Niddah 72a — the Talmud in English

And Beit Hillel say:

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

are exempt

they

from the offering [

except that the Sages decreed ritual impurity upon the husband and the wife if she immersed at the conclusion of the eleventh day, on account of one who sees within the eleven days, who must observe one day corresponding to one day of seeing].

And if

she immersed on the following day [

that is, on the morning of the twelfth day]

and had intercourse with her husband, and afterward

she saw

blood on that same day [

and this blood is menstrual blood, for she sees it on the twelfth day, which is the beginning of the days of menstruation]—

Beit Shammai say: They render impure,

the woman and the husband who had intercourse

the lying-place and the sitting-place,

by rabbinic law alone, for she performed “partial observance” during the day and immersed afterward, and the immersion was effective for her by Torah law, and therefore

they are exempt from the offering [

and although one who observes one day corresponding to one day, who immersed and had intercourse and afterward saw on that same day, is liable for an offering, here is different, because the seeing after intercourse is a seeing of menstruation, which does not join with the seeing of flux and does not render her impure retroactively].

And Beit Hillel say:

anyone who has intercourse on the twelfth day after seeing on the eleventh day

is a glutton,

which is a description of a person who hastens to sin. And this is the meaning: one must refrain from having intercourse with her on the twelfth day, so that he will not become accustomed to this even when she sees within the eleven days; but they did not decree rabbinic impurity upon them.

And they concede

Beit Hillel to Beit Shammai

with regard to one who sees within the eleven days, immerses in the evening, and has intercourse, that they render the lying-place and the sitting-place impure, and they are liable for an offering

even if she did not see at all on the day of observance, for as long as she did not observe part of the day, the time of 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 part of the observance on that day, and immersed and had intercourse,

this is bad conduct!

Perhaps she will see later during the day, and it will follow that her immersion was not effective at all, because seeing later during the day nullifies the purity of the immersion that preceded it!

And their contact and their immersion remain pending

they are doubtful to us throughout the entire day after the immersion: if she sees, their contact is impure and they are liable for an offering; and if she does not see, 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 one who immerses at night for a minor flux-woman

who saw blood for one day within the eleven days of flux and immersed immediately at night, without observing even the night following the seeing

that it is not an immersion!

And the tanna explains his words: that is—

And they agree

Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai

with regard to one who sees within the eleven days, immerses in the evening, and has intercourse—

that she renders the lying-place and the sitting-place impure and they are liable

she and the one who had intercourse with her

for an offering, [

for this is the law of a minor flux-woman, who must observe at least until part of the following day in order to be able to purify herself through immersion].

They disputed

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—

they render the lying-place and the sitting-place impure and are liable for an offering

like the law of a minor flux-woman,

and Beit Hillel exempt from an offering

since the twelfth day is already among the days of menstruation, there is no law of observance on it.

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

which does not require observance

from a day within the eleven days

which requires observing one day corresponding to one day?

But

if it is equal to it

the night at the conclusion of the eleventh day to a day within the eleven days

with regard to impurity [

for Beit Hillel agree that if she immersed at the conclusion of the eleventh day at night, she renders the lying-place and the sitting-place impure]—

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

And why do Beit Hillel exempt from an offering one who immerses at the conclusion of the eleventh day at night?!

Beit Hillel said to them, to Beit Shammai: No! If you said this with regard to a day within the eleven days, since the following day joins with it for flux.

Therefore she must observe the following day, in order to know that this day does not join with the preceding day to constitute flux.

Can you say this with regard to the eleventh day, when there is no following day that joins with it for flux!

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

Beit Shammai said to them

to Beit Hillel—

Make your measures equal!

If you made it equal to it

the eleventh day to a day within the eleven days

with regard to impurity—

make it equal to it with regard to an offering.

And if you did not make it equal to it with regard to an offering—

should you not make it equal to it with regard to impurity!?

Beit Hillel said to them:

Even

if we brought it

the night at the conclusion of the eleventh day

to a state of impurity, to be stringent

with it by rabbinic law, as a preventive decree on account of a day within the eleven days,

but

we will not bring it to an offering—

to be lenient

and bring unconsecrated things into the Temple courtyard!

Furthermore, you are bitten by your own words [

objections]!

For you say—

she immersed on the following day

on the morning of the twelfth day

and had intercourse, and afterward saw; she renders the lying-place and the sitting-place impure

but—

and is exempt from an offering!

You too—

make your measures equal:

If you made it equal to it

the twelfth day to a day within the eleven days

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

And if you did not make it equal to it with regard to an offering, you should not make it equal to it with regard to impurity!?

Rather,

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

to be stringent

they said it,

and not to be lenient

and bring unconsecrated things into the Temple courtyard;

so too here

on the night of the twelfth day, that which we said, that she renders the lying-place and the sitting-place impure, according to our words is only

to be stringent

and by rabbinic law,

and not to be lenient

and bring unconsecrated things into the Temple courtyard!

Rav Huna said:

A woman who saw blood within the eleven days of flux [and must observe one day corresponding to one day on the day following the day of the seeing], who observed part of the following day and immersed on it,

her lying-place and her sitting-place on the second day [

that is—the second day following the seeing, part of which she observed]—

Beit Shammai render impure

them by rabbinic law,

even though she immersed

and she is pure by Torah law,

and even though she did not see

later during the day!

What is the reason

of Beit Shammai?

Since if she were to see

later during the day,

she would render impure

by Torah law [for the purity following her immersion would be revoked retroactively],

now too she renders impure

by rabbinic law, as a preventive decree on account of the case in which she sees afterward.

Rav Yosef said: What does this teach us

Rav Huna? But

we learned

it in our Mishna: “

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

immerses on the following day, has intercourse with her husband, and afterward sees—

Beit Shammai say that she renders lying-places and sitting-places impure

by rabbinic law

and is exempt from an offering.”

And the reason that she renders the lying-place and the sitting-place impure by rabbinic law is that they decreed upon her on account of one who sees within the eleven days, at which time she is impure by Torah law. And likewise, it is reasonable that they decreed that one who sees within the eleven days, on her second day after her immersion, renders the lying-place and the sitting-place impure even if she did not see, for they decreed “she did not see” on account of “she saw,” at which time she renders impure by Torah law.

Rav Kahana said:

There is no indication in our Mishna for the law of Rav Huna, because

seeing is different!

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

Rav Yosef said: And if she saw

during the day on the twelfth day

what of it—

it is a menstrual seeing,

and there is no reason to decree flux impurity because of it; and that which Beit Shammai decreed is only on account of one who observes one day corresponding to one day within the eleven days, and according to them, one must also decree concerning one who immerses on the following day and did not see, on account of one who immerses and sees afterward.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Rav Kahana

who objected to your claim that the law of Rav Huna was already taught in our Mishna

was troubled by this—

how can one derive from the decree in our Mishna the decree of Rav Huna:

Granted, where she saw

on the twelfth day after she immersed and had intercourse,

we decree

upon

a menstrual seeing

that it render the lying-place and the sitting-place impure like a flux-woman

on account of a flux seeing

within the eleven days, for there is concern that a menstrual seeing will be confused with a flux seeing, and therefore there is room for the decree of Beit Shammai.

But

the law of Rav Huna concerns one who observes one day corresponding to one day [within the eleven days] and immerses, for it deals with

a case where she did not see

later during the day;

what can be decreed concerning her,

from where do we learn from our Mishna that we decree concerning one who does not see on account of one who sees—for is there any reason that they would come to confuse the two cases!?

And the Gemara adds another objection:

And furthermore,

but

we learned

in our Mishna not in accordance with Rav Huna?

For we learned: A flux-man

who sees one seeing of flux,

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

Beit Shammai say:

His law is

like that of one who observes one day corresponding to one day

after immersing during the day, whose contact remains pending, whether he will see later during the day or not, for if he sees, his contact becomes impure retroactively. So too, a flux-man who immersed after the first seeing of flux has contact that remains pending—for if he sees an additional seeing, his contact becomes impure retroactively by the law of a flux-man! [ And the practical difference is whether he becomes impure by the law of a flux-man or by the law of one who experienced a seminal emission, with regard to the second tithe. For one who experienced a seminal emission who immersed does not render the second tithe impure even if he has not yet waited for sunset, whereas a flux-man who immersed renders the second tithe impure on that same day].

And Beit Hillel say:

His law is

like that of one who experienced a seminal emission,

for even if he sees an additional seeing, he becomes a flux-man only from that point onward, while retroactively his law remains that of one who experienced a seminal emission and immersed, so that if he touched the second tithe, it is pure.