Niddah 72a (עב.) — the Talmud in English

And Beit Hillel say:

the sighting on the eleventh day does not require guarding by Torah law, and her immersion in the evening is valid; therefore they

are exempt

they

from the offering [

except that the Sages decreed ritual impurity upon the husband and wife if she immersed on the night following the eleventh day, due to a woman who sees blood during the eleven days and must guard one day corresponding to one day].

And if

she immersed on the following day [

that is, on the morning of the twelfth day]

and engaged in relations with her husband, and afterward

she

saw blood on that same day [

and this blood is menstrual blood, since she saw it on the twelfth day, which is the beginning of her menstrual days]—

Beit Shammai say: They render impure,

the woman and the husband who engaged in relations

a couch and a seat,

by rabbinic law alone, since she performed “partial guarding” during the day and then immersed, and her immersion was effective by Torah law; therefore they

are exempt from the offering [

and although a woman who guards one day corresponding to one day, immersed, engaged in relations, and afterward saw blood on that same day is liable to bring an offering, here it is different, because the sighting after the relations is a menstrual sighting, which does not combine with the sighting of gonorrhea and does not render her impure retroactively].

And Beit Hillel say:

Anyone who engages in relations on the twelfth day after a sighting on the eleventh day

is a glutton,

which is a description of a person who hastens to sin. That is: one must refrain from engaging in relations with her on the twelfth day, so that he will not become accustomed to doing so even when she sees blood during the eleven days; but the Sages did not decree ritual impurity upon them.

And they concede

Beit Hillel to Beit Shammai

with regard to a woman who sees blood during the eleven days, immerses in the evening, and engages in relations, that they render a couch and a seat impure and are liable to bring an offering

even if she did not see blood at all on the day of guarding, because as long as she did not guard part of the day, the time for her immersion had not arrived, and it follows that she immersed before the time of her purification .

And if

she immersed on the following day,

having performed partial guarding on that day, and immersed and engaged in relations,

this is an evil practice!

Perhaps she will see blood later that day, in which case her immersion was entirely ineffective, because a sighting later in the day invalidates the purity achieved by the earlier immersion!

And their contact and their immersion remain contingent

They are uncertain to us throughout the entire day following the immersion: if she sees blood, their contact is impure and they are liable to bring an offering; and if she does not see blood, their contact is pure and they are exempt from an offering.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: And they agree

Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai

with regard to a woman who immerses at night as a zavah

a minor [who saw blood on one day during the eleven days of gonorrhea and immersed immediately at night, without guarding even the night following the sighting]

that it is not an immersion!

And the tanna explains his statement: That is—

And they agree

Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai

with regard to one who sees blood during the eleven days, immerses in the evening, and engages in relations—

that she renders a couch and a seat impure and they are liable

she and her partner

to bring an offering, [

as this is the law of a minor zavah, who must guard at least until part of the following day in order to become pure through immersion].

They disagree

Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai

only

with regard to one who sees blood

on the eleventh day,

and immerses in the evening,

as Beit Shammai say—

she renders a couch and a seat impure and they are liable to bring an offering

like a minor zavah,

and Beit Hillel exempt her from an offering

since the twelfth day is already among her menstrual days and there is no law of guarding on it.

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: What is different about the eleventh day

which does not require guarding

from a day within the eleven days

which requires guarding one day corresponding to one day?

But

if it is equivalent to it

the night following the eleventh day to a night within the eleven days

with regard to impurity [

as Beit Hillel agree that if she immersed on the night following the eleventh day, she renders a couch and a seat impure]—

should it not be equivalent to it with regard to an offering?

And why do Beit Hillel exempt from an offering a woman who immerses on the night following the eleventh day?!

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: No! When you say this with regard to a day within the eleven days, it is because the following day joins it to establish zavah status.

Therefore she must guard the following day, in order to establish that this day does not join the preceding day to establish zavah status.

Can you say this with regard to the eleventh day, when there is no following day that can join it to establish zavah status!

And therefore there is no reason to guard it, and she may immerse immediately on the night following the eleventh day.

Beit Shammai said to them

to Beit Hillel—

Make your measures consistent!

If you have made it equivalent to it

the eleventh day to a day within the eleven days

with regard to impurity—

make it equivalent to it with regard to an offering.

And if you have not made it equivalent to it with regard to an offering—

do not make it equivalent to it with regard to impurity!?

Beit Hillel said to them:

Even

if we have brought it

the night following the eleventh day

to the status of impurity, as a stringency

upon it by rabbinic decree, as a preventive measure due to a case within the eleven days,

but

we will not bring it to the status of an offering—

as a leniency

to bring non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard!

Furthermore, you are undermining your own argument [

you are presenting a difficulty against yourselves]!

For you say—

if she immersed on the following day

in the morning of the twelfth day

and engaged in relations, and afterward saw blood, she renders a couch and a seat impure

but—

she is exempt from an offering!

You too—

make your measures consistent:

If you have made it equivalent to it

the twelfth day to a day within the eleven days

with regard to impurity, make it equivalent to it with regard to an offering.

And if you have not made it equivalent to it with regard to an offering, do not make it equivalent to it with regard to impurity!?

Rather,

what you said—that she renders objects impure on the morning of the twelfth day—is only rabbinic, and

as a stringency

they said it,

and not as a leniency

to bring non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard;

here too

on the night of the twelfth day, what we said—that she renders a couch and a seat impure—is, according to our words, only

as a stringency

and by rabbinic law,

and not as a leniency

to bring non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard!

Rav Huna said:

A woman who saw blood during the eleven days

her couch and seat on the second day [

that is, the second day after the sighting, part of which she guarded]—

Beit Shammai render them impure

by rabbinic law,

even though she immersed

and she is pure by Torah law,

and even though she did not see blood

later that day!

What is the reason

for Beit Shammai?

Since if she were to see

later that day, she

would render impure

by Torah law [

as the purity following her immersion would be revoked retroactively]

now too she renders impure by rabbinic law, as a preventive measure due to the case in which she sees afterward.

Rav Yosef said: What does this teach us

Rav Huna? But

we already learned

it in our Mishna: “

A woman who sees blood on the eleventh day of her zavah days and

immerses on the following day, engages in relations with her husband, and afterward sees blood—

Beit Shammai say that she renders couches and seats impure

by rabbinic law

and is exempt from an offering.”

And the reason that she renders a couch and a seat impure by rabbinic law is that they decreed this concerning her due to a woman who sees blood within the eleven days, in which case she is impure by Torah law. Likewise, it is reasonable that they decreed that one who sees blood within the eleven days renders a couch and a seat impure on her second day after immersion even if she did not see blood, as they decreed “if she did not see” due to “if she saw,” in which case she would render them impure by Torah law.

Rav Kahana said:

Our Mishna does not teach the ruling of Rav Huna, because

a case in which she saw is different!

It was specifically in our Mishna, where she saw blood after her immersion, that the Sages needed to decree and render her impure!

Rav Yosef said: And if she saw

later that day, on the twelfth day,

what of it?—

It is a menstrual sighting

and there is no basis for decreeing zavah impurity because of it. The decree of Beit Shammai applies only due to a woman who guards one day corresponding to one day within the eleven days; accordingly, they should also decree concerning one who immerses on the following day but did not see blood, due to one who immerses and subsequently sees blood.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Rav Kahana

who challenged your claim that Rav Huna’s ruling had already been taught in our Mishna

was troubled by this—

how can one derive Rav Huna’s decree from the decree in our Mishna?

Granted, where she saw

on the twelfth day after she immersed and engaged in relations,

we decree

upon a

menstrual sighting

that it should render a couch and a seat impure like a zavah,

due to a zavah sighting

during the eleven days, because there is concern that a menstrual sighting will be confused with a zavah sighting, and therefore there is a basis for the decree of Beit Shammai.

But

Rav Huna’s ruling concerns a woman who guards one day corresponding to one day [within the eleven days] and immerses, namely,

where she did not see blood

later that day.

What can be decreed concerning her?

How can we derive from our Mishna that we decree concerning one who does not see due to one who sees? After all, there is no reason that they will confuse the two cases!?

The Gemara adds another difficulty:

And furthermore,

but

we learned

in our Mishna a ruling contrary to Rav Huna?

As we learned: A zav

who sees one sighting of gonorrheal fluid,

for as long as he has not seen an additional sighting, is merely like one who experienced a seminal emission.

Beit Shammai say:

His status

is like that of a woman who guards one day corresponding to one day

after immersing during the day, whose contact remains contingent upon whether or not she will see blood later that day, for if she sees, her contact becomes impure retroactively. Likewise, a zav who immersed after his first sighting of gonorrheal fluid has contact that remains contingent: if he sees an additional sighting, his contact becomes impure retroactively by virtue of his status as a zav! [ And the practical difference is whether he becomes impure by virtue of his status as a zav or by virtue of his status as one who experienced a seminal emission, with regard to tithe. One who experienced a seminal emission who immersed does not render tithe impure even if he has not yet waited for sunset, whereas a zav who immersed renders tithe impure on that same day].

And Beit Hillel say:

His status

is like that of one who experienced a seminal emission,

for even if he sees an additional sighting, he becomes a zav only from that point onward, whereas retroactively he retains the status of one who experienced a seminal emission and immersed, so that if he touched tithe, it is pure.