Niddah 35b (לה:) — the Talmud in English

And to impose stringency upon him -

that it renders a mishkav and moshav,

a primary source of ritual impurity, unlike one who experienced a seminal emission.

The Gemara clarifies:

When

does the leniency and the stringency apply to him?

If you say that it is referring to the second sighting

of a flow of ziva?

That is impossible. For

when would he be included among those who experienced a seminal emission

when he is a full-fledged zav?

Rather, it is obvious

that Rabbi Yitzḥak is speaking

of the first sighting.

And he teaches: “To be lenient with him -

as he does not become impure through an accident,”

which demonstrates that his opinion is not in accordance with Rav Huna.

The Gemara rejects this:

But can you understand it so?

How is it possible to establish Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement as referring to the first sighting?

But, on the other hand, he said:

“To impose stringency upon him -

that it renders a mishkav and moshav.” And is

the first sighting

capable

of rendering a person impure

a mishkav and moshav?

Rather, this is what he is saying: Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Was not a zav included among those who experienced a seminal emission at the first sighting,

as their degree of impurity is equal: Neither renders a mishkav and moshav impure, and both become impure whether through an accident or willingly.

And why did he emerge

with a different law from one who experienced a seminal emission

at the second sighting?

To be lenient with him and to impose stringency upon him.

To be lenient with him -

as he does not become impure through an accident.

And to impose stringency upon him -

as he renders a mishkav and moshav impure.

Rav Huna said: Zov -

resembles barley-water!

And Rav Huna likewise said:

A flow of zov comes from dead flesh,

as the organ does not become rigid when it is emitted.

A seminal emission comes from living flesh 106 .

A weak flow of zov,

is not joined together,

and resembles the white of a spoiled egg

which cannot produce a chick.

A seminal emission is joined together

as one,

and resembles the white of an unsullied egg!

We learned in the Mishna:

The blood of a woman after childbirth who has not immersed,

Beit Shammai say: It is like her saliva and like her urine.

It was taught in a beraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai:

Do you not agree that, in the case of a menstruant who did not immerse and saw blood, she is impure,

since her blood imparts impurity according to the law of menstrual blood? If so, the same law should apply to a woman after childbirth who did not immerse and saw blood, since childbirth is juxtaposed to menstruation, as it is written concerning a woman after childbirth: “She shall be impure as in the days of the impurity of her menstruation”?

Beit Shammai said to them:

No!

This is not a proof.

For

if you said with regard to a menstruant

that as long as she has not immersed she is impure, since

even if she immersed and saw

again after her immersion, she is

impure.

And would you

say

the same

with regard to a woman after childbirth, who

remains impure as long as she has not immersed, when

if she immersed

for the impurity of childbirth,

and

again

saw

blood during the days

that she

is observing as days of pure blood, she is

pure?

Beit Hillel said to them:

Beit Hillel:

A woman after childbirth who experiences ziva,

who was a zava at the time of childbirth,

will prove -

for if she immersed

after counting seven clean days [following the days of impurity of a woman after childbirth] ,

and saw after

seven

days of counting,

during the days of purity of a woman after childbirth, only then is she

pure.

But if she

did not immerse and saw

during the days of purity, she is

impure

due to the impurity of ziva from which she has not yet become pure. And although this blood emerged during the days of purity of a woman after childbirth, it imparts impurity like the blood of a zava!?

Beit Shammai said to them:

That is the same law, and that is the answer!

The meaning is: Even a woman after childbirth who experiences ziva and sees blood during her days of purity, although she has not immersed for the impurity of her ziva or for the impurity of childbirth, this blood is pure!

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Does this mean that they disagree

whether Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree in the case of a woman after childbirth who experiences ziva and has not immersed, as to whether her blood imparts impurity during the days of pure blood?

But didn’t we learn: And Beit Shammai concede

Beit Shammai

with regard to a woman after childbirth who experiences ziva -

that she renders both wet and dry objects impure

like the blood of a zava?

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.

Here,

in the beraita, the case is

where she counted

seven clean days, and therefore Beit Shammai disagreed, since after she counted seven clean days for her ziva, her blood is no longer considered the blood of a zava.

Whereas

here,

in the Mishna, the case is

where she did not count

seven clean days, and therefore Beit Shammai concede that her blood is impure according to the law of the blood of a zava.

And it was taught in a beraita

as proof:

A woman after childbirth who experiences ziva, who counted but did not immerse, and saw -

Beit Shammai followed their own view

that they deem pure the blood that she subsequently saw during the days of purity of a woman after childbirth.

And Beit Hillel followed their own view!

This demonstrates that Beit Shammai deemed her pure only because she had counted; but when she had not counted, they concede to Beit Hillel that she is impure.

It was stated: Rav said:

The blood that flows during the days of impurity following childbirth and the blood that flows during the days of purity

come from one spring,

meaning that both come from one source, except that

the Torah rendered it impure

after childbirth, for seven days in the case of a male child and fourteen days in the case of a female child,

and the Torah rendered it pure

afterward, during the days of purity.

And Levi said: They are two springs:

The

spring

of impurity is sealed

when the days of impurity end, and then

the

spring

of purity opens

during the days of purity.

Likewise, later in the process, their laws are like those of two springs: When

the pure spring is sealed

at the end of the days of purity,

and the impure one opens

if she sees blood, she is a menstruant.

The Gemara explains:

What difference is there between them?

There is a difference between them

when she was

flowing

blood continuously, without interruption, between the days of impurity and the days of purity:

a.

From within the seven

days of a woman who gave birth to a male,

after seven. And from within fourteen

days of a woman who gave birth to a female,

after fourteen.

b.

And from within forty

days of a woman who gave birth to a male,

after forty. And from within eighty

days of a woman who gave birth to a female,

after eighty.

According to Rav -

the first clause is lenient,

since the Torah rendered that same spring pure during the days of purity, even when it continues to flow without interruption from the days of impurity into the days of purity.

And the final clause is stringent,

because although the pure spring continues to flow beyond the days of purity, the Torah rendered that spring impure.

Whereas

according to Levi -

the first clause is stringent,

since as long as she has not ceased seeing blood, the impure spring continues to flow.

And the final clause is lenient,

because the fact that she continued flowing from within the days of purity indicates that the blood still flows from the pure spring.

The meitivI: The blood of a woman after childbirth who did not immerse, Beit Shammai say -

like her saliva and like her urine.

And Beit Hillel say -

It renders both wet and dry objects impure!

It might have entered your mind

that the case is one in which she

ceased

seeing during her days of impurity, and then saw again during her days of purity before immersing.

Granted, according to Rav, who says that it is one spring -

that is why it renders

impure, according to Beit Hillel,

both wet and dry objects,

because he holds that, according to Beit Hillel, as long as she has not immersed, the Torah has not rendered her spring pure.

But according to Levi, who says that they are two springs, and when the impure one is sealed the pure one opens why does it render both wet and dry objects impure

when she has not yet immersed? Once the impure spring has been sealed, the pure spring, which is a separate spring, has opened; what difference should it make that she has not immersed?

Levi can say to you: With what are we dealing here? -

With a woman who is flowing

from the days of impurity into the days of purity, and whose blood has not ceased flowing.

The Gemara asks in astonishment:

If it is a case of continuous flow -

what is the reason of Beit Shammai,

when the impure spring is in fact continuing to flow?

The Gemara explains: According to Levi, this itself is the matter over which they disagree, and

Beit Shammai hold -

It is one spring!

The Torah rendered it impure during the days of impurity and pure during the days of purity, even when the spring continues to flow without interruption from the days of impurity into the days of purity [whereas Beit Hillel hold that there are two springs, and since the flow of the impure spring did not cease, it remains impure even during the days of purity].

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted, according to Levi, this is the distinction

between

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

for according to Beit Hillel there are two springs, and since the impure spring did not cease flowing, the blood is impure, whereas Beit Shammai maintain that there is one spring, but the Torah rendered it pure during the days of purity.

But according to Rav,

who says that both come from one spring, with the result that the Torah rendered it pure during the days of purity,

what difference is there between them

what is the rationale of Beit Hillel, who render the blood impure?

There is a difference between them -

the days and the immersion!

For Beit Shammai hold -

with regard to the days

alone

the Merciful One made it dependent,

and once the days of purity have arrived, her blood is pure even without immersion.

And Beit Hillel hold:

The Merciful One made it dependent on the days and immersion—

for as long as she has not immersed, even if the days of the purity of her blood have arrived, her blood is impure with the impurity of a woman who has given birth [and even if the bleeding ceased and she again saw blood during the days of purity] .

Come and hear: “And Beit Shammai concede to

Beit Hillel

with regard to a woman who gave birth in a state of ziva, that she renders both wet and dry impure.”

Could it enter your mind that here too

the case is one in which she

ceased

seeing blood during the days of the impurity of childbirth, and then again saw blood during the days of purity of a woman who has given birth [but had not yet counted seven clean days for her impurity as a zavah]!

Granted, according to Rav, who says that it is one source; that is why it renders both wet and dry impure,

since as long as she has not yet sat for seven clean days because of her impurity as a zavah, the source renders impure, for the Torah did not purify it until she sits for seven clean days in accordance with the law of a zavah.

But according to Levi, who says

that according to Beit Hillel there are

two sources—

why does it render both wet and dry impure?

For after the days of the impurity of childbirth, the impure source was sealed and the pure source opened.

And if this is because the impurity of ziva still rests upon her, that does not cause the blood itself to be impure as the blood of a zavah; rather, it is like the other bodily fluids alone, for her blood is not impure blood but pure blood. Its status should be like that of the other fluids issuing from a zavah, which render impure only when wet and not when dry ?

Levi could say:

Levi:

Here too

the case is one

of continuous flow,

where the impure source from the days of impurity is still actually continuing to flow into the days of purity; therefore, it renders both wet and dry impure.

The Gemara objects:

If it is a case of continuous flow,

why was this necessary?

For surely, as long as the impure source has not been sealed, the pure source does not open according to Beit Hillel?

The Gemara explains: This law

was necessary with regard to Beit Shammai

to teach us that

although Beit Shammai say that it is one source, and that the Merciful One made it dependent only on the days

alone,

and

when the days of purity begin, her blood is pure even if it continues to flow without interruption—

that statement applies only to an ordinary woman who has given birth, whose days

of impurity

have been completed. But a woman who gave birth in a state of ziva, who requires counting

seven clean days,

does not

the Torah purify the source until she counts seven clean days, despite the fact that the days of impurity of childbirth have passed. For the blood of ziva and the blood of childbirth originate from one source, and the Torah did not purify it until she counts seven clean days!

Come and hear: “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure for seven days; as during the days of the menstruation of

her flow, she shall be impure.”

She shall be impure.

Since the two words “she shall be impure” are superfluous, for it would have been appropriate to write, “She shall be impure for seven days, as during the days of menstruation,” we derive the following:

a.

“She shall be impure”—

to include the man who has intercourse with her,

for a woman who has given birth renders the man who has intercourse with her impure, as does a menstruating woman .

b.

“She shall be impure”—

to include the nights, [

and not specifically the “days” of menstruation].

c.

“She shall be impure”—

to include a woman who gives birth in a state of ziva, who must sit for seven clean days!

Granted, according to Rav, who says that it is one source; that is why she must

sit

for seven clean days,

because as long as she has not ceased seeing blood for seven days, the Torah does not purify her blood, since the source has still not ceased, and she is considered to be continuing to see impure blood.