Niddah 71a — the Talmud in English

He said to them: Let him marry a woman suitable for him ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

and sanctify himself

to engage in intercourse modestly

at the time of intercourse.

They said: Many acted in this manner and did not benefit!

Rather: Let him request mercy from Him to Whom the children belong, as it is stated: “Behold, an inheritance of the Lord is children; a reward, the fruit of the womb.” What does it teach us? —

For this without that does not suffice.

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

Rabbi Hama son of Rabbi Hanina said: As a reward for holding themselves back in the womb

from emitting seed

so that his wife emits seed first —

the Holy One, blessed is He, gives him the reward of the fruit of the womb 103.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say

all women die as niddot.

And we raised the matter:

What is the reason of Beit Shammai?

If you say it is because it is written, “And the queen was violently shaken,” and Rav said: This teaches that she saw menstrual blood,

and here too —

every woman at the time of her death, on account of the terror of the Angel of Death, sees

menstrual blood.

But we learned in the Mishna

the opposite:

That fear removes the blood!

This is not difficult.

Fear,

which is continuing anxiety,

congeals

the blood from coming, and therefore, if she was in hiding and the time of her menstrual cycle arrived and 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 womb and therefore causes the blood to emerge.

And further we raised the matter:

Rather,

from now, since you said that the reason of Beit Shammai is because of the terror of the Angel of Death, if so,

that which we learned: Beit Shammai say: All men die

— they are

zavim.

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

And Beit Hillel say: There is no zav except one who dies a zav.

And one may raise an objection to Beit Shammai:

Is it not read here

for Beit Shammai the law stated concerning an involuntary emission seen by a zav, which does not impart impurity? For it is stated,

“From his flesh” —

but not because of his involuntary circumstance!

Rather, the reason of Beit Shammai

is as it was taught in a beraita: At first, they would immerse vessels on account of

the [vessels] of

dead niddot

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

And living niddot would be ashamed

because even in their death they were not treated like all other people.

They instituted that they should immerse on account of

the [vessels] of

all women, because of the honor of living niddot.

At first, they would immerse on account of dead zavim, and living zavim would be ashamed.

They instituted that they should immerse on account of all men, because of the honor of living zavim 104.

Mishna:

A woman who died and a quarter-log of blood came out of her —

imparts impurity on account of a stain.

And imparts impurity through a tent.

Rabbi Judah says: She does not impart impurity on account of a stain, because it was uprooted after she died.

And Rabbi Judah concedes concerning one who was sitting on the birthing-stool and died, and a quarter-log of blood came out of her —

that she imparts impurity on account of a stain

because the blood came out of her during her lifetime.

Rabbi Yosei said: Therefore, she does not impart impurity through a tent.

Gemara:

And we raised the matter:

By implication

from Rabbi Judah’s words, that he declares her pure from the impurity of a stain because the blood was uprooted from her after she died, you learn

that the first tanna holds: Even though the blood was uprooted after she died, she imparts impurity on account of a stain!?

But there is no seeing of blood after death!?

Zeiri said: The source —

whether

its location is impure is what they disagree about.

For here we are dealing with a case in which the blood was uprooted during her lifetime, but it had not yet come out of the source until she died.

And their disagreement is whether the source has the power to impart impurity to every blood within it, even when it does not have the status of menstrual blood .

[That is, it is an explicit assumption without dispute that a seeing of blood which imparts impurity on account of niddah depends upon the seeing, and the entire dispute is whether there is an additional law that the source, its location, is impure].

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Judah concedes

concerning one who is sitting on the birthing-stool; and Rabbi Yosei said: Therefore, she does not impart impurity through the tent of the dead.

And we raised the matter:

By implication, the first tanna

[that is, Rabbi Judah]

holds that she also imparts impurity through a tent?

But how is this possible, since the blood came out during her lifetime!?

Rav Judah said: Blood of mixture

is what they disagree about.

For it was taught: What is blood of mixture?

that is the difference between them.

Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Judah explained: A slain person from whom blood came out both during his life and after his death, and it is uncertain whether the quarter-log of blood came out

from him during his lifetime,

or whether the quarter-log of blood came out

after his death; or

it is uncertain

whether the quarter-log of blood that came out was partly

during his lifetime and

partly

after his death —

this is blood of mixture.

Rabbi Judah holds that one must be uncertain lest the quarter-log of blood came out after death, and therefore it also imparts impurity through a tent, whereas Rabbi Yosei holds that since she was sitting on the birthing-stool while alive, it is certain to us that the quarter-log of blood came out during her lifetime.

And the Sages say:

This is not blood of mixture, whose impurity is rabbinic.

Since there is concern lest the quarter-log of blood came out after death, its law is like that of uncertain impurity. Therefore, if the uncertainty was

in a private domain —

its uncertainty is impure.

And if

in the public domain —

its uncertainty is pure.

Rather, what is blood of mixture? —

A slain person from whom a quarter-log of blood came out during his life and after his death, and it had still not ceased 107,

it being uncertain whether most of it came out during his life and a minority after his death, or whether a minority came out during his life and most after his death —

this is blood of mixture.

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 blood of uncertain origin.

Rabbi Judah says: A slain person from whom a quarter-log of blood came out, and he was lying on a bed and his blood was dripping into a hollow —

he is impure, because a drop of death is mixed within it.

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