage in intercourse with a zava. The Gemara rejects this formulation as well: Can it enter your mind that Rabbi Yehuda said he intended to engage in intercourse with a zava? The mishna and baraita are not referring to a man who engages in intercourse with a zava either. Rather, say that Rabbi Yehuda meant that this man intended to engage in intercourse with a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge. This baraita indicates that the latter clause of the mishna is only according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, as Rabbi Yehuda directed his comments specifically to them.


讗讬转诪专 注砖讬专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 注砖讬专讬 讻转砖讬注讬 诪讛 转砖讬注讬 讘注讬 砖讬诪讜专 讗祝 注砖讬专讬 讘注讬 砖讬诪讜专


搂 The Gemara cites another discussion concerning a woman who experiences bleeding toward the end of her eleven days of ziva. It was stated with regard to a woman who experiences bleeding on the tenth day of her eleven days of ziva, that Rav Yo岣nan says: The tenth day is considered like the ninth, i.e., just as the ninth day requires the observance of a day clean from discharges on the following day, so too does the tenth day require observance of a day in case she experiences bleeding on the eleventh day.


专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 注砖讬专讬 讻讗讞讚 注砖专 诪讛 讗讞讚 注砖专 诇讗 讘注讬 砖讬诪讜专 讗祝 注砖讬专讬 诇讗 讘注讬 砖讬诪讜专


Reish Lakish says: The tenth day is considered like the eleventh day, as in such a case it is impossible for her to experience bleeding for the three consecutive days within the eleven days of ziva. Just as the eleventh day does not require the observance of a day clean from discharges, so too the tenth day does not require the observance of a day clean from discharges, since even if she experiences bleeding on both the eleventh and the twelfth days, the last of the three consecutive days was already the start of her days of menstruation, and therefore she does not become a greater zava.


讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗转讛 诪专讘讛 讘砖诪谉 [讘砖诪谉] 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讗讬谞讬 砖讜诪注 诇讱 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 诇转讜讚讛 讜专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 讜讗讞讚 注砖专 讬讜诐 砖讘讬谉 谞讚讛 诇谞讚讛 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬


There are those who teach the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish with regard to this case: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to Rabbi Akiva: Even if you were to amplify and derive halakhot from the repeated terms 鈥渋n oil,鈥 鈥渋n oil,鈥 stated with regard to the thanks offering (see Leviticus 7:12) for the entire day, I would not listen to you and accept your claim. Rather, the halakha that one-half of a log is the requisite amount of oil for the thanks offering, and the halakha that one-quarter of a log is the amount of wine for a nazirite, and the halakha that a woman who experiences an emission of blood during the eleven days that are between one period of menstruation and the next period of menstruation is a zava, each of these is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. None of the halakhot are derived from verses.


诪讗讬 讛诇讻讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讗讞讚 注砖专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讛诇讻讜转 讗讞讚 注砖专


The Gemara asks: What is the halakha mentioned here with regard to the eleven days between one period of menstruation and the next? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is referring to the halakha that distinguishes the first ten days from the eleventh day. Reish Lakish says: It is referring to two halakhot that distinguish the first ten days from the eleventh.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讗讞讚 注砖专 讗讞讚 注砖专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬 砖讬诪讜专 讛讗 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 注讘讬讚 砖讬诪讜专 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讛诇讻讜转 讗讞讚 注砖专 诇讗 讗讞讚 注砖专 讘注讬 砖讬诪讜专 讜诇讗 砖讬诪讜专 诇注砖讬专讬 讛讜讬


The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yo岣nan says that this is referring to the halakha which distinguishes the first ten days from the eleventh. It is the eleventh that does not require the observance of a day clean from discharges, but for the other ten days she must perform observance. And Reish Lakish says: It is referring to two halakhot that distinguish the first ten days from the eleventh. The eleventh day does not require observance, and it does not serve as a day of observance for the tenth day, i.e., the tenth day also does not require observance. The tenth day does not require observing since day eleven is excluded from being a day of observation for the previous day.


讛谞讬 讛诇讻讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讛专讜讗讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讘转讞讬诇转 谞讚讛 专爪讜驻讬诐 转讛讗 讝讘讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya鈥檚 claim that the eleven days of ziva is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Are these halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai? Not so; rather, these are derived from verses. As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one who sees blood for three consecutive days at the beginning of the days of menstruation will be a zava and is required to count seven clean days and to bring an offering afterward (see Leviticus 15:28鈥30).


讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗砖讛 讻讬 转讛讬讛 讝讘讛 讚诐 讬讛讬讛 讝讘讛 讘专讜讗讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 (讗讘诇 讛专讜讗讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讘转讞讬诇讛 转讛讬讛 讝讘讛) 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专


And if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd if a woman has a flow, and her flow on her flesh be blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days; and whoever touches her shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:19)? This is referring to one who sees blood on only one day. But perhaps one who sees blood for three days at the beginning of her days of menstruation should become a zava? The verse states:


Scroll To Top