BUT BETH HILLEL1 RULED: THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SACRIFICE.2 IF SHE PERFORMED IMMERSION ON THE NEXT DAY3 AND THEN HAD MARITAL INTERCOURSE AND AFTER THAT OBSERVED A DISCHARGE, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: THEY4 CONVEY UNCLEANNESS5 TO COUCH AND SEAT6 AND ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SACRIFICE,7 BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: SUCH A PERSON8 IS A GLUTTON,9 THEY10 AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT, WHERE A WOMAN OBSERVED A DISCHARGE DURING THE ELEVEN DAYS11 AND PERFORMED IMMERSION IN THE EVENING AND THEN HAD INTERCOURSE, BOTH12 CONVEY UNCLEANNESS TO COUCH AND SEAT13 AND ARE LIABLE TO A SACRIFICE.14 IF SHE PERFORMED IMMERSION ON THE NEXT DAY15 AND THEN HAD INTERCOURSE, SUCH AN ACT IS IMPROPER16 CONDUCT,17 BUT THE UNCLEANNESS OF THEIR TOUCH AND THEIR LIABILITY TO A SACRIFICE ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR INTERCOURSE ARE IN SUSPENSE.18
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And both19 agree20 that if a woman performs immersion at night after a zibah21 the immersion is invalid, for both agree that if a woman who observed a discharge during the eleven days21 and performed immersion in the evening and then had intercourse she conveys uncleanness to couch and seat and both are liable to a sacrifice. They19 only differ where a discharge occurred on the eleventh day in which case Beth Shammai ruled: They22 convey uncleanness to couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice, and Beth Hillel exempt them from the sacrifice. Said Beth Shammai to Beth Hillel: Why should in this respect the eleventh day differ from one of the intermediate of the eleven days; seeing that the former is like the latter in regard to uncleanness, why should it not also be like it in regard to the sacrifice? Beth Hillel answered Beth Shammai: No; if you ruled that a sacrifice is due after a discharge in the intermediate of the eleven days because the following day23 combines with it in regard to zibah, would you also maintain the same ruling in regard to the eleventh day which24 is not followed by one that we could combine with it in regard to zibah? Said Beth Shammai to them: You must be consistent;25 if the one is like the other in regard to uncleanness it should also be like it in regard to the sacrifice, and if it is not like it in regard to the sacrifice it should not be like it in regard to uncleanness either. Said Beth Hillel to them: If we impose upon a man26 uncleanness in order to restrict the law27 we cannot on that ground impose upon him the obligation of a sacrifice which might28 lead to a relaxation of the law.29 And, furthermore, you stand refuted30 Out of your own rulings. For, since you rule that if she performed immersion on the next day and having had intercourse she observed a discharge, uncleanness is conveyed to couch and seat and she is exempt from a sacrifice, you also must be consistent.31 If the one is like the other in regard to uncleanness it should also be like it in regard to the sacrifice and if it is not like it in regard to the sacrifice it should not be like it in regard to uncleanness either. The fact, however, is that they are like one another only where the law is thereby restricted but not where it would thereby be relaxed; well, here also, they are like one another where the law is thereby restricted but not where it is thereby relaxed.
R. Huna stated: Couches and seats32 which she occupies on the second day33 are held to be unclean34 by Beth Shammai even though she performed immersion35 and even though she observed no discharge.35 What is the reason? — Because if she had observed a discharge she would have been unclean,36 she is therefore now37 also unclean.34 Said R. Joseph: What new law does he38 teach us,39 seeing that we have learnt, IF SHE PERFORMED IMMERSION ON THE NEXT DAY40 AND THEN HAD MARITAL INTERCOURSE AND AFTER THAT OBSERVED A DISCHARGE, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: THEY41 CONVEY UNCLEANNESS TO COUCH AND SEAT42 AND ARE41 EXEMPT FROM THE SACRIFICE?43 R. Kahana objected:44 Where she observed a discharge45 the case is different.46 Said R. Joseph: But what matters it that she observed a discharge47 seeing that it is one of menstruation?48 — Abaye answered R. Joseph: R. Kahana49 had this difficulty: Where the woman did observe a discharge one can well see the reason why uncleanness has been imposed since50 an observation of menstruation had to be declared unclean as a preventive measure against the possibility of an observation of a discharge of zibah, but where one observed no discharge51 what possibility was there to be provided against? And, furthermore, we have learnt:52 If a man observed one discharge of zibah, Beth Shammai ruled: He is like a woman who waits a day for a day53 and Beth Hillel ruled: Like a man who emitted semen,54
- Maintaining that a woman who observed a discharge on the eleventh day of her zibah period need not allow a clean day to pass before cleanness can be established.
- But, in accordance with a Rabbinical enactment, are subject to uncleanness, as a preventive measure against a discharge during the eleven days (other than the last) in which case the uncleanness is Pentateuchal unless a portion at least of the following day had passed in cleanness.
- The day following the zibah period (which is the first day of that of menstruation), a portion of that day having passed in cleanness.
- The woman and her husband.
- Rabbinically as a preventive measure (cf. p. 498, n. 14).
- V. p. 498, n. 11.
- Since a portion of the day at least, has passed in cleanness. The discharge observed later in the day has no bearing on zibah since that day belonged to the menstruation period.
- Lit., 'behold this', the person who is in such a hurry as not to allow even one clean day to pass after a zibah discharge.
- Sexually. Such hurry is indecent, since it might lead one to act similarly in the case of a discharge in the intermediate days of the zibah period when a Pentateuchal prohibition might be infringed. The uncleanness of zibah, however, does not apply.
- Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
- Other than the last.
- Husband and wife.
- Though no discharge appeared on the following day.
- Since, as a minor zabah (one who experienced a discharge on one of the days of a zibah period) she must allow one clean day to pass before she can regard herself as clean.
- So that a part of the day at least had passed in cleanness.
- Lit., 'bad'.
- Because a discharge that might possibly occur later in the day would continue and extend the uncleanness of the previous day and render the immersion invalid.
- Until the evening. If later in the day she experienced a discharge their touch conveys the uncleanness of zibah and they are liable to bring the prescribed sacrifice; but if no discharge appeared the touch conveys no uncleanness and no liability to a sacrifice is incurred.
- Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
- Though Beth Hillel hold that, where a discharge appeared on the eleventh day and immersion was performed in the evening, intercourse in that night does not involve the bringing of a sacrifice.
- Sc. on any day other than the eleventh.
- Husband and wife.
- Which is also one of the days of the zibah period.
- Being the last of the zibah days and followed by the first of those of menstruation.
- Lit., 'make your measures equal'.
- Lit., 'we brought him'.
- In case the sacrifice is not obligatory.
- Offering on the altar an unconsecrated beast.
- Noshekin, lit., 'you bite'. Golds. suggests the reading mushabin, 'you are answered'.
- Lit., 'make your measures equal'.
- So MS.M. and Rashi. Cur. edd. 'her couch and seat'.
- Sc. the day following one of the intermediate days of the zibah period on which she experienced a discharge.
- On the second day.
- Retrospectively, in accordance with Pentateuchal law, since the discharge on the second day is joined to that on the first to constitute a continuous zibah.
- As a preventive measure.
- R. Huna.
- By his statement.
- The day following the eleventh of a zibah period, which is the first of the following menstruation period, and a discharge on which cannot be treated as a continuation of the zibah discharge of the previous day.
- Cur. edd. use here the fem. sing.
- In cur. edd., the plural is here used.
- Now, since a discharge on the twelfth day cannot be treated as a continuation of that on the eleventh (cf. prev. n. but two) and since it does not invalidate the immersion on that day, that discharge, as far as zibah is concerned, might well be regarded as if it had never occurred. The case is consequently similar to that of R. Huna where a discharge on an intermediate day in the zibah period was followed by a day on which none had occurred. As in the Mishnah, where the second discharge occurred on the twelfth, uncleanness has been imposed Rabbinically as a preventive measure against the possibility of a second discharge occurring on the eleventh so also in the case of R. Huna uncleanness must be imposed where no discharge occurred on the second day as a preventive measure against the possibility of a discharge occurring on the second day. What need then was there for R. Huna to make a statement which is implicit in the ruling of our Mishnah?
- Against R. Huna.
- The case dealt with in our Mishnah though that discharge could not be attributed to zibah.
- From one where there was no discharge at all. How then could R. Huna maintain his statement?
- The case in our Mishnah.
- Which cannot be attributed to zibah; and consequently (cf. p. 501, n. 13) might be regarded (as in the case of R. Huna) as if no discharge had taken place. What then is the basis of R. Kahana's objection?
- Who advanced the opinion that 'where she observed a discharge the case is different'.
- The ruling concerning one discharge being likely to be misunderstood for that of another discharge.
- And since the absence of a discharge is not likely to be misunderstood for a discharge.
- Contrary to the view of R. Huna.
- Sc. who must allow one clean day to pass for every day on which she experienced a discharge before she may be regarded as clean. As the uncleanness of the touch of such a woman on the second day after she performed immersion is left in suspense to provide against the possibility of a discharge appearing later in the day, so must also be the uncleanness of such a person if after experiencing the discharge he performed immersion. If, e.g., he touches tithe its uncleanness must remain in suspense in case he observes a second discharge which would continue his former zibah.
- Sc. he is clean in regard to tithe immediately after his immersion. At all events it was here stated that, according to Beth Shammai, a woman who waits a day for a day is on a par with a man who experienced a first discharge of zibah.
and it was taught:1 If a man2 caused the shaking of the [first] observed discharge, Beth Shammai ruled: The man must be held in suspense,3 and Beth Hillel declared him clean.4 As to couches and seats occupied between a first and a second discharge, Beth Shammai hold them in suspense and Beth Hillel declare them clean. Now in the first clause it was stated, 'If a man observed one discharge of zibah, Beth Shammai ruled: He is like a woman who waits a day for a day', from which it is evident, is it not, that in the case of a woman who waits a day for a day the uncleanness is held in suspense?5 — Do not read, 'A woman who waits a day for a day' but read: Like a man who had intercourse with one who waits a day for a day.6 But why is it that he7 does not convey uncleanness to couch and seat,8 while she does convey uncleanness to them?9 — About him, since he does not usually bleed, the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure,10 but in her case, since she does usually bleed, the Rabbis enacted a preventive measure. But11 why is it that she conveys uncleanness to couch and seat and does not convey uncleanness to the man who had intercourse with her? — To couch and seat which are in common use she conveys uncleanness but to the man who had intercourse, which in such circumstances is an unusual occurrence, no uncleanness is conveyed.
We learnt, IF SHE PERFORMED IMMERSION ON THE NEXT DAY AND THEN HAD INTERCOURSE, SUCH AN ACT IS IMPROPER CONDUCT, BUT THE UNCLEANNESS OF THEIR TOUCH AND THEIR LIABILITY TO A SACRIFICE ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR INTERCOURSE ARE IN SUSPENSE. Does not this represent the general view?12 — No, it is only the view of Beth Hillel. For it was taught: Said R. Judah to Beth Hillel: Do you then call such an act improper conduct, seeing that this man only intended to have intercourse with a menstruant? — 'A menstruant'! How could such an idea be entertained? — Rather read: To have intercourse with a zabah. 'A zabah'! How could this idea be entertained? — Rather read: To have intercourse with one who waits a day for a day.
It was stated: As to the tenth day,13 R. Johanan ruled, The tenth is on a par with the ninth; as the ninth14 must be followed15 by observation16 so must the tenth17 be followed by observation.18 Resh Lakish ruled: The tenth is on a par with the eleventh; as the eleventh19 need not be followed by observation20 so the tenth need not be followed by observation.
Some there are who teach this21 in connection with the following. R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah said to R. Akiba, Even if you were all day to draw inferences from22 the repetition of 'with oil'23 I would not listen to you, the fact being that the prescribed quantities of half a log of oil for a thanksgiving-offering, and a quarter of a log of wine for a nazirite, and the eleven days that intervene between one menstruation period and the next are the halachah of Moses handed down from Sinai. What is the 'halachah' referred to? — R. Johanan replied: The one halachah applicable to the eleventh day.24 Resh Lakish replied: The halachahs25 applicable to the eleventh day. 'R. Johanan replied: The one halachah applicable to the eleventh day' i.e., the eleventh day26 only need not be followed27 by a day of observation28 but for the other days29 it30 does serve as a day of observation. But 'Resh Lakish replied: The halachahs applicable to the eleventh day', i.e., neither need the eleventh be followed by one of observation nor does it serve as one of observation for the tenth.31 But are these32 halachahs? Are they not in fact derived from Scriptural texts? For it was taught: As it might have been presumed that if a woman observes a discharge on three consecutive days at the beginning of a menstruation period she shall be a zabah,33 and that the text34 'If a woman have an issue and her issue in her flesh be blood'35 applies36 to one who observed a discharge on one day only37 it was, therefore, explicitly stated,
- Regarding a zab who experienced one discharge.
- Who was clean.
- Until evening. If the zab experienced a second discharge on that day he becomes a confirmed zab retrospectively and the man who shook the discharge becomes unclean.
- As is the case with one who caused the shaking of semen who remains clean.
- And if she experiences no second discharge she is clean.
- Because R. Huna agrees in the case of the man that, if the intercourse took place on the second day after the woman's immersion, the question of his uncleanness must he held in suspense and that before a second discharge appears he is even Rabbinically free from certain uncleanness.
- The man who had the intercourse.
- Which he alone occupied.
- To couch and seat that have been occupied by her.
- That, even where the woman observed no discharge after their intercourse, he shall convey uncleanness to couch and seat.
- Since a preventive measure was enacted in her case on account of her tendency to bleed.
- Even that of Beth Shammai who accordingly hold that on the day following a discharge during the intermediate days of the zibah period the woman's touch causes only a suspended uncleanness. An objection thus arises against R. Huna who maintained that according to Beth Shammai couch and seat in such circumstances are held to be unclean.
- Sc. a first discharge on the tenth day of the zibah period. Such a discharge can never develop into a major zibah (by being repeated on three consecutive days) since the tenth day is followed by one day only of the zibah period (the eleventh) the twelfth being the first of the next menstruation period.
- Since a discharge on it may develop (if it is repeated on the tenth and the eleventh) into a major zibah.
- Lit., 'requires'.
- On the next day.
- If it was the first day in the zibah period on which a discharge appeared.
- On the eleventh; though a repeated discharge on the latter day would not constitute a major zibah.
- Which is the last day of the zibah period.
- According to Beth Hillel the day following being one of menstruation.
- The dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.
- Lit., increase, i.e., to regard every Scriptural mention of 'with oil', in connection with the thanksgiving-offering, as implying an addition to the quantity specified. Any two additions imply a reduction (cf. Zeb. 82a, 89a).
- Lit., 'with oil, with oil,' (cf. Rashal and BaH.).
- Of a zibah period.
- If a discharge was observed on it.
- As any other of the eleven days must.
- Since the next day is the first of the menstruation period.
- The tenth.
- The eleventh.
- This is the Pentateuchal law. Rabbinically, however, even the eleventh day must be followed by one of observation before the woman may be regarded as clean.
- The rules regarding the eleventh day.
- Requiring a count of seven days after the third, and a sacrifice at the end of the counting.
- Lit., and what do I establish', sc, what is derived from.
- Lev. XV, 19, which implies that neither the counting of seven days nor any sacrifice is required.
- Cf. prev. n. but one.
- Cf. Rashal. Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'but she who observes on three days at the beginning shall be a zabah'.