## Niddah Daf 54b

###### Niddah 54b:1
[Niddah 54b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:1)

יְמֵי לֵידָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רוֹאָה בָּהֶן מַהוּ שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ לִסְפִירַת זִיבָתָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** the *halakha* in the case of a woman who gave birth when she was a *zava*? There are seven **days of** impurity following the **birth** of a son and fourteen days of impurity following the birth of a daughter, during which the mother is impure even if she did not experience bleeding. With regard to those days during this period **on which she does not see** blood, are they **reckoned in the counting of her** seven clean days required to become purified from the status of ***ziva*?**


###### Niddah 54b:2
[Niddah 54b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:2)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, רָאֲתָה שְׁנַיִם, וְלַשְּׁלִישִׁי הִפִּילָה, וְאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת מָה הִפִּילָה —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana says: Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: A woman **saw** blood on **two** consecutive days during the period of *ziva*, **and on the third** day **she miscarried, but she does not know what she miscarried,** i.e., whether it was a stillborn human fetus for which a woman contracts the impurity of childbirth, or whether she discharged an amorphous piece of tissue. In addition, she does not know whether she emitted blood during the miscarriage.


###### Niddah 54b:3
[Niddah 54b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:3)

הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק זִיבָה, סְפֵק לֵידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In such a case, **it is uncertain** whether **she** has the status of one who experienced ***ziva* or** whether she has the status of a woman who gave **birth.** If she gave birth to a fetus and did not emit blood, she is a woman after childbirth but not a *zava*. If the discharge was an amorphous piece of tissue and she saw blood, she is a *zava*. If it was a human fetus and she saw blood, she is one who gives birth as a *zava*. Finally, if she did not emit blood and it was a discharge of an amorphous piece of tissue, she is not obligated to bring an offering at all.


###### Niddah 54b:4
[Niddah 54b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:4)

מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, וִימֵי לֵידָתָהּ שֶׁאֵין רוֹאָה בָּהֶן — עוֹלִין לָהּ לִסְפִירַת זִיבָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, **she brings an offering but it is not eaten** by the priests, as it is uncertain whether it is an offering of *ziva* or an offering for her childbirth, or whether it is non-sacred. **And** the **days of** impurity following this uncertain **birth, on which she does not see** blood, **are reckoned in the counting of her** seven clean days required to become purified from the status of ***ziva*.** This resolves the dilemma raised by the Sages.


###### Niddah 54b:5
[Niddah 54b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:5)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר הִיא, וְכֹל הָנֵי שִׁבְעָה יַתִּירֵי דְּקָיָהֲבִינַן לַהּ סָלְקִי לַהּ לִסְפִירַת זִיבָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says** that this does not resolve the dilemma, as it **is different there, since it can be said** that **she is a woman who gave birth to a male, and** it is only for that reason that **all of these additional seven** days **that we give her** due to the concern that she might have given birth to a female, which would render her impure for fourteen days, **are reckoned in the counting of her** seven clean days of ***ziva*.** But if it was certain that she gave birth to a female, those days after the birth would not count toward her period of *ziva*.


###### Niddah 54b:6
[Niddah 54b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: בְּיוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר אִיכָּא לְסַפּוֹקֵי, בְּיוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה לֵיכָּא לְסַפּוֹקֵי? אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ עוֹלִין, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa:** Is **there uncertainty that** perhaps she is **a woman who gave birth to a male,** but **there** is **no uncertainty that** she might be **a woman who gave birth to a female?** In fact, both possibilities must be taken into account. And yet, despite the fact that she might have given birth to a female, these seven days are included in the counting of her seven clean days. **Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** it that such days **are reckoned** in the counting? The Gemara comments: Indeed, **conclude from** the *baraita* that these days do count.


###### Niddah 54b:7
[Niddah 54b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:7)

תִּשְׁעָה יָמִים טְמֵאִין, וְתִשְׁעָה יָמִים טְהוֹרִין — מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes its citation of the *baraita*: In the case of a woman whose set pattern is that **nine days** she is **impure,** i.e., experiences bleeding, **and nine days** she is **pure,** she **may engage in intercourse** with her husband during **eight days out of eighteen.** The last two days of the nine with blood are part of her *ziva* period, after which she must observe one clean day, leaving her with eight days when she may engage in intercourse before the cycle begins again.


###### Niddah 54b:8
[Niddah 54b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:8)

עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים טְמֵאִין וַעֲשָׂרָה יָמִים טְהוֹרִים — יְמֵי שִׁמּוּשָׁהּ כִּימֵי זִיבָתָהּ, וְכֵן לְמֵאָה וְכֵן לְאֶלֶף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of a woman whose set pattern is that **ten days** she is **impure and ten days** she is **pure,** the number of **days of her** being permitted to **engage in intercourse** with her husband **is equivalent to** the number of **days of her** experiencing the flow of ***ziva*.** In the first seven days she is a menstruating woman, followed by three days of blood that render her a *zava*. She must count seven of the ten days without blood to be purified from her *ziva*, which leaves her three days in which she may engage in intercourse, exactly the same as the three days of *ziva* on which she saw blood. **And so too,** the same applies in the case **of one hundred** days, as she experiences bleeding of *ziva* for ninety-three days, and is subsequently permitted to her husband for ninety-three days, **and so too** in the case **of one thousand** days.


###### Niddah 54b:9
[Niddah 54b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:9)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ בָּא סִימָן.**


###### Niddah 54b:10
[Niddah 54b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:10)

מַתְנִי' **דַּם** הַנִּדָּה, וּבְשַׂר הַמֵּת — מְטַמְּאִין לַחִין, וּמְטַמְּאִין יְבֵשִׁין. אֲבָל הַזּוֹב, וְהַנִּיעַ, וְהָרוֹק, וְהַשֶּׁרֶץ, וְהַנְּבֵלָה, (והשכבת) [וְשִׁכְבַת] זֶרַע — מְטַמְּאִין לַחִין, וְאֵין מְטַמְּאִין יְבֵשִׁין. וְאִם יְכוֹלִין לְהִשָּׁרוֹת וְלַחְזוֹר לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן — מְטַמְּאִין לַחִין וּמְטַמְּאִין יְבֵשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The blood of a menstruating woman and the flesh of a corpse transmit impurity** by contact and by carrying when they are **moist, and** likewise **transmit impurity** when they are **dry. But** with regard to **the** gonorrhea-like **discharge of a *zav* [*ziva*], and the mucus and the saliva** of a *zav*, **and** the carcass of **a creeping animal, and an animal carcass, and semen,** all **transmit impurity** when they are **moist but do not transmit impurity** when they are **dry. And if one could soak** those dry substances in water **and** thereby **restore** them **to their** previous **state, they transmit impurity** when **moist and transmit impurity** when **dry.**


###### Niddah 54b:11
[Niddah 54b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:11)

וְכַמָּה הִיא שְׁרִיָּיתָן? בְּפוֹשְׁרִין מֵעֵת לְעֵת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת יָבֵשׁ, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁרוֹת וְלַחְזוֹר לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה — טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna asks: **And how long is the** process of **soaking these** substances that determines whether they can be restored to their previous state? This is referring to soaking them **in lukewarm** water **for** a twenty-four-hour **period. Rabbi Yosei says:** With regard to **the flesh of a corpse** that is **dry and cannot be soaked to restore** it **to** its **previous state,** it is **ritually pure,** in the sense that an olive-bulk of the flesh does not transmit impurity imparted by a corpse. But a ladleful of the flesh transmits the impurity of the decayed flesh of a corpse.


###### Niddah 54b:12
[Niddah 54b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:12)

**גְּמָ'** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְהַדָּוָה בְּנִדָּתָהּ״ — מַדְוֶהָ כְּמוֹתָהּ, מָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה, אַף מַדְוֶהָ מְטַמְּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that the blood of a menstruating woman transmits impurity by contact and by carrying both when moist and when dry. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Ḥizkiyya says:** They are derived from a verse, **as the verse states** with regard to a menstruating woman: “This is the law of him that has an issue…**And of her who experiences the flow of her menstrual impurity”** (Leviticus 15:32–33). The verse compares the status of the menstrual flow to that of the menstruating woman. This teaches that the status of **the menstrual flow is like** the status of the woman **herself: Just as she transmits impurity** by contact and by carrying, **so too, the menstrual flow transmits impurity** by contact and by carrying.


###### Niddah 54b:13
[Niddah 54b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:13)

אַשְׁכְּחַן לַח, יָבֵשׁ מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אָמַר קְרָא ״יִהְיֶה״ — בַּהֲוָיָתוֹ יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the impurity of the menstrual blood when it is **moist,** since it is called the menstrual flow; **from where do we** derive that **dry** menstrual blood also transmits impurity? **Rabbi Yitzḥak says** that **the verse states** with regard to menstrual impurity: “And if a woman should have an issue, and her issue in her flesh **shall be** blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days, and whoever touches her shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:19). The term “shall be” indicates that the blood **shall** remain **in its** impure **status** even once it is dry.


###### Niddah 54b:14
[Niddah 54b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:14)

וְאֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּלַח וְנַעֲשָׂה יָבֵשׁ, יָבֵשׁ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ מְנָלַן? וְתוּ, הָא דִּתְנַן: הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין קְלִיפָּה, כְּמִין עָפָר, כְּמִין שַׂעֲרָה, כְּמִין יַבְחוּשִׁין אֲדוּמִּים — תָּטִיל לַמַּיִם, אִם נִמּוֹחוּ טָמֵא, מְנָלַן? ״יִהְיֶה״ — רִבּוּיָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** one may **say** that **this statement** applies only **to** blood that was initially **moist and** subsequently **became dry,** as it retains its initial status. With regard to blood that was **dry at the outset, from where do we** derive that it too transmits impurity? **And furthermore,** this inference does not provide a source for **that which we learned** in a mishna (21a): In the case of a woman **who discharges** an item whose shape is **similar to a type of shell, similar to a type of soil, similar to a type of hair,** or **similar to a type of mosquito,** if such items are **red, she should cast** them **into water** to ascertain their nature. **If they dissolved,** it is blood, and the woman is **impure. From where do we** derive that even this type of blood is impure? The Gemara explains: The term **“shall be” is an amplification,** indicating that menstrual blood in all these forms is impure.


###### Niddah 54b:15
[Niddah 54b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:15)

אִי מָה הִיא עוֹשָׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּלְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים, אַף דָּמָהּ נָמֵי עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּלְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים? אַטּוּ דָּמָה בַּר מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב הוּא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If** so, one can likewise infer the following: **Just as she,** a menstruating woman, **renders** an item designated for **lying or sitting** impure **to** the extent that it **transmits impurity to a person and** to the extent that that person **transmits impurity to** his **garments,** despite the fact that the garments did not come into contact with the couch, **so too, her blood also renders** items designated for **lying or sitting** impure **to** the extent that they **transmit impurity to a person and** to the extent that he **transmits impurity to** his **garments,** in the manner of a primary source of ritual impurity. The Gemara replies: **Is that to say** that the concepts of **lying and sitting apply** to **her** menstrual **blood?** These categories of impurity are limited to people.


###### Niddah 54b:16
[Niddah 54b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:16)

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, אֶבֶן מְנוּגַּעַת בַּת מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב הִיא, דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי? דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא אֶבֶן מְנוּגַּעַת עוֹשָׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, לְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to your reasoning** that this category of impurity is limited to people, **do** the concepts of **lying and sitting apply** to **a stone afflicted** with leprosy, so **that a verse was necessary to exclude** it? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that **a stone afflicted** with leprosy **should render** an item designated for **lying or sitting** impure **to** the extent that it **transmits impurity to a person and** to the extent that he **transmits impurity to** his **garments.**


###### Niddah 54b:17
[Niddah 54b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:17)

וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה זָב, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּבִיאָה, עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים. אֶבֶן מְנוּגַּעַת, שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה בְּבִיאָה, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains: **And** this ruling might be derived by **logical inference:** If one enters a house where there is a stone afflicted with leprosy he becomes impure, but one who enters a house together with a man who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [*zav*] does not become impure. One may therefore infer as follows: **If a *zav*, who does not transmit impurity by entering** a house, nevertheless **renders** an item designated for **lying or sitting** impure **to** the extent that it **transmits impurity to a person** and to the extent that that person **transmits impurity to** his **garments,** then with regard to **a stone afflicted** with leprosy, **which does transmit impurity by entering** a house, **is it not logical that** it **renders** an item designated for **lying or sitting impure to** the extent that it **transmits impurity to a person** and to the extent that he **transmits impurity to** the **garments** he is wearing?


###### Niddah 54b:18
[Niddah 54b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:18)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַזָּב״ — ״הַזָּב״ וְלֹא אֶבֶן מְנוּגַּעַת. טַעְמָא דְּמַעֲטַיהּ קְרָא, הָא לָאו הָכִי מְטַמְּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: Therefore, **the verse states:** “Every bed upon which the *zav* lies shall be impure, and every item upon which he sits shall be impure” (Leviticus 15:4). The term **“the *zav*”** indicates that only **the *zav*, and not a stone afflicted** with leprosy, renders items designated for lying or sitting impure. The Gemara infers from the *baraita*: **The reason** a stone afflicted with leprosy does not transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting is **that the verse excluded it, but** were it **not so,** the stone **would transmit impurity** to items designated for lying or sitting, despite the fact that the concepts of lying and sitting do not apply to a stone.


###### Niddah 54b:19
[Niddah 54b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/54b:19)

וּמִינַּהּ: לָאו מִי אָמְרַתְּ ״הַזָּב״ — וְלֹא אֶבֶן מְנוּגַּעַת, הָכִי נָמֵי אָמַר קְרָא ״אֲשֶׁר הִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עָלָיו״ — הִיא, וְלֹא דָּמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara replies that **from this** same derivation one can infer that menstrual blood does not render items designated for lying or sitting impure: **Didn’t you say** that the term “the *zav*” teaches that only **the *zav*, and not a stone afflicted** with leprosy, renders items designated for lying or sitting impure? **So too,** a verse excludes menstrual blood from this category of impurity, as **the verse states:** “And he if is on the bed, or on any item **upon which she sits,** when he touches it, he shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:23). The term “she” indicates that **she,** the menstruating woman, **but not her blood,** transmits impurity to items designated for lying or sitting.