Niddah 33a — the Talmud in English

If you say “under it

of a zav,”

that he touches his bedding of the zav?

It is not possible to say so. For this law—is derived from the verse [there 5]

“And a man who touches his lying-place”—is it not derived!?

Rather,

the intention of the verse is regarding

one who touches everything upon which the zav will be—

under him.

And what is it

that “the zav will be under him” would be—

“the upper garment of a zav”!

For the verse came to distinguish and say that only what is beneath the zav—such as a lying-place, a sitting-place, or bedding—imparts severe tumah to a person and utensils, but not what is above the zav, which imparts tumah only to foods and liquids. And through this

the verse detached it from severe tumah and brought it to light tumah, to tell you—

that it imparts tumah only to foods and liquids!

The Gemara asks:

Perhaps the verse detached

the upper garment of a zav

from severe tumah, which does not impart tumah to a person so that he would render the garments

upon him impure, only.

But a person

himself,

or garments

themselves that touched the upper garment of a zav—

should become impure!?

The Gemara explains:

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

shall be

impure”—

a light tumah is indicated!

The Gemara adds to explain:

And the undergarment of one who has intercourse with a menstruant—

from where do we know

that it imparts only a light tumah?

For it was taught:

It is stated regarding the tumah of one who has intercourse with a menstruant [there 24]: “And if a man shall lie, yes, lie with her

and her menstruation shall be upon him,

and he shall be impure for seven days.”

I might say that he should rise according to her reckoning,

so that the tumah of the one who has intercourse with her would be according to the measure of her tumah: 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 says

“and he shall be impure for seven days,”

that he is obligated to count seven days from the time of his intercourse, even if he had intercourse with her on the seventh day, and her counting does not benefit him .

And the Gemara explains: If so,

what is the teaching of “and her menstruation shall be upon him,”

whose apparent meaning is that his law is like hers?

One might say that he does not render impure

the one who has intercourse with a menstruant

a person and an earthenware vessel.

The verse therefore says, “and her menstruation shall be upon him”—

just as she,

who is a menstruant,

renders a person impure

and an earthenware vessel ,

so too he,

the one who has intercourse with the menstruant,

renders a person and an earthenware vessel impure.

And the baraita continues: If, just as she,

the menstruant,

makes

the tumah of a

lying-place and sitting-place, to render a person impure so that he renders the garments

upon him impure,

so too he,

the one who has intercourse with her,

makes

the tumah of a

lying-place and sitting-place, to render a person impure so that he renders the garments

upon him impure?

The verse therefore says

at the end of the verse:

“And every lying-place upon which he shall lie

[the one who has intercourse with a menstruant]

shall become impure!”

There is no teaching in

[that is, there is no need to state] the words,

“And every lying-place upon which he shall lie shall become impure,”

for it has already been stated, “and her menstruation shall be upon him,” that his tumah is like her tumah, and regarding her it is explicitly stated that her lying-place renders a person and garments impure. It follows that this superfluous verse comes to teach us—

And what is the teaching of “And every lying-place upon which

he shall lie shall become impure”—

the verse detached him

the one who has intercourse with a menstruant

from severe tumah and brought him to light tumah!

To tell you: his lying-place does not render impure

the lying-place of one who has intercourse with a menstruant

except foods and liquids

only!

Rav Aḥai refuted this: Perhaps the verse detached

the lying-place of one who has intercourse with a menstruant

from severe tumah

from rendering a person impure so that he renders the garments upon him impure,

and brought it to light tumah, 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 lying-place of one who has intercourse with a menstruant—

should they become impure!?

And from where do we know that it was detached to light tumah entirely, so that his lying-place does not render impure at all the person and utensils that touch it, but only foods?

Rav Asi said:

This detachment is learned from the implication of the verse, “And every lying-place upon which he shall lie

shall become impure”—

a light tumah is indicated!

The Gemara still asks:

But perhaps.

“And her menstruation shall be upon him”—

a generalization

[that the one who has intercourse with a menstruant is like the menstruant herself and renders everything impure].

“And every lying-place”—

a specification

[that only his lying-place is impure and nothing else].

And when there is before us

“a generalization and a specification,”

we expound—

the generalization contains only what is in the specification!

And it follows that only

a lying-place and a sitting-place—

nothing else—

no!?

And we would learn from this that one who has intercourse with a menstruant renders only his lying-place and sitting-place impure, and not a person and utensils that he touches.

Abaye said:

Since it is stated regarding one who has intercourse with a menstruant [there 24]: “And if a man shall lie, yes, lie with her, and her menstruation shall be upon him, and he shall be impure for seven days. And every lying-place upon which he shall lie shall become impure,”

“and he shall be impure for seven days”

interrupts the matter

between the generalization, “and her menstruation shall be upon him,” and the specification, “and every lying-place.”

Therefore—

behold, they are a generalization and a specification distant from one another, and every generalization and specification distant from one another—

we do not expound it as a generalization and specification!

Rava said: We always do expound

a generalization and a specification even when they are distant from one another. But this verse is not expounded as a generalization and specification, since “every lying-place” is not a specification but a generalization, because

“every”

is an amplification!

Rabbi Yaakov challenged this—

Perhaps:

Since it is stated regarding him, “and her menstruation shall be upon him,”

his law should be

like hers,

but we learn from her the opposite:

Just as she does not distinguish between her contact and her lying-place—

to render a person impure and to render garments

upon him impure—

stringently!

So too, he should not distinguish between his contact and his lying-place—

to render a person impure and to render garments

upon him impure—

leniently!

That is: just as the lying-place of one who has intercourse with a menstruant was entirely excluded from rendering a person and utensils impure, so too the contact of one who has intercourse with a menstruant should be excluded from rendering a person and garments impure, and should render only foods and liquids impure.

Rava said: “And her menstruation

shall be upon him” is written—

to impose upon him [to be stringent with him]

is indicated!

Therefore one should not equate the tumah of his contact with his lying-place, despite the comparison between the one who has intercourse with her and the menstruant, and he renders a person and utensils impure .

We learned in the Mishna: And the Cutheans render impure

because they have intercourse with menstruants.

The Gemara is astonished:

Are all of them

Cutheans

those who have intercourse with menstruants,

for surely there are unmarried men who do not have intercourse at all?

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yitzḥak Migdalaha said—

they taught this regarding married women!

Indeed, this tumah was decreed only with regard to married Cutheans, who have intercourse with married menstruants.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they sit concerning every blood

and blood.

It was taught: Rabbi Meir said: If

indeed

they

were

sitting concerning every blood

and blood, whether impure or pure, seven new days,

it would be a great ordinance for them!

For in this way they would practice great stringency upon themselves.

Rather,

their corruption is in this,

that they see red blood and complete it with green blood,

for if they see five days of green blood [which is truly pure ],

and after them two days of red blood, which is impure, they do not begin counting the seven days of menstruation properly, namely from the beginning of seeing the red blood; rather, they join it to the sighting of the green blood, because they also regard it as impure blood, and immerse at the end of seven days for the green blood even though they are still within seven days for the red blood.

Rather,

it is to their detriment, because

Alternatively.

Their corruption is: the day on which she stops seeing, for when she sees blood during the days of ziva—that is, when she sees for three consecutive days after the seven days of menstruation—if she stops seeing in the middle of the day, she counts it toward the number of seven.

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

Rami bar Ḥama challenged him: Let her count it

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

And we too

[and not only the Cutheans]—

should count it!? For

we hold

that part of the day is like all of it!?

Rava said: If so,

that it is sufficient to count part of a clean day toward the number of the seven clean days,

the emission of semen that invalidates during ziva—

how can you find it? But part of the day is like all of it!

That is: earlier [22a] they expounded from the verse, “This is the law of the zav, and that from which an emission of semen emerges,” that a zav who sees an emission of semen invalidates the day on which he saw it, and continues counting on the following day according to the order of his counting. And if we say that part of the day in purity allows one to count this day and join it to the number of seven clean days, why should we not join the part of the day that remained clean after the emission of semen, so that he would not invalidate the day of his seeing from the number of days?

The Gemara resolves that there is no contradiction from this exposition to Rami bar Ḥama’s claim, because

if he saw

the zav the emission of semen

in the middle of the day, so too

he would be able to join the part of the day that remained and his day would not be invalidated. Whereas

here,

in the exposition above that he invalidates his day,

with what are we dealing? With his seeing

the zav the emission of semen

near sunset,

so that not even part of the day remained after it!

The Gemara is astonished:

And

should Rami bar Ḥama

arise

and say to the verse

that it is written

in such a forced manner, that specifically

near sunset is it written

the verse!?

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

Yes,

indeed the verse refers only to such a forced circumstance, and the astonishment is not directed at Rami bar Ḥama, but rather—

You are compelled to leave the verse,

we shall leave it to the verse in its forced sense, because

it is itself forced and establishes itself,

for by force of the difficulty that part of the day is like all of it, it is as though the verse itself compels us to establish it in this forced manner: that it is speaking specifically of one who saw an emission of semen near sunset, in which case he invalidates his day; but if part of the day remained clean after the seeing, he may count it.

by the verse!?

The Gemara answers, explaining Rami bar Ḥama’s challenge:

Yes,

the verse indeed refers only to such an unusual case, and the difficulty is not against Rami bar Ḥama. Rather:

You are forced to leave the verse

in its forced interpretation, because

it itself forces and confines its interpretation,

for, because of the difficulty that part of a day is considered like the entire day, the verse itself effectively compels us to interpret it narrowly, as referring specifically to a man who saw the seminal emission close to sunset. In that case he invalidates the day; but if part of the day remained clean after he saw it, he may count it.

Therefore Rami bar Hama argued that one should not say that the reason for the prohibition of the Kutim is that they count part of the day toward the number of seven clean days, since by doing so they act according to the law.

Rami bar Hama inquired:

A woman who had intercourse with her husband and afterward, after some time, emitted semen is impure with the impurity of a seminal emission. And it is necessary to inquire:

One who emits semen—

what is the law: does she overturn the count with regard to ziva?

If she had intercourse [prohibited] during the time of her ziva, and when the ziva ended she began to count seven clean days, and in the middle of the days of cleanliness she emitted the semen of her partner, does the emission of semen [which makes her impure] overturn the days of cleanliness or not? And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Is the impurity of one who emits semen because we say

she was one who saw, and

therefore, even in this manner,

she overturns the count!

For the sighting of semen spoils the cleanliness of the days.