Niddah 69b (סט:) — the Talmud in English

and eight for ziva,

for she immerses after seven days beginning from the day of her arrival, lest the seven days of cleanliness were completed on that very day; and likewise she immerses on the eighth day, lest she also saw blood on the day of her arrival, constituting a major discharge of ziva, with the result that the count of seven clean days began only on the following day.

However,

if she came at night—

we assign her eight immersions for nida,

as she must immerse every night beginning with the night of her arrival, lest her seven days of nida ended on that night; and on the eighth night she must also immerse, lest she saw blood on the night of her arrival, with the result that her seven days of nida ended only on the eighth night.

And eight for ziva,

as each morning for seven days she immerses, because it is possible that the seven clean days ended on that day.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The immersions for

ziva—

eight

immersions—

are required

and not seven! For if she saw blood at night, there is concern that before her arrival, on that same night, she saw a major discharge of ziva, and it follows that her clean days were completed only on the eighth day, so she requires an additional immersion on the eighth day as well!?

Rather—

both this and that,

whether she came during the day or whether she came at night—

assign her eight for nida and eight for ziva!

The Gemara again raises a difficulty: But if she came

at night—

she requires eight immersions for nida!

And it answers: Yes, indeed, if she came at night, she immerses eight times, on eight nights, for her nida. However, the reason the beraita counted eight for ziva and did not count eight for nida is that

the eight immersions for ziva are definite,

as in every circumstance she immerses eight times,

for it makes no difference whether she came before us during the day or whether she came before us at night:

her immersions number eight. Therefore,

it counted it,

the eighth immersion.

But the eighth immersion for

nida is not definite, as

only

when she came before us at night does she require eight,

whereas when she came before us

during the day, she does not require eight—

it did not count it.

The Gemara returns to explain the proof that, according to the Rabbis, we do not require the days to have been counted and examined before us:

And if it should enter your mind

that the seven clean days

must be counted before us

as Rabbi Akiva says,

what do I need all these immersions

for ziva in the morning?

Why do I need them?

For all the days preceding her arrival were not counted before us, since she did not examine herself at all; and if so,

let her count

from now

seven

clean days,

and then immerse

once בלבד for her ziva!?

Rather, is it not so? Learn from it

that the tanna of the beraita

is the Rabbis, who say: We do not require the days to have been counted before us.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi:

But

are we not offering explanations for

this beraita concerning a woman who is uncertain? If so,

explain

also

and say this—

I counted

clean days,

but I do not know how many

days

I counted.

Likewise, I do not know whether

I counted during the days of nida

the clean days,

or [or]

during the days of ziva I counted; they immerse her fifteen times,

as each day throughout the week she must immerse in the morning, lest the seven clean days have just ended, since she did examine herself and counted clean days, but does not know when or how many; and likewise she must immerse every night, lest her days of nida ended on that night.

This is the manner in which the beraita can be understood even according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that the days must have been counted before us!?

But according to this interpretation, it is difficult: Why does she require fifteen immersions? After all,

at least one day is certainly impossible not to have been counted,

for she informs us that she did count; accordingly, the day of her arrival is certainly counted and examined for us, and if so,

one immersion is missing for her,

as she does not need to immerse on the eighth day from the day of her arrival, since it is certain for us that the day of her arrival was examined and she did not see blood on it!?

Rather,

said Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef: Explain it and

say

this—

I do not know whether I counted or did not count,

for then she requires fifteen immersions even according to Rabbi Akiva: perhaps she did not count at all and must immerse on the eighth day, due to the concern that she saw a discharge of ziva on the day of her arrival; and likewise she must immerse every morning throughout the week even according to Rabbi Akiva, since it is possible that she did count, and there is concern each day that her counting may have ended on that day.

Mishna:

a.

A man with a gonorrheal discharge, a woman with a gonorrheal discharge, a woman in the state of nida, a woman after childbirth, and a leper who died—

impart ritual impurity through bearing.

According to what is explained in the Gemara, the wording of the Mishna must be corrected, and it should say: They impart impurity through an “overlay stone,” which is a heavy stone placed over vessels, with the corpse, the woman with a gonorrheal discharge, or the woman in the state of nida lying on the stone above the vessels.

The Mishna intends to teach us that if the man with a gonorrheal discharge and the woman with a gonorrheal discharge, after they died, were placed on this stone, beneath which there were vessels, then—

even though the vessels do not become impure with the impurity of bearing from a corpse, [since the stone is not liable to be moved together with the corpse because of the stone’s weight],

Likewise, the vessels do not become impure under the law of a seat or couch, for a man or woman with a gonorrheal discharge does not impart the impurity of a seat or couch after death.

Nevertheless, the Sages decreed that the vessels beneath the overlay stone should become impure with the rabbinic impurity of a “seat.”

The reason for this is so that people should not come to err and declare the vessels pure even when the man or woman with a gonorrheal discharge sat upon the overlay stone during their lifetime while unconscious, thinking that they were dead. During their lifetime, they impart impurity by sitting on the “overlay stone” to the vessels beneath the stone under the law of the seat of one with a gonorrheal discharge: even if several objects are placed one atop another and the man with a gonorrheal discharge sits on the uppermost surface, all the surfaces below become impure.

Until the flesh decomposes

of the dead man or woman with a gonorrheal discharge, at which point there is no longer concern that they had merely been unconscious.

b.

A gentile who died—

is pure with regard to imparting impurity

of ziva [for the Sages decreed upon all gentiles the impurity of ziva during their lifetimes, even to the extent of imparting impurity through an overlay stone. Since all their impurity is only rabbinic, they were lenient with them and did not have them impart the impurity of an overlay stone after death].

c.

Beit Shammai say: All women who die

have the status of

women in the state of nida.

The Sages decreed that even women who died while pure should be treated as though they had been in the state of nida before their death, and that the vessels that had been upon them shortly before the departure of their souls should be immersed, out of respect for women in the state of nida. As will be explained in the Gemara.

And Beit Hillel say: There is no woman in the state of nida

except one who died

while she was

in the state of nida!

The Sages did not decree that vessels that had been upon pure women before their death must be immersed.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A man or woman with a gonorrheal discharge who died imparts impurity through bearing.

And we raised the following question:

What

novelty did the tanna teach us by stating that they impart impurity after death

through bearing

—for how does this differ from any other corpse, which imparts impurity through bearing!?

If you say that it means through actual bearing—

is it so that every corpse does not impart impurity through bearing? Rather, what does “through bearing” mean?—

Through an overlay stone.

And we explain the source of the expression “overlay stone”:

As it is written: “And they brought one stone and placed it over the mouth of the pit.”

And we raised the question:

What is the reason

that they decreed impurity through an overlay stone?

Rav said: It is a decree lest he become unconscious.

Perhaps the man with a gonorrheal discharge will become unconscious on that heavy stone while alive, and people will think that he is dead. And if you say that a dead man with a gonorrheal discharge does not impart impurity through an overlay stone, they will declare him pure, and will also come to declare him pure when he sits on an overlay stone while alive, even though at that time he imparts impurity under the law of a seat.

A tanna taught: They said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer:

He imparts impurity through an overlay stone

until his abdomen bursts.

But from that point onward, people will not come to confuse him with a living person.

We learned in the Mishna:

A gentile who died.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi said: Why did they say that a gentile who died

is pure with regard to imparting impurity through bearing?

Because his impurity during his lifetime is not from the Torah, but from rabbinic decree.

The Sages taught: The people of Alexandria asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya twelve questions: three matters of wisdom [halakha],

[halakha],

three matters of foolishness [nonsense],

[stupidity],

and three matters of proper conduct.

The three matters of wisdom

that they asked him were:

a.

A man with a gonorrheal discharge, a woman with a gonorrheal discharge, a woman in the state of nida, a woman after childbirth, and a leper who died—

until when do they impart impurity through bearing?

He said to them—

Until the flesh decomposes!

b.

A banished daughter [a divorced woman who married another man and then returned to her first husband in violation of the prohibition]

[a divorced woman who married another man and returned to her first husband, in prohibition]

what is her status with regard to a kohen?

Do we say by means of a kal va-chomer—

Just as a widow to a High Priest, whose prohibition is not the same for everyone,

as she is forbidden only to a High Priest,

her son is disqualified

from the priesthood,

this woman, whose prohibition is the same for everyone,

whether for priests or for Israelites,

is it not logical that her son [daughter]

is disqualified?

Or perhaps—

what can be said about a widow to a High Priest, that she herself becomes profaned

through the intercourse in which the High Priest has relations with her [as she becomes disqualified from teruma and from marrying other priests after she is widowed from him]; can you say the same concerning a banished woman, who herself does not become profaned, and therefore her daughter is not a ḥalala either!?

He said to them—