Niddah 71a (עא.) — the Talmud in English

He said to them: Let him marry a woman who is suitable for him

and sanctify himself

to engage in marital relations modestly

at the time of marital relations.

They said: Many have done so and it did not help!

Rather, let him pray for mercy from the One to whom the children belong, as it is stated: “Behold, children are an inheritance of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward.” What does this come to teach us —

That one without the other is insufficient.

What is the meaning of “the fruit of the womb is a reward”?

Rabbi Hama, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: As a reward for restraining themselves in the womb

from emitting seed

so that his wife emits seed first —

the Holy One, blessed be He, grants him the reward of the fruit of the womb 103 .

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say

that all women die as niddot.

And we raised a question about it:

What is the reason of Beit Shammai?

If we say it is because it is written: “And the queen was exceedingly terrified,” and Rav said: This teaches that she became a menstruant,

and

here too —

every woman at the time of her death,

because of the terror caused by the Angel of Death, sees

menstrual blood.

But didn’t we learn

the opposite:

That fright causes the blood to recede?

This is not difficult.

Fear,

which is ongoing anxiety,

stops

the blood from coming, and therefore, if a woman was in hiding and the time of her period arrived but she did not examine herself, she is pure.

But

terror,

which is sudden fear, as in this case, with the sudden appearance of the Angel of Death,

loosens

the uterus and therefore causes the blood to emerge.

We raised another question about it:

Rather,

now that you have said that the reason of Beit Shammai is the terror caused by the Angel of Death, if so,

with regard to that which we learned: Beit Shammai say: All men die

— they are

zavim.

According to the explanation concerning women, the same law should apply: all men become zavim because of the terror caused by the Angel of Death.

And Beit Hillel say: A man is a zav only if he dies as a zav.

And one can raise an objection to Beit Shammai:

Is it not stated here

with regard to the law concerning an involuntary emission of a zav, which does not render him impure, that it is stated

“from his flesh” —

but not when it is due to circumstances beyond his control!

Rather, the reason of Beit Shammai is

As it was taught in a beraita: At first, they would immerse vessels on top of

those of

dead niddot

close to their deaths, even though the women had not touched them.

And living niddot were embarrassed

that even in death they were not treated like everyone else.

They instituted that they should immerse vessels on top of

those of

all women, out of consideration for living niddot.

At first, they would immerse vessels on top of dead zavim, and living zavim were embarrassed.

They instituted that they should immerse vessels on top of all men, out of consideration for living zavim 104 .

Mishna:

Mishna:

A woman who died, and a quarter-log of blood emerged from her —

renders impure by the status of a stain.

And she renders impure through tent impurity.

Rabbi Yehuda says: She does not render impure by the status of a stain, because the blood was dislodged after she died.

And Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to a woman sitting on the birthing stool who died, and a quarter-log of blood emerged from her —

that she renders impure by the status of a stain

because the blood emerged from her while she was alive.

Rabbi Yosei said: Therefore, she does not render impure through tent impurity.

Gemara:

And we raised a question about it:

By inference

from the words of Rabbi Yehuda, who declares her pure from the impurity of a stain because the blood was dislodged from her after she died, you learn

that the first tanna holds: Even though the blood was dislodged after she died, she renders impure by the status of a stain!?

But there is no sighting of blood after death!?

Ze'iri said: The source —

whether

its place is impure is the issue between them.

For here we are dealing with a case in which the blood was dislodged while she was alive, but had not yet emerged from the source until after she died.

Their dispute is whether the source has the power to render impure all the blood within it, even when it does not have the status of menstrual blood.

That is, it is an accepted premise, without dispute, that a sighting of blood that renders a woman impure as a niddah depends on an actual sighting, and the entire dispute is whether there is an additional law that the source, its place, is impure.

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Yehuda concedes

with regard to a woman sitting on the birthing stool; and Rabbi Yosei said: Therefore, she does not render impure through the impurity of a tent over the dead.

And we raised a question about it:

By inference, the first tanna

[i.e., Rabbi Yehuda]

holds that she also renders impure through a tent?

But how is this possible? The blood emerged while she was alive!?

Rav Yehuda said: The issue between them is

For it was taught: What is blood of mixture?

the blood of mixture.

As it was taught in a beraita: What is the blood of mixture?

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yehuda, explained: A slain person from whom blood emerged both during his lifetime and after his death, and it is uncertain whether the quarter-log emerged

from him during his lifetime,

or whether the quarter-log emerged after his death,

or

it is uncertain

whether the quarter-log of blood that emerged was divided

between his lifetime and

part of it

after his death —

this is the blood of mixture.

Rabbi Yehuda holds that it must be considered possible that the quarter-log of blood emerged after death, and therefore it also conveys impurity through a tent. Rabbi Yosei, however, holds that since she was sitting on the birthing stool while alive, it is certain to us that the quarter-log of blood emerged while she was alive.

And the Sages say:

This is not the blood of mixture, whose impurity is by rabbinic enactment.

Since there is concern that the quarter-log of blood may have emerged after death, its law is like that of any uncertain impurity. Therefore, if the uncertainty arose

in a private domain —

the uncertain case is impure.

And if it arose

in the public domain —

the uncertain case is pure.

Rather, what is the blood of mixture? —

A slain person from whom a quarter-log of blood emerged during his lifetime and after his death, and it had still not ceased

107 , and it is uncertain whether most of it emerged during his lifetime and a minority after his death, or whether a minority emerged during his lifetime and most after his death —

That is, it is obvious to us that a quarter-log of blood did not come out from him after death, and by Torah law he is not impure. Rather, if it were clear that most of the quarter-log came out during his lifetime, the Sages would not have decreed impurity upon him by their words.

this is the blood of mixture.

That is, it is obvious to us that a quarter-log of blood did not emerge from him after death, and by Torah law he is not impure. However, if it were clear that most of the quarter-log emerged while he was alive, the Sages would not have decreed rabbinic impurity upon it.

Rabbi Yehuda says: A slain person from whom a quarter-log of blood emerged, who was lying on a bed while his blood dripped into a hollow —

is impure, because a drop of blood from death is mixed with it.