Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 3, 2020 | ו׳ בטבת תש״פ

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.

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

ובית הלל אומרים פטורים מן הקרבן

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.

טבלה ביום של אחריו ושמשה את ביתה ואחר כך ראתה בית שמאי אומרים מטמאין משכב ומושב ופטורין מן הקרבן

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.

ובית הלל אומרים הרי זה גרגרן ומודים ברואה בתוך אחד עשר יום וטבלה לערב ושמשה שמטמאין משכב ומושב וחייבין בקרבן

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.

טבלה ביום של אחריו ושמשה הרי זה תרבות רעה ומגען ובעילתן תלויין

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן ושוין בטובלת לילה לזבה שאינה טבילה ושוין ברואה בתוך אחד עשר יום וטבלה לערב ושמשה שמטמאה משכב ומושב וחייבין בקרבן

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.

לא נחלקו אלא ביום אחד עשר יום שבית שמאי אומרים מטמאין משכב ומושב וחייבין בקרבן ובית הלל פוטרין מקרבן

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.

אמרו להן בית שמאי לבית הלל מאי שנא יום אחד עשר מיום תוך אחד עשר אם שיוה לו לטומאה לא ישוה לו לקרבן

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?

אמרו להן בית הלל לבית שמאי לא אם אמרת בתוך אחד עשר יום שכן יום שלאחריו מצטרף עמו לזיבה תאמרו ביום אחד עשר שאין יום שלאחריו שנצטרף עמו לזיבה

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?

אמרו להם בית שמאי השוו מדותיכם אם שיוה לו לטומאה ישוה לו לקרבן ואם לא שיוה לו לקרבן לא ישוה לו לטומאה

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.

אמרו להם בית הלל אם הביאנוהו לידי טומאה להחמיר לא נביאהו לידי קרבן להקל

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.

ועוד מדבריכם אתם נושכין שאתם אומרין טבלה יום שלאחריו ושמשה ואחר כך ראתה מטמא משכב ומושב ופטורה מן הקרבן אף אתם השוו מדותיכם אם שיוה לו לטומאה ישוה לו לקרבן

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.

ואם לא שיוה לו לקרבן לא ישוה לו לטומאה אלא להחמיר ולא להקל הכא נמי להחמיר ולא להקל

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.

אמר רב הונא משכבה ומושבה שבשני בית שמאי מטמאין אף על פי שטבלה אף על פי שלא ראתה מאי טעמא כיון דאילו חזיא מטמאה השתא נמי מטמיא

§ Rav Huna says, in further clarification of Beit Shammai’s 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.

אמר רב יוסף מאי קא משמע לן תנינא טבלה יום שלאחריו ושמשה את ביתה ואחר כך ראתה בית שמאי אומרים מטמאה משכבות ומושבות ופטורה מן הקרבן

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.

אמר רב כהנא ראתה שאני

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.

אמר רב יוסף וכי ראתה מאי הוי ראייה דנדה היא

Rav Yosef said, in refutation of Rav Kahana’s 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.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף רב כהנא הכי קא קשיא ליה בשלמא היכא דראתה גזרינן ראייה דנדה אטו ראייה דזבה אלא היכא דלא ראתה מאי נגזר בה

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?

ועוד תנן הרואה ראייה אחת של זוב בית שמאי אומרים כשומרת יום כנגד יום ובית הלל אומרים כבעל קרי

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.

ותניא המסיט את הראייה בית שמאי אומרים תולין ובית הלל מטהרין

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.

משכבות ומושבות שבין ראייה ראשונה לראייה שנייה בית שמאי תולין ובית הלל מטהרין

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.

וקתני רישא הרואה ראייה אחת של זוב בית שמאי אומרים כשומרת יום כנגד יום אלמא שומרת יום כנגד יום לבית שמאי תולין

Abaye explains Rav Kahana’s difficulty with Rav Huna’s 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.

לא תימא שומרת יום כנגד יום אלא אימא כבועל שומרת יום כנגד יום

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.

מאי שנא איהו דלא מטמא משכב ומושב ומאי שנא איהי דמטמיא ליה

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?

איהו דלא שכיחי ביה דמים לא גזור ביה רבנן איהי דשכיחי בה דמים גזור בה רבנן

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.

ומאי שנא משכב ומושב דמטמיא ליה ומאי שנא בועל דלא מטמיא ליה

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?

משכב ומושב דשכיח מטמיא ליה בועל דלא שכיח לא מטמיא

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.

תנן טבלה יום שלאחריו ושמשה הרי זו תרבות רעה

The Gemara raises another difficulty with regard to Rav Huna’s 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.

מגען ובעילתן תלויין מאי לאו דברי הכל היא

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.

לא בית הלל היא דתניא אמר להם רבי יהודה לבית הלל וכי לזו אתם קורין תרבות רעה והלא לא נתכוון זה אלא לבעול את הנדה נדה סלקא דעתך

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’s 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.

אלא אימא לבעול את הזבה זבה סלקא דעתך אלא אימא לבעול שומרת יום כנגד יום

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.

איתמר עשירי רבי יוחנן אמר עשירי כתשיעי מה תשיעי בעי שימור אף עשירי בעי שימור

§ 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 Yoḥanan 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.

ריש לקיש אמר עשירי כאחד עשר מה אחד עשר לא בעי שימור אף עשירי לא בעי שימור

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.

איכא דמתני לה אהא אמר לו רבי אלעזר בן עזריה לרבי עקיבא אפילו אתה מרבה בשמן [בשמן] כל היום כולו איני שומע לך אלא חצי לוג שמן לתודה ורביעית יין לנזיר ואחד עשר יום שבין נדה לנדה הלכה למשה מסיני

There are those who teach the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 “in oil,” “in oil,” 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.

מאי הלכה רבי יוחנן אמר הלכה אחד עשר ריש לקיש אומר הלכות אחד עשר

The Gemara asks: What is the halakha mentioned here with regard to the eleven days between one period of menstruation and the next? Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

רבי יוחנן אמר הלכה אחד עשר אחד עשר הוא דלא בעי שימור הא לאחריני עביד שימור וריש לקיש אמר הלכות אחד עשר לא אחד עשר בעי שימור ולא שימור לעשירי הוי

The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

הני הלכות נינהו הני קראי נינהו דתניא יכול הרואה שלשה ימים בתחילת נדה רצופים תהא זבה

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s 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 15:28–30).

ומה אני מקיים אשה כי תהיה זבה דם יהיה זבה ברואה יום אחד (אבל הרואה שלשה ימים בתחילה תהיה זבה) תלמוד לומר

And if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And 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” (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:

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

ובית הלל אומרים פטורים מן הקרבן

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.

טבלה ביום של אחריו ושמשה את ביתה ואחר כך ראתה בית שמאי אומרים מטמאין משכב ומושב ופטורין מן הקרבן

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.

ובית הלל אומרים הרי זה גרגרן ומודים ברואה בתוך אחד עשר יום וטבלה לערב ושמשה שמטמאין משכב ומושב וחייבין בקרבן

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.

טבלה ביום של אחריו ושמשה הרי זה תרבות רעה ומגען ובעילתן תלויין

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן ושוין בטובלת לילה לזבה שאינה טבילה ושוין ברואה בתוך אחד עשר יום וטבלה לערב ושמשה שמטמאה משכב ומושב וחייבין בקרבן

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.

לא נחלקו אלא ביום אחד עשר יום שבית שמאי אומרים מטמאין משכב ומושב וחייבין בקרבן ובית הלל פוטרין מקרבן

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.

אמרו להן בית שמאי לבית הלל מאי שנא יום אחד עשר מיום תוך אחד עשר אם שיוה לו לטומאה לא ישוה לו לקרבן

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?

אמרו להן בית הלל לבית שמאי לא אם אמרת בתוך אחד עשר יום שכן יום שלאחריו מצטרף עמו לזיבה תאמרו ביום אחד עשר שאין יום שלאחריו שנצטרף עמו לזיבה

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?

אמרו להם בית שמאי השוו מדותיכם אם שיוה לו לטומאה ישוה לו לקרבן ואם לא שיוה לו לקרבן לא ישוה לו לטומאה

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.

אמרו להם בית הלל אם הביאנוהו לידי טומאה להחמיר לא נביאהו לידי קרבן להקל

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.

ועוד מדבריכם אתם נושכין שאתם אומרין טבלה יום שלאחריו ושמשה ואחר כך ראתה מטמא משכב ומושב ופטורה מן הקרבן אף אתם השוו מדותיכם אם שיוה לו לטומאה ישוה לו לקרבן

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.

ואם לא שיוה לו לקרבן לא ישוה לו לטומאה אלא להחמיר ולא להקל הכא נמי להחמיר ולא להקל

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.

אמר רב הונא משכבה ומושבה שבשני בית שמאי מטמאין אף על פי שטבלה אף על פי שלא ראתה מאי טעמא כיון דאילו חזיא מטמאה השתא נמי מטמיא

§ Rav Huna says, in further clarification of Beit Shammai’s 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.

אמר רב יוסף מאי קא משמע לן תנינא טבלה יום שלאחריו ושמשה את ביתה ואחר כך ראתה בית שמאי אומרים מטמאה משכבות ומושבות ופטורה מן הקרבן

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.

אמר רב כהנא ראתה שאני

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.

אמר רב יוסף וכי ראתה מאי הוי ראייה דנדה היא

Rav Yosef said, in refutation of Rav Kahana’s 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.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף רב כהנא הכי קא קשיא ליה בשלמא היכא דראתה גזרינן ראייה דנדה אטו ראייה דזבה אלא היכא דלא ראתה מאי נגזר בה

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?

ועוד תנן הרואה ראייה אחת של זוב בית שמאי אומרים כשומרת יום כנגד יום ובית הלל אומרים כבעל קרי

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.

ותניא המסיט את הראייה בית שמאי אומרים תולין ובית הלל מטהרין

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.

משכבות ומושבות שבין ראייה ראשונה לראייה שנייה בית שמאי תולין ובית הלל מטהרין

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.

וקתני רישא הרואה ראייה אחת של זוב בית שמאי אומרים כשומרת יום כנגד יום אלמא שומרת יום כנגד יום לבית שמאי תולין

Abaye explains Rav Kahana’s difficulty with Rav Huna’s 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.

לא תימא שומרת יום כנגד יום אלא אימא כבועל שומרת יום כנגד יום

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.

מאי שנא איהו דלא מטמא משכב ומושב ומאי שנא איהי דמטמיא ליה

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?

איהו דלא שכיחי ביה דמים לא גזור ביה רבנן איהי דשכיחי בה דמים גזור בה רבנן

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.

ומאי שנא משכב ומושב דמטמיא ליה ומאי שנא בועל דלא מטמיא ליה

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?

משכב ומושב דשכיח מטמיא ליה בועל דלא שכיח לא מטמיא

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.

תנן טבלה יום שלאחריו ושמשה הרי זו תרבות רעה

The Gemara raises another difficulty with regard to Rav Huna’s 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.

מגען ובעילתן תלויין מאי לאו דברי הכל היא

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.

לא בית הלל היא דתניא אמר להם רבי יהודה לבית הלל וכי לזו אתם קורין תרבות רעה והלא לא נתכוון זה אלא לבעול את הנדה נדה סלקא דעתך

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’s 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.

אלא אימא לבעול את הזבה זבה סלקא דעתך אלא אימא לבעול שומרת יום כנגד יום

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.

איתמר עשירי רבי יוחנן אמר עשירי כתשיעי מה תשיעי בעי שימור אף עשירי בעי שימור

§ 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 Yoḥanan 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.

ריש לקיש אמר עשירי כאחד עשר מה אחד עשר לא בעי שימור אף עשירי לא בעי שימור

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.

איכא דמתני לה אהא אמר לו רבי אלעזר בן עזריה לרבי עקיבא אפילו אתה מרבה בשמן [בשמן] כל היום כולו איני שומע לך אלא חצי לוג שמן לתודה ורביעית יין לנזיר ואחד עשר יום שבין נדה לנדה הלכה למשה מסיני

There are those who teach the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 “in oil,” “in oil,” 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.

מאי הלכה רבי יוחנן אמר הלכה אחד עשר ריש לקיש אומר הלכות אחד עשר

The Gemara asks: What is the halakha mentioned here with regard to the eleven days between one period of menstruation and the next? Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

רבי יוחנן אמר הלכה אחד עשר אחד עשר הוא דלא בעי שימור הא לאחריני עביד שימור וריש לקיש אמר הלכות אחד עשר לא אחד עשר בעי שימור ולא שימור לעשירי הוי

The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

הני הלכות נינהו הני קראי נינהו דתניא יכול הרואה שלשה ימים בתחילת נדה רצופים תהא זבה

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s 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 15:28–30).

ומה אני מקיים אשה כי תהיה זבה דם יהיה זבה ברואה יום אחד (אבל הרואה שלשה ימים בתחילה תהיה זבה) תלמוד לומר

And if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And 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” (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:

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

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

Scroll To Top