Niddah 72b — the Talmud in English

And it was taught:

a pure person

who moves the discharge

that is: the first drop of ziva that the zav saw],

Beit Shammai say: They suspend

the pure objects that the person who moved it touched, lest the zav return and see another sighting today, and thereby become a full-fledged zav retroactively , and it will then become clear retroactively that the first discharge, too, had the status of a ziva that conveys impurity through movement.

And Beit Hillel deem pure

the person who moved it, and consequently the pure objects that he touched. For according to their method, the second sighting does not give the first sighting the status of a discharge retroactively; rather, the first sighting is always like ordinary kerei, which does not convey impurity through movement.

Bedding and seats between the first sighting and the second sighting—

Beit Shammai suspend,

for the same reason: lest the zav see another sighting and his retroactive status become that of a zav who conveys impurity to bedding and seats.

And Beit Hillel deem pure

because through the second sighting he becomes a zav only from that point onward.

And the first clause teaches:

a zav

who sees one sighting of discharge—

Beit Shammai say

that his status is

like “one who observes a day for a day,”

for they suspend the pure objects that she touched on the clean day that she observes: if she does not return and see until evening, the immersion that she immersed in the morning has been effective for her purification from the status of a minor zava. But if she returns and sees on that same day, even after she immersed, she is impure retroactively, for it has now become clear that her immersion was not effective for her purification.

Apparently, “

one who observes a day for a day”—

according to Beit Shammai

does not certainly convey the impurity of bedding and seats, not even by rabbinic enactment, but only

they suspend,

and only if she sees once more does she become impure retroactively. And this is unlike Rav Huna, who holds that according to Beit Shammai, one who observes a day for a day certainly conveys the impurity of bedding and seats, by rabbinic enactment.

And the Gemara answers:

Do not say

that after his first sighting the zav is like a

one who observes a day for a day

who immersed, so that the bedding and seats of this woman are certainly impure by rabbinic enactment, even though she did not see—which is the position of Rav Huna.

Rather, say:

after the first sighting he is

like one who has intercourse with one who observes a day for a day,

for the status of one who has intercourse with one who observes a day for a day, after she immersed, is that his bedding and seats are suspended only; the Sages did not decree upon him the certain impurity of bedding and seats.

And the Gemara explains:

What is different about him,

the one who has intercourse,

that they did not

decree upon him that he should be

one who conveys impurity to bedding and seats?

And what is different about her

that they decreed upon her

that she conveys impurity to him

through his bedding and seats?

He,

the one who has intercourse,

because blood is not common in him—

the Sages did not decree concerning him

where the woman with whom he had intercourse did not return and see on that same day.

She, because blood is common in her—

the Sages decreed concerning her

to convey impurity to bedding and seats, on account of the case where she returned and saw on that same day, so that her purity was nullified retroactively.

And the Gemara asks again: If, in the case of a woman in whom blood is common, we decreed that she should convey impurity—

what is different about bedding and seats, that she conveys impurity to him, and what is different about the one who has intercourse, that she does not convey impurity to him,

for the impurity of the one who has intercourse is an impurity that the woman conveys to him? And it answers:

Bedding and seats, which are common,

for she will sit upon them during her ziva,

she conveys impurity to him; the one who has intercourse, which is uncommon,

that he will have intercourse with her during her ziva,

she does not convey impurity

that is: the Sages did not need to decree concerning something uncommon].

And furthermore, we raise an objection from that which

we learned:

One who observes a day for a day, who

immersed on the day after it and had intercourse, this is bad conduct! Her touch and his intercourse are suspended!

For perhaps she will return and see, and it will be found that his intercourse was forbidden and they are liable for an offering, and his touch was the touch of an impure person, with the impurity of a zava and one who has intercourse with her.

Is it not

this Mishna—

the words of everyone?

And it follows that according to Beit Shammai as well, their touch is suspended and not certainly impure, unlike what Rav Huna said according to Beit Shammai!?

And we answer:

No!

The Mishna is only according to

Beit Hillel,

for according to Beit Shammai they are certainly impure.

And there is proof for this from that which

it was taught: Rabbi Judah said to Beit Hillel —

And is it only this woman,

the woman with whom he had intercourse on the day after her sighting, after she immersed,

whom you call “bad conduct”

alone?

Was he not intending only to have intercourse with a menstruant woman!

And the Gemara wonders:

Could it enter your mind to say “menstruant woman”?

But it is dealing with the days of ziva!

And it answers:

Rather, say—

to have intercourse with a zava!

And the Gemara again wonders:

Could it enter your mind to say “zava”?

But she immersed for her ziva.

And it answers:

Rather, say—

to have intercourse with one who observes a day for a day!

In any event, it is proven that the latter clause of the Mishna, concerning one who has intercourse on the following day, is according to Beit Hillel, whereas according to Beit Shammai she is certainly impure by rabbinic enactment.

It was stated:

One who sees blood at the conclusion of the days of ziva, on the

tenth day—

Rabbi Yohanan said:

One who sees on the

tenth day is

like

one

who sees on the

ninth day—

just as the ninth requires observance, so the tenth requires observance

on the eleventh day.

Resh Lakish said: The

tenth

day is

like the eleventh—

just as the eleventh does not require observance,

for it can never join with the day following it to make her a zava, because on the following day the days of niddah begin,

so the tenth does not require observance,

for only the eleventh can join with it for ziva, and through seeing on two days alone she does not become a major zava.

There are those who teach it

as the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish over whether the tenth day requires observance or does not,

with regard to this

that we learned in tractate Menahot—

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to Rabbi Akiva: Even if you multiply

in the study of verses that are stated concerning the laws of the meal-offering,

“with oil,” “with oil,” throughout the entire day,

to derive from them through a derivation of multiplication after multiplication , that the loaves and wafers of the thanksgiving-offering have the status of requiring only half a log of oil—

I do not accept from you

to derive this law from Scripture.

Since the law of

half a log of oil for the thanksgiving-offering, and a quarter-log of wine

for the nazirite, and

the law of

the eleven days between one menstruation and another—

are a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai

and are not learned from Scripture!

And the Gemara explains:

What is the “halakha”

that was stated with regard to the eleven days between one menstruation and another? [For it appears to the Gemara that the intention is that the eleventh day differs from the days preceding it in its laws , and the Gemara asks in what way it differs].

Rabbi Yohanan said: one halakha

in the law of the day

of eleven.

For in one matter the eleventh day differs from the other days.

Resh Lakish says: the laws of the eleventh.

For in two matters it differs from the other days.

And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yohanan said, “the halakha of eleven”—

that is: the

eleventh day does not require observance

after it, on the twelfth day,

but

for the

other

days, if she saw on the day preceding it, it

itself performs

the function of

observance,

that is, it must be guarded in purity; from this it follows that Rabbi Yohanan held that the tenth day requires observance and makes the eleventh day its day of observance.

And Resh Lakish said, “the laws of the eleventh,”

for in two laws it differs from those preceding it:

a.

The eleventh does not require observance

when she saw on it—that is, she does not need to observe the twelfth day after it.

b.

Nor does it become observance for the tenth

day, when she saw on the tenth, because the tenth does not require observance according to Resh Lakish.

And

the Gemara asks: Is it so that

these

eleven days, which are the days of ziva , are

“laws

transmitted to Moses at Sinai

”?

But

these are verses;

this matter is learned from the verses!

For it was taught:

Could it be that one who sees

blood on

three days at the beginning

of the days of

niddah, when they are

consecutive—

shall be a zava

,

and she will need to count seven clean days and bring an offering.

And what do I establish

the first section stated concerning niddah:

“When a woman becomes a zava,

her discharge shall be blood,”

that she does not need to count seven clean days and is not obligated to bring an offering—

when she sees one day

alone. But if she sees for three days during her days of niddah, her law is the law of a zava, who is obligated to count seven clean days and bring an offering.