## Niddah Daf 72b

###### Niddah 72b:1
[Niddah 72b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:1)

וְתַנְיָא: הַמֵּסִיט אֶת הָרְאִיָּיה — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: תּוֹלִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in a *baraita*: If one **moves the** discharge **seen** by a *zav* on the first day, **Beit Shammai say:** Due to the uncertainty, his status of ritual purity is **contingent** upon whether he sees another emission. If the *zav* sees a discharge a second time he will retroactively have been a full-fledged *zav* and his discharge renders one who moves it impure. But if he does not see another discharge he will remain like one who experienced a seminal emission, which means that his discharge does not render one who moves it impure. **And Beit Hillel deem** him **pure.** The discharge has the status of a seminal emission and does not transmit impurity to one who moves it.


###### Niddah 72b:2
[Niddah 72b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:2)

מִשְׁכָּבוֹת וּמוֹשָׁבוֹת שֶׁבֵּין רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה לִרְאִיָּיה שְׁנִיָּיה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי תּוֹלִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: With regard to items designated for **lying or sitting** and their status **between the first sighting and the second sighting, Beit Shammai** say: Due to the uncertainty their status of ritual purity is **contingent** upon whether he sees another emission, **and Beit Hillel deem** them **pure.**


###### Niddah 72b:3
[Niddah 72b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:3)

וְקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: הָרוֹאָה רְאִיָּיה אַחַת שֶׁל זוֹב, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם. אַלְמָא שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי תּוֹלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye explains Rav Kahana’s difficulty with Rav Huna’s opinion: It **is taught in the first clause** of the *baraita* that if a man **sees one sighting of *ziva*, Beit Shammai say:** His status is **like** that of **a woman who observes** a clean **day for a day** she experiences a discharge. **Apparently, according to** the opinion of **Beit Shammai** the ritual purity status of **a woman who observes** a clean **day for a day** she experiences a discharge is **contingent** upon whether she experiences an emission of blood. This is difficult for Rav Huna, who explains that Beit Shammai hold that a woman who observes a clean day for each day of discharge is definitely impure, by rabbinic law.


###### Niddah 72b:4
[Niddah 72b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:4)

לָא תֵּימָא ״שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם״, אֶלָּא אֵימָא ״כְּבוֹעֵל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rav Huna would explain: **Do not say** that his status is like that of **a woman who observes** a clean **day for a day. Rather, say** that he is **like one who engages in intercourse with a woman who observes** a clean **day for a day** after she has immersed. Rav Huna agrees that items designated for lying or sitting that this man sits or lies on is ritually impure only if she experiences bleeding before the end of the day.


###### Niddah 72b:5
[Niddah 72b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:5)

מַאי שְׁנָא אִיהוּ דְּלָא מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, וּמַאי שְׁנָא אִיהִי דִּמְטַמְּיָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** with regard to **him,** a man who engages in intercourse with a woman who is observing a clean day for a day, **that he does not transmit impurity** to items designated for **lying or sitting, and what is different** with regard to **her,** that woman herself, **that she** does **transmit impurity to** items designated for lying or sitting?


###### Niddah 72b:6
[Niddah 72b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:6)

אִיהוּ דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי בֵּיהּ דָּמִים — לָא גְּזוּר בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן, אִיהִי דִּשְׁכִיחִי בַּהּ דָּמִים — גְּזוּר בַּהּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: With regard to **him, as he does not frequently** see **blood, the Sages did not issue a decree** rendering **him** impure to such an extent, if the woman has not seen blood on the second day. Whereas with regard to **her, as she does frequently** see **blood, the Sages did issue a decree** rendering her definitely impure to this degree.


###### Niddah 72b:7
[Niddah 72b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:7)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב — דִּמְטַמְּיָא לֵיהּ, וּמַאי שְׁנָא בּוֹעֵל — דְּלָא מְטַמְּיָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further inquires: **And** since a decree was applied to her, as she commonly sees blood, **what is different** with regard to items designated for **lying or sitting, that she transmits impurity to them, and what is different** with regard to the **one who engages in intercourse** with her, **that she does not render him impure?**


###### Niddah 72b:8
[Niddah 72b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:8)

מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב דִּשְׁכִיחַ — מְטַמְּיָא לֵיהּ, בּוֹעֵל דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ — לָא מְטַמְּיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: With regard to items designated for **lying or sitting, she renders them ritually impure because she frequently** sits or lies on them, whereas with regard to **one who engages in intercourse** with her, **which is not** nearly as **frequent,** she does **not render him ritually impure.**


###### Niddah 72b:9
[Niddah 72b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:9)

תְּנַן: טָבְלָה יוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו, וְשִׁמְּשָׁה — הֲרֵי זוֹ תַּרְבּוּת רָעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty with regard to Rav Huna’s opinion. **We learned** in the mishna: If she saw blood on the eleventh day and observed part of a corresponding clean day and **immersed** on **the day following** the day that she saw blood **and engaged in intercourse** with her husband, **that is wayward conduct,** as the possibility exists that she will experience bleeding after intercourse that will be appended to the bleeding of the previous day, rendering her a *zava* and disqualifying the immersion.


###### Niddah 72b:10
[Niddah 72b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:10)

מַגָּעָן וּבְעִילָתָן תְּלוּיִין. מַאי לַָאו דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna adds: And the status of ritually impure items with which **they came into contact and** the status of **their intercourse is contingent** upon whether she experiences bleeding on the day of her immersion. The Gemara explains the difficulty. **What, is it not** correct to say that **all,** i.e., Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, **agree** with this clause of the mishna? If so, Beit Shammai concur that this woman renders items impure only due to uncertainty. This is not in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna.


###### Niddah 72b:11
[Niddah 72b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:11)

לָא, בֵּית הִלֵּל הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְבֵית הִלֵּל: וְכִי לָזוֹ אַתֶּם קוֹרִין תַּרְבּוּת רָעָה? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּון זֶה אֶלָּא לִבְעוֹל אֶת הַנִּדָּה! נִדָּה סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No, this** clause of the mishna **is** only in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Hillel. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda said to Beit Hillel: Do you call this** type of behavior **wayward conduct? But he intended only to engage in intercourse with a menstruating woman.** The Gemara questions the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement. Can it **enter your mind** that he intended to engage in intercourse with **a menstruating woman?** The mishna and *baraita* are not referring to a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman.


###### Niddah 72b:12
[Niddah 72b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:12)

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: ״לִבְעוֹל אֶת הַזָּבָה״. זָבָה סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: ״לִבְעוֹל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, say** that Rabbi Yehuda meant that this man intended only **to engage in intercourse with a *zava*.** The Gemara rejects this formulation as well: Can it **enter your mind** that Rabbi Yehuda said he intended to engage in intercourse with **a *zava*?** The mishna and *baraita* are not referring to a man who engages in intercourse with a *zava* either. **Rather, say** that Rabbi Yehuda meant that this man intended **to engage in intercourse with a woman who observes** a clean **day for a day** she experiences a discharge. This *baraita* indicates that the latter clause of the mishna is only according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, as Rabbi Yehuda directed his comments specifically to them.


###### Niddah 72b:13
[Niddah 72b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:13)

אִיתְּמַר: עֲשִׂירִי, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: עֲשִׂירִי כִּתְשִׁיעִי, מָה תְּשִׁיעִי בָּעֵי שִׁימּוּר — אַף עֲשִׂירִי בָּעֵי שִׁימּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another discussion concerning a woman who experiences bleeding toward the end of her eleven days of *ziva*. **It was stated** with regard to a woman who experiences bleeding on the **tenth** day of her eleven days of *ziva*, that **Rav Yoḥanan says:** The **tenth** day is considered **like** the **ninth,** i.e., **just as** the **ninth** day **requires** the **observance** of a day clean from discharges on the following day, **so too does** the **tenth** day **require observance** of a day in case she experiences bleeding on the eleventh day.


###### Niddah 72b:14
[Niddah 72b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:14)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: עֲשִׂירִי כְּאַחַד עָשָׂר, מָה אַחַד עָשָׂר לָא בָּעֵי שִׁימּוּר — אַף עֲשִׂירִי לָא בָּעֵי שִׁימּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish says:** The **tenth** day is considered **like** the **eleventh** day, as in such a case it is impossible for her to experience bleeding for the three consecutive days within the eleven days of *ziva*. **Just as** the **eleventh** day **does not require** the **observance** of a day clean from discharges, **so too** the **tenth** day **does not require** the **observance** of a day clean from discharges, since even if she experiences bleeding on both the eleventh and the twelfth days, the last of the three consecutive days was already the start of her days of menstruation, and therefore she does not become a greater *zava*.


###### Niddah 72b:15
[Niddah 72b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:15)

אִיכָּא דְמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַהָא, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אֲפִילּוּ אַתָּה מְרַבֶּה ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ [״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״] כָּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, אֵינִי שׁוֹמֵעַ לְךָ! אֶלָּא חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן לַתּוֹדָה, וּרְבִיעִית יַיִן לַנָּזִיר, וְאַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם שֶׁבֵּין נִדָּה לְנִדָּה — הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who teach** the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish **with regard to this** case: **Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to Rabbi Akiva: Even** if **you** were to **amplify** and derive *halakhot* from the repeated terms **“in oil,” “in oil,”** stated with regard to the thanks offering (see Leviticus 7:12) **for the entire day, I** would **not listen to you** and accept your claim. **Rather,** the *halakha* that **one-half of a *log*** is the requisite amount of **oil for** the **thanks offering, and** the *halakha* that **one-quarter** of a *log* is the amount of **wine for a nazirite, and** the *halakha* that a woman who experiences an emission of blood during the **eleven days that are between** one period of **menstruation and** the next period of **menstruation** is a *zava*, each of these is **a *halakha*** transmitted **to Moses from Sinai.** None of the *halakhot* are derived from verses.


###### Niddah 72b:16
[Niddah 72b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:16)

מַאי הֲלָכָה? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הִלְכַת אַחַד עָשָׂר, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: הִלְכוֹת אַחַד עָשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the ***halakha*** mentioned here with regard to the eleven days between one period of menstruation and the next? **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** It is referring to the ***halakha*** that distinguishes the first ten days from the **eleventh** day. **Reish Lakish says:** It is referring to two ***halakhot*** that distinguish the first ten days from the **eleventh.**


###### Niddah 72b:17
[Niddah 72b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:17)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הִלְכַת אַחַד עָשָׂר — אַחַד עָשָׂר הוּא דְּלָא בָּעֵי שִׁימּוּר, הָא לְאַחֲרִינֵי עָבֵיד שִׁימּוּר. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: הִלְכוֹת אַחַד עָשָׂר — לָא אַחַד עָשָׂר בָּעֵי שִׁימּוּר, וְלָא שִׁימּוּר לַעֲשִׂירִי הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that this is referring to the ***halakha*** which distinguishes the first ten days from the **eleventh. It is** the **eleventh that does not require** the **observance** of a day clean from discharges, **but for the other** ten days she must **perform observance. And Reish Lakish says:** It is referring to two ***halakhot*** that distinguish the first ten days from the **eleventh.** The **eleventh** day **does not require observance, and it does not** serve as a day of **observance for the tenth** day, i.e., the tenth day also does not require observance. The tenth day does not require observing since day eleven is excluded from being a day of observation for the previous day.


###### Niddah 72b:18
[Niddah 72b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:18)

הָנֵי הֲלָכוֹת נִינְהוּ? הָנֵי קְרָאֵי נִינְהוּ! דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל הָרוֹאָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בִּתְחִילַּת נִדָּה רְצוּפִים תְּהֵא זָבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s claim that the eleven days of *ziva* is a *halakha* transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Are **these *halakhot*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai? Not so; rather, **these are** derived from **verses. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that **one who sees** blood for **three consecutive days at the beginning of** the days of **menstruation will be a *zava*** and is required to count seven clean days and to bring an offering afterward (see Leviticus 15:28–30).


###### Niddah 72b:19
[Niddah 72b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/72b:19)

וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אִשָּׁה כִּי תִהְיֶה זָבָה דָּם יִהְיֶה זוֹבָהּ״? בְּרוֹאָה יוֹם אֶחָד, (אֲבָל הָרוֹאָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בַּתְּחִילָּה תִּהְיֶה זָבָה), תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if so, **how do I realize** the meaning of the verse: “And **if a woman has a flow, and her flow on her flesh be blood,** she shall be in her impurity seven days; and whoever touches her shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:19)? This is referring **to** one **who sees** blood on only **one day.** But perhaps one who sees blood for three days at the beginning of her days of menstruation should become a *zava*? **The verse states:**