Niddah 33a (לג.) — the Talmud in English

If we say “beneath him” -

of a zav,

which touches his midras of the zav?

It cannot be said so. For this law is derived from the verse [there, 5]

“And a man who touches his mishkav” is it not derived!?

Rather,

the verse refers to one who touches everything that is

beneath the zav -

“beneath him.”

And what is it

that is meant by “the zav beneath him”? -

“The upper garment of a zav”!

The verse comes to distinguish and say that only what is beneath the zav—such as mishkav, moshav, and midras—conveys severe impurity to a person and to vessels, whereas what is above the zav conveys impurity only to food and liquids. And through this

the verse detached it from severe impurity and brought it to a lesser impurity, teaching you -

that it conveys impurity only to food and liquids!

The Gemara asks:

Perhaps the verse detached

the upper garment of a zav

from severe impurity, which does not convey impurity to a person so as to render the garments

upon him impure.

But a person

himself,

or garments

themselves that touched the upper garment of a zav,

should they not become impure!?

The Gemara explains:

The verse says [there, 10], “And everyone who touches everything that will be beneath him

shall become

impure” -

this indicates lesser impurity!

The Gemara further explains:

And the undergarment of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman -

from where do we know

that it conveys only lesser impurity?

As it was taught:

With regard to the impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, it is stated [there, 24]: “And if a man lies with her,

her menstruation shall be upon him,

and he shall be impure for seven days.”

One might have thought that he follows her reckoning,

so that the impurity of the one who has intercourse with her would correspond to the measure of her impurity: If he had intercourse with her on the sixth day of her menstruation, he would immerse on the following night and become pure like her?

The verse therefore states, “

and he shall be impure for seven days,”

for he is obligated to count seven days from the time he had intercourse with her, even if he had intercourse with her on the seventh day, and her counting is of no benefit to him .

And

the Gemara explains: If so,

what is the meaning of the verse “her menstruation shall be upon him,”

which seemingly means that his law is like hers?

One might have thought that he does not render

the man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman

a person and an earthenware vessel impure.

The verse therefore states, “her menstruation shall be upon him” -

just as she,

who is a menstruating woman,

renders a person

and an earthenware vessel impure,

so too he,

the man who has intercourse with the menstruating woman,

renders a person and an earthenware vessel impure.

The beraita continues:

If so, just as she,

the menstruating woman,

creates

the impurity of

a mishkav and moshav to render a person impure and to render the garments

upon him impure,

so too he,

the man who has intercourse with her,

creates

the impurity of

a mishkav and moshav to render a person impure and to render the garments

upon him impure?

The verse therefore states

at the end of the verse:

“And every mishkav upon which he shall lie

[the man who has intercourse with the menstruating woman]

shall become impure!”

There would be no need for the verse to state

[there would be no need to state] the words

“And every mishkav upon which he shall lie shall become impure,”

since it was already stated, “her menstruation shall be upon him,” indicating that his impurity is like hers, and with regard to her it is explicitly stated that her mishkav conveys impurity to a person and to garments. It follows that this seemingly superfluous verse comes to teach us:

And what is the meaning of the verse “And every mishkav upon which

he shall lie shall become impure”? -

The verse detached

the man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman

from severe impurity and brought him to lesser impurity!

To teach you that it conveys impurity

to the mishkav of the man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman

only to food and liquids

alone!

Rav Aḥai objects: Perhaps the verse detached

the mishkav of the man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman

from severe impurity,

from conveying impurity to a person so as to render the garments upon him impure,

and brought it to lesser impurity, so that it does not render a person impure so as to render garments impure.

But a person and garments

themselves, when they touch the mishkav of the man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman -

should they not become impure!?

And from where do we know that it was detached to lesser impurity entirely, so that his mishkav does not convey impurity at all to a person or vessels that touch it, but only to food?

Rav Asi said:

This detachment is derived from the implication of the verse, “And every mishkav upon which he shall lie

shall become impure” -

this indicates lesser impurity!

The Gemara still raises an objection:

But perhaps:

“Her menstruation shall be upon him” -

a general statement

that the man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman is like the menstruating woman herself and conveys all forms of impurity.

“And every mishkav” -

a specific statement

that only his mishkav is impure, and nothing else.

And when there is before us

a general statement and a specific statement,

we expound it:

The general statement includes only what is specified!

It follows that only

the mishkav and moshav are included -

nothing else

is included, is it not!?

And it would be learned from this that the man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman renders only his mishkav and moshav impure, and not a person or vessels that he touches.

Abaye said:

Since it is stated with regard to the man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman [there, 24]: “And if a man lies with her, and her menstruation shall be upon him, and he shall be impure for seven days. And every mishkav upon which he shall lie shall become impure,” the words

“and he shall be impure for seven days”

interrupt the matter

between the general statement, “her menstruation shall be upon him,” and the specific statement, “and every mishkav”!

Therefore,

these are a general statement and a specific statement separated from one another, and with regard to every general statement and specific statement separated from one another -

we do not expound it as a general statement and a specific statement!

Rava said: We always do expound

a general statement and a specific statement even when they are separated from one another. However, this verse is not expounded as a general statement and a specific statement, since “every mishkav” is not a specific statement but a general statement, because

“every”

is an inclusion!

Rabbi Yaakov challenges this -

Perhaps:

Since it is stated with regard to him, “her menstruation shall be upon him,” \-

the law of the man who has intercourse with her should be

like hers,

but it should be derived from her in the opposite direction:

Just as, with regard to her, you did not distinguish between her contact and her mishkav -

to render a person and to render garments

upon him impure

stringently!

So too, with regard to him, do not distinguish between his contact and his mishkav -

to render a person and to render garments

upon him impure

leniently!

That is: Just as the mishkav of the man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman was entirely excluded from conveying impurity to a person and vessels, so too the contact of the man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman should be excluded from conveying impurity to a person and garments, and should convey impurity only to food and liquids.

Rava said: “And her menstruation shall be

upon

him,”

is what is written -

to impose upon him

[to be stringent with him]

is indicated!

Therefore, the impurity conveyed through contact by the man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman cannot be compared to that of his mishkav, despite the comparison between the man and the menstruating woman, and he conveys impurity to a person and to vessels .

We learned in the Mishna: And the Samaritans convey impurity

because they have intercourse with menstruating women.

The Gemara asks:

Is it so that all of them

the Samaritans

are men who have intercourse with menstruating women?

Surely there are certainly unmarried men who do not have intercourse at all?

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yitzḥak of Migdal said -

They taught this with regard to married women!

Indeed, this impurity was decreed only with regard to married Samaritan men, who have intercourse with married menstruating women.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they sit in expectation of every

blood.

It was taught: Rabbi Meir said: If

indeed

they

were

to sit in expectation of every blood

—whether impure or pure—for newly established seven-day periods,

it would be a great corrective measure for them!

For by doing so they would be imposing a great stringency upon themselves.

Rather,

their practice is destructive, in that

they see red blood and complete it with green blood,

for if they see five days of green blood [which is in fact pure ] and afterward two days of red blood, which is impure, they do not begin counting the seven days of menstruation properly, namely, from the beginning of the sighting of the red blood. Rather, they join it to the sighting of the green blood, because they also regard the latter as impure blood, and they immerse at the end of seven days from the green blood, even though they are still within the seven days from the red blood.

Alternatively.

Their practice is destructive with regard to

the day on which she stops seeing blood,

for when she sees blood during the days of ziva [that is, when she sees blood for three consecutive days after the seven days of menstruation], if she stops seeing blood in the middle of the day, she

counts that day as one of the seven.

She joins the portion of the pure day [after she stopped seeing blood] to the count of the seven clean days, and does not count seven complete days as required.

Rami bar Ḥama challenges this: Let her count it

[why indeed should she not count part of the first day as part of the seven]?

And we too

[and not only the Samaritans] -

should count it!? For

it is

established for us

that part of the day is like the whole day!?

Rava said: If so,

that it is sufficient to count part of a clean day as one of the seven clean days,

how can we find the case of a seminal emission that invalidates the count during ziva? -

But part of the day is like the whole day!

That is: Earlier [22a], they derived from the verse “This is the law of the zav, and of him from whom a seminal emission goes forth” that a zav who experiences a seminal emission invalidates the day on which he experienced it and continues counting on the following day according to the order of his count. If we say that a portion of the day during which he is clean enables him to count that day and add it to the count of seven clean days, why should we not add the portion of the day that remained clean after he experienced the seminal emission, so that he would not invalidate the day on which he experienced it from the count of days?

The Gemara resolves that this teaching does not contradict Rami bar Ḥama’s claim:

If he saw

the seminal emission

in the middle of the day, this too

would be the case: He could add the portion of the day that remained and would not invalidate his day. But

here,

in the earlier teaching that he invalidates his day,

with what are we dealing? With a case in which he saw

the seminal emission

near sunset,

and not even part of the day remained after it!

The Gemara asks:

And

if so, should

Rami bar Ḥama arise

and

say to the verse

that he invalidates his day -

that the verse is written

in such a strained manner that only

a case near sunset is what the verse states

!?

The Gemara answers, in order to explain Rami bar Ḥama’s challenge:

Yes,

indeed the verse refers only to such a strained circumstance. The question is not against Rami bar Ḥama. Rather -

You are compelled to leave the verse

in its strained form, because

it is strained and establishes itself,

for since the difficulty arises that part of the day is like the whole day, the verse itself seems to compel us to interpret it in this strained manner: It is speaking specifically of a case in which he saw a seminal emission near sunset, in which case he invalidates his day; but if a portion of the day remained clean after the emission, he could count it.

Therefore, Rami bar Hama argued that one cannot say that the reason for the prohibition concerning the Kutim is that they count part of the day toward the tally of seven clean days, since by doing so they would be acting in accordance with the law .

Rami bar Hama raised a dilemma:

A woman who had intercourse with her husband and afterward expelled semen is impure with the impurity of a seminal emission. The question arises:

A woman who expels semen—

what is the law regarding her invalidating the count in zivah?

If she had intercourse [forbidden] during her period of zivah, and when the zivah ended she began counting seven clean days, and in the midst of the clean days she expelled the semen of her partner, does the expulsion of the semen [which renders her impure] invalidate the clean days, or not? The two sides of the dilemma are:

Is the impurity of a woman who expels semen because we say

she would have been seeing blood, and

therefore even in this case

she invalidates the count!

Because the sighting of semen damages the cleanliness of the days?