## Niddah Daf 33a

###### Niddah 33a:1
[Niddah 33a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:1)

אִילֵּימָא תַּחְתָּיו דְּזָב — מִ״וְּאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּמִשְׁכָּבוֹ״ נָפְקָא! אֶלָּא: הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה הַזָּב תַּחְתָּיו, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — עֶלְיוֹן שֶׁל זָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** the verse is teaching that a mattress **beneath a *zav*** is impure, this is already **derived from** the verse: **“And whoever touches his bed”** (Leviticus 15:5). **Rather,** the verse is referring to that **which touches any** item **under which the *zav* will be. And what is this** item? It is the bedding **above a *zav*.** The verse teaches that the bedding above a *zav* imparts ritual impurity.


###### Niddah 33a:2
[Niddah 33a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:2)

״וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא״ נָמֵי יִטְמָא, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — נִישָּׂא. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְהַנִּשָּׂא״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verse further states: “And he who bears [*vehanoseh*] these things shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:10), indicating that **he who bears also becomes impure. And what is this?** This is an item **borne [*nisa*]** by a *zav*. **What is the reason,** i.e., how is this indicated by the verse? The term ***vehanisa* is written** in the verse.


###### Niddah 33a:3
[Niddah 33a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:3)

נִתְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, וֶהֱבִיאוֹ לִידֵי טוּמְאָה קַלָּה, לוֹמַר לָךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **The verse removed** the *halakha* of the bedding above a *zav* **from** the status of **severe impurity and brought it to** the status of **lesser impurity, to tell you that it imparts impurity only** to **food and drink,** but not to people or garments.


###### Niddah 33a:4
[Niddah 33a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:4)

אֵימַר נִתְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, דְּלֹא מְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים, אֲבָל אָדָם אוֹ בְּגָדִים לִיטַמֵּא? אָמַר קְרָא ״יִטְמָא״, טוּמְאָה קַלָּה מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Say** that **the verse removed** the bedding above a *zav* **from severe impurity,** in the sense **that it does not impart impurity** to **a person to** the extent that he may in turn **impart impurity** to the **garments** he is wearing. **But let** the bedding above a *zav* **impart impurity** to **people or garments.** The Gemara explains that **the verse states:** “And whoever touches anything that was under him **shall be impure”** (Leviticus 15:10), which **indicates lesser impurity.**


###### Niddah 33a:5
[Niddah 33a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:5)

וְתַחְתּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that Samaritan men are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, and consequently they impart impurity to the bedding beneath them. The Gemara asks: **And from where do we** derive that the bedding **beneath** one who **engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman** is impure? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to a menstruating woman: “And if any man lie with her, **and her impurity be upon him,** he shall be impure seven days, and every bed upon which he lies shall be impure” (Leviticus 15:24).


###### Niddah 33a:6
[Niddah 33a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:6)

יָכוֹל יַעֲלֶה לְרַגְלָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains: One **might** have thought that the phrase: “And her impurity be upon him,” indicates that the man assumes the impure status of the menstruating woman with whom he engaged in intercourse, such that if they were together on the sixth day of her menstruation **he may elevate** himself **at her time,** i.e., he may immerse in a ritual bath the next day, just like the menstruating woman. Therefore, **the verse states: “He shall be impure seven days.”**


###### Niddah 33a:7
[Niddah 33a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:7)

וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו״? שֶׁיָּכוֹל לֹא יְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּכְלִי חֶרֶס, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו״ — מָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה אָדָם וּכְלִי חֶרֶס, אַף הוּא מְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּכְלִי חֶרֶס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if so, **what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “And her impurity be upon him”? As,** one **might** have thought that a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman **will not impart impurity** to **people and earthenware vessels.** Therefore, **the verse states: “And her impurity be upon him,”** to teach that he imparts impurity like a menstruating woman. In other words, **just as she imparts impurity** to **people and earthenware vessels, so too, he imparts impurity** to **people and earthenware vessels.**


###### Niddah 33a:8
[Niddah 33a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:8)

אִי מָה הִיא עוֹשָׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים, אַף הוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכׇל הַמִּשְׁכָּב אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב עָלָיו יִטְמָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** so, i.e., that one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman is compared to the woman herself, then say: **Just as she renders** the **bedding** beneath her **and** the **seat** upon which she sits impure **to** the extent that they **impart impurity** to **a person to** in turn **impart impurity** to **the garments** he is wearing, **so too, he renders** the **bedding** beneath him **and** the **seat** upon which he sits impure **to** the extent that they **impart impurity** to **a person to** in turn **impart impurity** to **the garments** he is wearing. Therefore, **the verse states: “And every bed upon which he lies shall be impure”** (Leviticus 15:24).


###### Niddah 33a:9
[Niddah 33a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:9)

שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכׇל הַמִּשְׁכָּב אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב עָלָיו יִטְמָא״, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכׇל הַמִּשְׁכָּב אֲשֶׁר וְגוֹ׳״ — נִתְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וֶהֱבִיאוֹ לִידֵי טוּמְאָה קַלָּה, לוֹמַר לְךָ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* elaborates: **As,** there is **no** need for **the verse to state: “And every bed upon which he lies shall be impure,”** since it is already written: “And her impurity be upon him,” which indicates that just as a menstruating woman imparts impurity to her bedding, so too does one who has intercourse with her. **And** if so, **what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “And every bed upon** which he lies shall be impure”? **The verse separated** the *halakha* of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman **from** the **severe impurity** of the menstruating woman herself, **and brought him to lesser impurity, to tell you that he imparts impurity only** to **food and drink,** but not to people or garments.


###### Niddah 33a:10
[Niddah 33a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:10)

פָּרֵיךְ רַב אַחַאי: אֵימָא נִתְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וֶהֱבִיאוֹ לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה — דְּלָא לִיטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמּוֹיֵי בְּגָדִים, אֲבָל אָדָם וּבְגָדִים לִיטַמֵּא! אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: ״יִטְמָא״ — טוּמְאָה קַלָּה מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥai refutes** this derivation: **Say** that **the verse removed** the *halakha* of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman **from severe impurity and brought it to lesser impurity,** in the sense **that** his bedding **does not impart impurity** to **a person to** in turn **impart impurity** to the **garments** upon him. **But let** his bedding **impart impurity** to **people or garments. Rav Asi says:** The verse states: “And every bed upon which he lies **shall be impure,”** which **indicates a lesser impurity.**


###### Niddah 33a:11
[Niddah 33a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:11)

אֵימָא: ״וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו״ — כָּלַל, ״וְכׇל הַמִּשְׁכָּב״ — פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט, מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: But **say** that the phrase: **“And her impurity be upon him,”** is **a generalization,** and the phrase: **“And every bed** upon which he lies shall be impure,” is **a detail.** If so, the verse constitutes **a generalization and a detail,** and it is a hermeneutical principle that in such a case **the generalization** is referring **only** to **that which** is specified **in the detail.** Accordingly, with regard to the **bedding and seat** upon which the man rests, **yes,** they are rendered impure, but **other items** are **not.**


###### Niddah 33a:12
[Niddah 33a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:12)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״ מַפְסֵיק הָעִנְיָן, הָוֵי כְּלָל וּפְרָט הַמְרוּחָקִין זֶה מִזֶּה, וְכׇל כְּלָל וּפְרָט הַמְרוּחָקִין זֶה מִזֶּה אֵין דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says** that when the verse states: **“He shall be impure seven days,”** between the generalization and the detail, this **interrupts the matter.** Accordingly, **this is** a case of **a generalization and a detail that are distant from one another, and** with regard to **any generalization and detail that are distant from one another, one does not derive** a *halakha* from them in accordance with the principle **of a generalization and a detail.**


###### Niddah 33a:13
[Niddah 33a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:13)

רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם דָּנִין, ״וְכׇל״ — רִיבּוּיָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Actually, one may derive** a *halakha* from a generalization and a detail that are distant from one another. But this verse does not constitute a case of a generalization and a detail, as the verse states: “And every bed upon which he lies.” The term **“and every” is an amplification.**


###### Niddah 33a:14
[Niddah 33a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:14)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: אֵימָא כְּהִיא, מָה הִיא — לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בָּהּ בֵּין מַגָּעָהּ לְמִשְׁכָּבָהּ, לְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּלְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים לְחוּמְרָא, אַף הוּא — לֹא תַּחְלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין מַגָּעוֹ לְמִשְׁכָּבוֹ, לְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּלְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים לְקוּלָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ya’akov objects to this: Say** that as the verse compares a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman to the woman herself, the man should be **like her,** i.e., **just as** with regard to **her you did not differentiate between her touch and her bedding in terms of imparting impurity** to **a person and imparting impurity to garments,** as the *halakha* is **stringent** concerning both in that her touch and her bedding impart impurity to people to in turn impart impurity to their garments; **so too,** with regard to **him, you shall not differentiate between his touch and his bedding in terms of imparting impurity** to **a person and imparting impurity to garments,** and the *halakha* should be **lenient** in both cases: Neither his bedding nor his touch should impart impurity to people to in turn impart impurity to their garments.


###### Niddah 33a:15
[Niddah 33a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:15)

אָמַר רָבָא: ״עָלָיו״ — לְהַטְעִינוֹ מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says** in response that when the verse states: “And her impurity be **upon him,”** this **indicates** that the Torah intends for the impurity **to weigh upon him,** i.e., in a stringent manner.


###### Niddah 33a:16
[Niddah 33a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:16)

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בּוֹעֲלֵי נִדּוֹת וְכוּ׳. אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ בּוֹעֲלֵי נִדּוֹת נִינְהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק מַגְדְּלָאָה: בִּנְשׂוּאוֹת שָׁנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that the impurity of Samaritan men is **due to** the fact **that** Samaritan men are considered men who **engage in intercourse with menstruating women,** and this is because they observe the seven-day menstrual period of impurity for each and every emission of blood. The Gemara asks: **Is this to say** that **all** Samaritan men **are** considered men who **engage in intercourse with menstruating women?** Aren’t there some unmarried men who do not engage in intercourse with menstruating women? **Rabbi Yitzḥak of Migdal says: They taught** this *halakha* only **with regard to** men to whom women are **married.**


###### Niddah 33a:17
[Niddah 33a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:17)

וְהֵן יוֹשְׁבוֹת עַל דָּם וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִם הֵן יוֹשְׁבוֹת עַל כׇּל דָּם וָדָם — תַּקָּנָה גְּדוֹלָה הִיא לָהֶן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further teaches: **And** Samaritan men are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women because **they observe** the seven-day menstrual period of impurity **for** each and every emission of **blood.** In this regard **it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Meir said: If** Samaritan women would begin **observing** a seven-day period of impurity **for each and every** emission of **blood, it** would be **a great remedy for them,** i.e., this practice would not lead to sin, as they would observe a seven-day period from each emission. But this is not their practice.


###### Niddah 33a:18
[Niddah 33a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:18)

אֶלָּא שֶׁרוֹאוֹת דָּם אָדוֹם וּמַשְׁלִימוֹת אוֹתוֹ לְדָם יָרוֹק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** when Samaritan women see green blood, which does not render them impure, they begin counting seven days of impurity from that emission. **As,** if **they see red blood,** which is impure, during that period, they do not begin observing another seven days. Instead, they consider it an additional emission of blood **and they complete** the remaining days from the seven days they began observing **for** the **green blood.** Consequently, the women will have immersed in a ritual bath while still impure.


###### Niddah 33a:19
[Niddah 33a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:19)

דָּבָר אַחֵר: יוֹם שֶׁפּוֹסֶקֶת בּוֹ — סוֹפַרְתּוֹ לְמִנְיַן שִׁבְעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** a Samaritan woman is considered ritually impure because she **counts** the **day** on **which she ceases** to experience three consecutive days of emissions of *ziva* **toward** the **total** of **seven** clean days that a *zava* must experience before being able to immerse in a ritual bath. Accordingly, she does not wait seven full days, as is required by *halakha*.


###### Niddah 33a:20
[Niddah 33a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:20)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: וְתִסְפְּרֶנּוּ, וַאֲנַן נָמֵי נִיסְפְּרֵיהּ, דְּקַיְימָא לַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama objects to this: And let her count that** day on which she ceases to experience emissions of *ziva*, **and we,** i.e., Jewish women, **shall also count it, as we maintain** that the halakhic status of **part of the day is like** that **of an entire** day.


###### Niddah 33a:21
[Niddah 33a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:21)

אָמַר רָבָא: אִם כֵּן, שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע (דסתר) [דְּסָתְרָה] בְּזִיבָה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? וְהָא מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says** in response: **If so,** that even with regard to *ziva* the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, one can object: It is taught in a *baraita* that if a *zav* experiences an emission of **semen** while counting seven clean days toward his purity, the seminal emission **negates** the day on which he experiences it. **How can you find the** circumstances of this *halakha* **with regard to *ziva*? Isn’t** the halakhic status of **part of the day is like** that **of an entire** day? If so, let the remainder of the day on which he experiences the emission count as a day.


###### Niddah 33a:22
[Niddah 33a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:22)

אִי דַּחֲזַאי בְּפַלְגָא דְּיוֹמָא — הָכִי נָמֵי, הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דַּחֲזַאי סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Perhaps even with regard to *ziva* the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, and **if** the *zav* **sees** the seminal emission **in the middle of the day,** the remainder of the day is **indeed** counted as a whole day. But **here we are dealing with** a *zav* **who sees** a seminal emission **adjacent to sunset,** when there is no remaining time in the day that can be counted as an entire day.


###### Niddah 33a:23
[Niddah 33a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:23)

וְלֵיקוּם וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ לִקְרָא, כִּי כְּתִיבָא — סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה כְּתִיבָא? אִין, עַל כׇּרְחָךְ שִׁבְקֵיהּ לִקְרָא, דְּאִיהוּ דָּחֵיק וּמוֹקֵי אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** the *halakha* that a seminal emission negates a day from the count of a *zav* is derived from the verse: “This is the law of the *zav*, and of him from whom the flow of seed goes out, so that he is impure thereby” (Leviticus 15:32). Is it right that one **will stand and say about the verse** that **when it is written, it is written** specifically with regard to a seminal emission that occurs **adjacent to sunset?** The Gemara explains: **Yes, perforce you must leave** aside the plain meaning **of** this **verse, as it compels itself to be established** as referring to such limited circumstances because it must conform to the principle that the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day.


###### Niddah 33a:24
[Niddah 33a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33a:24)

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: פּוֹלֶטֶת שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, מַהוּ שֶׁתִּסְתּוֹר בְּזִיבָה? רוֹאָה הָיְתָה וְסוֹתֶרֶת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara mentioned earlier that if a *zav* experiences a seminal emission while counting seven clean days toward his purity, the seminal emission negates the day on which he experiences it. On a similar note, **Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma:** In the case of a woman who **discharges semen** after engaging in intercourse with her husband, **what is** the *halakha* **as to** whether **she negates** her counting **with regard to *ziva*?** Rami bar Ḥama elaborates: In general, a woman who discharges semen is impure, but the reason for this *halakha* is uncertain. Is it because **she was** considered one who **saw** semen, i.e., the emission of semen itself renders her impure just like a man who experiences a seminal emission? **And** if so, this woman **negates** her count.