Niddah 35b — the Talmud in English

And to be stringent concerning him - ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

that he makes a lying-place and a sitting-place,

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

And the Gemara clarifies:

When

does the leniency and the stringency apply to him?

If you say: at the second sight

of a gonorrheal discharge?

That is impossible. For

when would he be at all in the category of one who has experienced a seminal emission,

when he is a complete zav?!

Rather, it is obvious

that Rabbi Yitzḥak is dealing

with the first sight.

And he teaches: “to be lenient concerning him -

that he does not become impure through an accident,”

and it is thereby proven that this is not in accordance with Rav Huna.

The Gemara rejects this:

And can you understand this,

how is it possible to establish Rabbi Yitzḥak’s words as referring to the first sight?

But, on the other hand, he said

“to be stringent concerning him -

that he makes a lying-place and a sitting-place.” And is

at the first sight

capable

of imparting impurity to a lying-place and a sitting-place

?

Rather, this is what he is saying: Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Was not one with a gonorrheal discharge included among those who have experienced a seminal emission at the first sight,

for the degree of their impurity is equal: they do not impart impurity to a lying-place and a sitting-place, and they impart impurity whether through an accident or willingly?

And why was he singled out

[in what way is his law different from that of one who has experienced a seminal emission]

at the second sight?

To be lenient concerning him and to be stringent concerning him.

To be lenient concerning him -

that he does not become impure through an accident.

And to be stringent concerning him -

that he makes a lying-place and a sitting-place.

Rav Huna said: A gonorrheal discharge

resembles barley dough-water!

And likewise Rav Huna said:

A gonorrheal discharge comes from the flesh of the dead,

for the organ does not become erect at the time of its emission.

Seminal fluid comes from the flesh of the living 106.

A gonorrheal discharge, faint ,

is not joined together,

and resembles the white of a rotten egg

[from which a chick does not emerge].

Seminal fluid is joined together

together,

and resembles the white of an unrotten egg!

We learned in the Mishna:

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

Beit Shammai say: like her saliva and like her urine!

It was taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai -

Do you not agree concerning a menstruating woman who has not immersed and saw blood, that she is impure,

for her blood imparts impurity according to the law of menstrual blood? And if so, the same law applies to a woman after childbirth who has not immersed and saw blood, for childbirth was juxtaposed to menstruation. For it is written concerning a woman after childbirth: “Like the days of the impurity of her menstruation, she shall be impure”?

Beit Shammai said to them -

No!

This is not a proof.

For

if you say concerning a menstruating woman

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

so

concerning a woman after childbirth, that

her impurity continues as long as she has not immersed, when

if she immersed

for the impurity of her childbirth,

and

again

saw

blood during the days

that she

sits in a state of pure blood, she is

pure?

Beit Hillel said to them

Beit Hillel:

A woman after childbirth with a gonorrheal discharge,

who was a zava at the time of her childbirth,

proves -

for if she immersed

after counting seven clean days [after 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

through the impurity of a gonorrheal discharge, from which she has still not become pure. And even though this blood emerged from her during the days of purity of a woman after childbirth, it imparts impurity like the blood of a zava?!

Beit Shammai said to them -

The same law applies, and this is the answer!

That is to say: even a woman after childbirth with a gonorrheal discharge who saw blood during her days of purity, despite not having immersed for the impurity of her gonorrheal discharge and for the impurity of her childbirth, this blood is pure!

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is this to say that

Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai dispute concerning a woman after childbirth with a gonorrheal discharge who did not immerse, whether her blood imparts impurity during the days of pure blood?

But we learned: And Beit Shammai agree

Beit Shammai

concerning a woman after childbirth with a gonorrheal discharge -

that she imparts impurity to wet and dry

like the blood of a zava?!

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.

Here,

in the baraita, it is referring to a case

where she counted

seven clean days, and therefore Beit Shammai disputed, since after she counted seven clean days for her gonorrheal discharge, her blood is not considered the blood of a zava.

Whereas

here,

in the Mishna, it is referring to a case

where she did not count

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

And it was taught in a baraita

as proof of this:

A woman after childbirth with a gonorrheal discharge who counted but did not immerse, and saw -

Beit Shammai followed their own method

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

And Beit Hillel followed their own method!

And it is proven that Beit Shammai declared her pure only because she counted, but when she did not count, they agree with Beit Hillel that she is impure.

It was stated: Rav said:

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

are one spring,

that is, both come from one source, except that

the Torah declared it impure

after childbirth, seven days for a male and fourteen days for a female,

and the Torah declared 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

is opened during the days of purity .

And likewise, later in the period, 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 is opened

[and if she sees, she is a menstruating woman].

And the Gemara explains:

What difference is there between them?

There is a difference between them

when she was

flowing

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

a.

From within seven

of a woman who gave birth to a male,

after seven. And from within fourteen

of a woman who gave birth to a female,

after fourteen.

b.

And from within forty

of a woman who gave birth to a male

after forty. And from within eighty

of a woman who gave birth to a female

after eighty.

According to Rav -

the first clause is lenient,

for the Torah declared that same spring pure during the days of purity, even when it continues and flows without interruption from the days of impurity into the days of purity .

And the latter clause is stringent,

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

Whereas

according to Levi -

the first clause is stringent,

since as long as she has still not stopped seeing, the impure spring continues to flow.

And the latter clause is lenient,

for the fact that she flowed from within the days of purity means that the blood is still flowing from the pure spring .

It was objected: The blood of a woman after childbirth who has not immersed, Beit Shammai say -

like her saliva and like her urine.

And Beit Hillel say -

it imparts impurity to wet and dry!

It might have entered your mind

that it is referring to a case

where she stopped

seeing during her days of impurity, and saw again during her days of purity before she immersed .

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

for this reason it imparts impurity

to Beit Hillel

whether wet or dry,

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

But according to Levi, who says that they are two springs,

and when the impure one is sealed, the pure one is opened -

why does it impart impurity whether wet or dry

when she has still not immersed? For after the impure one is sealed, the pure spring, which is a separate spring, is opened; what difference does it make that she has not immersed?!

Levi could say to you: Here, with what are we dealing -

The Gemara asks in astonishment:

with a woman who is flowing

from the days of impurity into the days of purity, and her blood has not stopped flowing .

The Gemara wonders:

If she is flowing -

what is the reason of Beit Shammai,

when the flow of the impure spring continues?

The Gemara explains: According to Levi, this itself is what they disputed, and

Beit Shammai hold -

it is one spring!

The Torah declared it impure during the days of impurity and pure during the days of purity, even when the spring continues its flow without interruption between the days of impurity and the days of purity [whereas Beit Hillel hold that they are two springs, and since the flow of the impure spring did not stop, it remains impure even during the days of purity].

The Gemara raises an objection:

Granted according to Levi, this is the distinction that exists

[this is the distinction]

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

for according to Beit Hillel they are two springs, and since the impure spring did not stop its flow, the blood is impure, whereas Beit Shammai hold that it is one spring, except that the Torah declared it pure during the days of purity.

But according to Rav,

that both come from one spring, and it follows that during the days of purity the Torah declared it pure,

what difference is there between them

[what is the reason of Beit Hillel, who declare the blood impure]?

There is a difference between them -

days and 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 the House of Hillel hold -

on the days and immersion

the Torah made it dependent, so that as long as she has not immersed, even if the days of purity have arrived, her blood is impure with the impurity of a woman who has given birth [and even if the blood stopped, and she again saw during the days of purity]] .

Come and hear: “And

the House of Shammai concede to the House of Hillel

with regard to a woman who has given birth in a condition of zivah, that she renders impure both wet and dry.”

You might have thought that here too

it is speaking of a case in which she

stopped

seeing during the days of impurity of her childbirth, and again saw during the days of purity of a woman who has given birth [but she had still not counted seven clean days for the impurity of her zivah!]

Granted, according to Rav, who says that it is one spring; for that reason it renders impure both wet and dry,

because since she has still not sat for seven clean days for the impurity of her zivah, the spring renders impure, since the Torah did not purify it until she sits for seven clean days according to the law of a zavah.

But according to Levi, who says

that according to the House of Hillel

there are two springs -

why does it render impure both wet and dry?

For after the days of impurity of the woman who has given birth, the impure spring has been sealed and the pure spring has opened.

And if it is because the impurity of her zivah is still upon her, this does not render the blood impure as the blood of a zavah, but only like the other springs, for her blood is not impure blood but pure blood. And its law is like that of other liquids issuing from a zavah, which render impure only when they are wet and not when they are dry ?

Levi can say:

Levi:

here too

it is speaking

of a continuous flow,

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

If it is a continuous flow -

what need is there for this?

For it is obvious that as long as the impure spring has not been sealed, the pure spring has not opened according to the House of Hillel?

The Gemara explains: This law

was necessary for the House of Shammai

to teach us - for

even though the House of Shammai say that it is one spring, and with regard to the days

alone

the Torah made it dependent,

and when the days of purity begin, her blood is pure even if it continues in its flow without interruption -

this applies to an ordinary woman who has given birth, for her days

of impurity

have been completed. But a woman who has given birth in a condition of zivah, who requires counting

of seven clean days,

does not

the Torah purify the spring until she counts seven clean days, despite the fact that the days of impurity of the woman who has given birth have passed. For the blood of zivah and the blood of childbirth have their source in one spring, and the Torah did not purify it until she counts seven clean days!

Come and hear: “A woman, when she conceives and gives birth to a male, and she is impure for seven days, as during the days of the impurity of her

niddah,

she shall be impure.”

And since the two words “she shall be impure in her impurity” are superfluous, for it would have been appropriate to write “and she shall be impure for seven days as during the days of niddah,” we expound as follows:

a.

“She shall be impure in her impurity” -

to include the one who has intercourse with her,

for a woman who has given birth renders the one who has intercourse with her impure like a niddah .

b.

“She shall be impure in her impurity” -

to include the nights, [

and not specifically the “days” of niddah].

c.

“She shall be impure in her impurity” -

to include a woman who has given birth in a condition of zivah, who must sit for seven clean days!

Granted, according to Rav, who says that it is one spring; for that reason she requires

sitting for

seven clean days,

because as long as she has not stopped seeing for seven days, the Torah does not purify her blood, for the spring has still not stopped, and she is considered to continue seeing impure blood.