Niddah 69b — the Talmud in English

And eight for ziva,

for she immerses after seven days beginning from the day of her arrival, lest on that very day the seven days of cleanliness were completed; and likewise she immerses on the eighth day, lest she also saw on the day of her arrival a sight of major ziva, and it is found that the counting of the seven clean days began only on the following day.

But,

if she came to us at night—

We give her eight for nida,

for 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 as well she must immerse, lest she saw on the night of her arrival, and it is found that her seven days of nida ended only on the eighth night.

And eight for ziva,

for each morning throughout seven days she immerses, because it is possible that the seven clean days were completed on that day.

And the Gemara wonders: Immersions for

ziva—

eight

eight immersions

are required and not seven! For if she saw at night, there is concern that before her arrival, on that night, she saw a sight of major ziva, and it is found that her days of cleanliness ended only on the eighth day, and she requires an additional immersion also on the eighth day?!

?

Rather—

in both cases,

whether she came by day or whether she came at night—

return to nida and give eight for ziva!

And the Gemara again wonders: But if she came

at night—

eight for nida is required!?

And it answers: Yes, indeed; if she came at night, she immerses eight immersions, on eight nights, for her nida. Rather, the fact that the beraita counted eight for ziva and did not count eight for nida is because

ziva is definite for him,

for in every situation she immerses eight immersions,

for it makes no difference whether she came to us by day or whether she came to us by night,

her immersions are eight in number. Therefore

he counts it,

the eighth immersion.

But the eighth immersion of

nida, which is not definite for him, for

only

when she came to us at night is eight required,

but when she came to us

by day, eight are not required—

he does not count it.

And the Gemara returns to explain the proof that according to the Rabbis we do not require counted and examined days:

And if it enters your mind

that the seven clean days

must be counted before us by examination,

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Akiva,

all these immersions

for ziva in the morning—

why do I need them?

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

let her count

from now

seven

clean days,

and then immerse

for her ziva with only one immersion—?!

Rather, is it not so? Learn from it

that the tannai of the beraita

is the Rabbis, who say: We do not require counted before us.

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

But

are we not offering interpretations for it,

for this beraita of the woman who is mistaken? And if so,

interpret

also

and say thus—

I counted

clean days

but I do not know how many

days

I counted.

And likewise, I do not know whether

I counted during the days of nida

the clean days,

or

or

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

for each day during a week she must immerse in the morning, lest the seven clean days ended now, since she did examine and count clean days, except that she does not know when and how many; and likewise she must immerse every night, lest on this night her days of nida ended.

And in this manner the beraita speaks even according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that we require counted before us—?!

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

one day, at least, is impossible that she did not count,

for she informs us that she did indeed count; and according to this, the day of her arrival is certain to us to have been counted and examined, and if so,

one immersion is lacking for her,

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

Rather,

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

say

thus—

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

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

Mishna:

a.

The man with a flux, the woman with a flux, the menstruating woman, the woman after childbirth, and the leper, who died—

impart impurity through carrying.

According to what is explained in the Gemara, the wording of the Mishna must be corrected, and one should say: They impart impurity through an “even mesama,” which is a heavy stone placed upon vessels, while the dead man, or the woman with a flux, or the menstruating woman, is lying upon the stone that is above the vessels.

And the intent of the Mishna is to teach us that if the man with a flux and the woman with a flux, when dead, were placed upon this stone, beneath which there were vessels, then—

despite the fact that the vessels do not become impure with the impurity of carrying of the dead [since the stone is not fit to be moved together with the dead person, because of the heaviness of the stone].

And likewise they do not become impure by the law of lying-place and seat, for the man with a flux and the woman with a flux do not impart impurity of lying-place and seat in their deaths.

Nevertheless, the Sages decreed upon the vessels beneath the even mesama that they become impure with “impurity of seat” by rabbinic decree.

And the reason for the matter is so that people would not come to err and declare them pure even when the man with a flux and the woman with a flux sat upon the even mesama during their lifetimes, while they were fainted, and people thought that they were dead. During their lifetimes, by sitting upon the “even mesama,” they impart impurity to the vessels beneath the stone by the law of the seat of the man with a flux; even if there were several objects one upon another and the man with a flux sat upon the upper surface, all the surfaces below become impure.

Until the flesh of the man with a flux or of the woman with a flux who died decomposes,

at which point there is no longer reason for concern that they were fainted.

b.

A gentile who died—

is pure from imparting impurity

of ziva [for the Sages decreed upon all gentiles the impurity of ziva during their lifetimes, and even to impart impurity through an even mesama. Since all their impurity is only rabbinic, they were lenient with them so that they would not impart impurity in their deaths through the impurity of even mesama].

c.

Beit Shammai say: All women who die

have the status of

menstruating women.

For the Sages decreed even concerning women who died while pure, that one should treat them as though they had been menstruating women before their deaths, and immerse the vessels that were upon them close to the departure of the soul, because of the honor of menstruating women. And as will be explained in the Gemara.

And Beit Hillel say: There is no menstruating woman—

except one who died

while she was

a menstruating woman!

For the Sages did not decree that vessels which were upon pure women before their deaths must be immersed.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The man with a flux and the woman with a flux who died impart impurity through carrying.

And we raise an objection to it:

What

did the tannai teach us by saying that they impart impurity in their deaths

through carrying,

for what difference is there between this and another dead person, who imparts impurity through carrying?!

If you say, through actual carrying—

does every dead person not impart impurity through carrying? Rather, what is “through carrying”?—

Through an even mesama.

And we explain what the source is for the expression even mesama:

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

And we raise an objection to it:

What is the reason

that they decreed concerning an even mesama?

Rav said: A decree lest he faint.

Perhaps the man with a flux will faint upon that heavy stone while alive, and they will think that he is dead. And if you say that a dead man with a flux does not impart impurity through an even mesama, they will declare him pure, and they will also come to declare him pure when he sits upon an even mesama while alive, whereas then he imparts impurity by the impurity of seat.

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

He imparts impurity through an even mesama

until his belly bursts.

But from that point onward, they 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: For what reason did they say that a gentile who died—

is pure from imparting impurity through carrying?

Because his impurity during his lifetime is not from the words of Torah, but from the words of the Sages.

The Sages taught: The people of Alexandria asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥanania twelve things: three matters of wisdom

[halakha],

three matters of foolishness

[stupidity],

and three matters of proper conduct.

The three matters of wisdom

that they asked him were:

a.

The man with a flux, the woman with a flux, the menstruating woman, the woman after childbirth, and the leper who died—

until when do they impart impurity through carrying?

He said to them—

Until the flesh decomposes!

b.

A banished daughter

[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 a kal va-chomer—

Just as a widow to a High Priest, whose prohibition is not equal for all,

for she is forbidden only to a High Priest,

her son is blemished

with regard to priesthood,

this one, whose prohibition is equal for all,

both for priests and for Israelites,

is it not certainly the case that her son

[her daughter]

is blemished?

Or perhaps—

What can be said about a widow to a High Priest, who herself becomes profaned

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

He said to them—