## Niddah Daf 7b

###### Niddah 7b:1
[Niddah 7b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:1)

אֲבָל הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but** the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Niddah 7b:2
[Niddah 7b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:2)

אֵיזוֹ הִיא בְּתוּלָה — כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה דָּם מִיָּמֶיהָ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנְּשׂוּאָה. מְעוּבֶּרֶת — מִשֶּׁיִּוָּדַע עוּבָּרָהּ. מְנִיקָה — עַד שֶׁתִּגְמוֹל אֶת בְּנָהּ. נָתְנָה בְּנָהּ לִמְנִיקָה, גְּמָלַתּוּ, אוֹ מֵת — רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Who is** the woman characterized as **a virgin** in this context? It is **any** woman **who has not seen** the flow of menstrual **blood in all her days, even if she was married** and has experienced bleeding as a result of intercourse consummating her marriage. The time of **a pregnant woman** is **from** the point in her pregnancy when the existence of **her fetus is known** to all who see her. The time of **a nursing woman** is **until she weans her child** from nursing. If she stopped nursing, e.g., **she gave her child to a wet nurse, weaned him** from nursing, **or** her child **died,** and she saw menstrual blood, **Rabbi Meir says: She transmits impurity for** a twenty-four-hour **period** or from her most recent examination. **And the Rabbis say:** Even in those cases, **her time is sufficient.**


###### Niddah 7b:3
[Niddah 7b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:3)

אֵיזוֹהִי זְקֵנָה — כֹּל שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת סָמוּךְ לְזִקְנָתָהּ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת — דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מְעוּבֶּרֶת וּמְנִיקָה שֶׁעָבְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת — דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Who is** the woman characterized as **an elderly woman** in this context? It is **any** woman for **whom three** typical menstrual **cycles** of thirty days **passed** during which she saw no menstrual blood, at a stage of her life **close to her old age. Rabbi Eliezer says:** In the case of **any woman** for **whom three** typical menstrual **cycles passed** during which she saw no menstrual blood, if she then experiences bleeding, **her time is sufficient. Rabbi Yosei says:** With regard to **a pregnant woman and a nursing woman** for **whom three** typical menstrual **cycles passed** during which they saw no menstrual blood, if they then saw blood, **their time is sufficient.**


###### Niddah 7b:4
[Niddah 7b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:4)

וּבַמָּה אָמַר ״דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ״ — בִּרְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה, אֲבָל בַּשְּׁנִיָּה מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת, וְאִם רָאֲתָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֵאוֹנֶס — אַף הַשְּׁנִיָּה דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in the above cases, **with regard to what did** the *tanna* say **her time is sufficient?** It is **with regard to the first sighting** of blood, **but with regard to the second sighting,** her status is like that of any other woman, and **she transmits impurity for** a twenty-four-hour **period** or from her most recent examination. **And if she saw the first** sighting as a result of **unnatural circumstances, even** with regard to **the second** sighting, the *halakha* is that **her time is sufficient.**


###### Niddah 7b:5
[Niddah 7b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:5)

**גְּמָ'** תַּנְיָא: אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אַתָּה לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ, אֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי; אַתָּה לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ אֶלָּא אַחַת, וַאֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי הַרְבֵּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** Rabbi Eliezer teaches in the mishna that there are four women who transmit impurity only from the moment that they saw menstrual blood, not retroactively. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard this *halakha* from my teachers only with regard to a virgin. The Gemara notes that **it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: You did not hear,** but **I did hear** it. In other words, you may not have received a tradition from your teachers with regard to any other woman, but I did receive such a tradition. Furthermore, **you heard** a halakhic ruling with regard to **only one** woman, **and I heard** rulings with regard to **many** women.


###### Niddah 7b:6
[Niddah 7b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:6)

אֵין אוֹמְרִים לְמִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ ״יָבֹא וְיָעִיד״, אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁרָאָהוּ. כׇּל יָמָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לְאַחַר פְּטִירָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הֶחְזִיר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת הַדָּבָר לְיוֹשְׁנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Eliezer continued his rebuttal with a metaphor from the practice of sanctifying the new moon, which required the testimony of witnesses: **We do not say to one who had not seen the new moon** to **come and testify. Rather** we give such an instruction only **to he who saw it.** Similarly, my opinion is weightier with regard to this issue, as I heard many rulings about the matter, whereas you did not. The Gemara reports: **All the days of** the life of **Rabbi Eliezer, they would practice in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua,** i.e., only a virgin would be exempt from retroactive impurity. **After Rabbi Eliezer’s passing, Rabbi Yehoshua returned the matter to its former** custom, which was to follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


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

כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, בְּחַיָּיו מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שַׁמּוּתִי הוּא, וְסָבַר: אִי עָבְדִינַן כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, עָבְדִינַן כְּוָותֵיהּ בְּאַחְרָנְיָיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that they **did not** act **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer during his lifetime?** The Gemara answers: **Because Rabbi Eliezer was a *Shammuti*,** i.e., a follower of the rulings of Beit Shammai, and the *halakha* is generally in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in their disputes with Beit Shammai. **And** the Sages **held** that **if we act in accordance with his** opinion **in one** matter, people will **act in accordance with his** opinion **in other** matters.


###### Niddah 7b:8
[Niddah 7b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:8)

וּמִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, לָא מָצֵינַן מָחֵינַן בְּהוּ. לְאַחַר פְּטִירָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר (דְּמָצִינוּ) [דְּמָצֵינַן] מָחֵינַן בְּהוּ, הֶחְזִיר אֶת הַדָּבָר לְיוֹשְׁנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** that would be a problem, as if so, then during his lifetime, **due to the honor of Rabbi Eliezer, we** will **not be able to protest** against **them.** But **after Rabbi Eliezer’s passing, when we are able to protest** against **those** who act in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion in other matters, Rabbi Yehoshua **returned the matter to its former** custom of deciding the *halakha* in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in this matter.


###### Niddah 7b:9
[Niddah 7b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:9)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּאַרְבַּע. חֲדָא: דַּאֲמַרַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara mentions other instances in which the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer in four** cases. **One** is the *halakha* **that we** just **mentioned,** of the four women who transmit ritual impurity only from the time of their sighting and onward.


###### Niddah 7b:10
[Niddah 7b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:10)

וְאִידָּךְ: הַמְקַשָּׁה כַּמָּה תִּשְׁפֶּה וּתְהֵא זָבָה? מֵעֵת לְעֵת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַהֲלָכָה כִּדְבָרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And another** is taught in a *baraita* with regard to a woman **who** experiences **labor** pain as a result of which she sees a flow of blood. Her discharge is attributed to childbirth rather than *zava* blood. The *baraita* asks: For **how long** must she be **relieved** from pain in order **to be** considered **a *zava*** due to her flow of uterine blood? She must have relief **for** a twenty-four-hour **period.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And** the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with his statement.**


###### Niddah 7b:11
[Niddah 7b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:11)

וְאִידָּךְ: הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה שֶׁבָּדְקוּ עַצְמָן יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן וּמָצְאוּ טָהוֹר, יוֹם שְׁבִיעִי וּמָצְאוּ טָהוֹר, וּשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים לֹא בָּדְקוּ — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקַת טׇהֳרָה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵין לָהֶן אֶלָּא יוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And another** case in which the *halakha* follows Rabbi Eliezer is taught in a mishna (68b): A *zav* and a *zava* must observe seven days without a discharge in order to attain ritual purity. With regard to **a *zav* or a *zava* who examined themselves** on the **first day and found** themselves to be **pure,** and they examined themselves on the **seventh day and found** themselves to be **pure, but** on the **rest of the** intervening **days they did not examine** themselves, **Rabbi Eliezer says: The presumptive status of** the *zav* and the *zava* is one of **ritual purity. Rabbi Yehoshua says:** In that case, the *zav* and the *zava* **have** counted **only the first day and the seventh day,** two of the seven clean days, and they must count another five days to complete the tally.


###### Niddah 7b:12
[Niddah 7b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:12)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין לָהֶם אֶלָּא יוֹם שְׁבִיעִי בִּלְבָד. וְתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמְרִים: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִדִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִדִּבְרֵי כוּלָּן, אֲבָל הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **Rabbi Akiva says:** Since any impure discharge that they might have experienced in between the first and seventh days would negate their count and require them to restart the seven-day period, the *zav* and the *zava* **have** counted **only the seventh day,** and must count another six days to complete the tally. And with regard to this dispute, it **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosei say: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer appears** more correct **than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, and the statement of Rabbi Akiva** appears more correct **than the statement of all of them. But** the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Niddah 7b:13
[Niddah 7b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:13)

וְאִידַּךְ, דִּתְנַן: אֲחוֹרֵי כֵלִים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּמַשְׁקִין, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַמַּשְׁקִין וְאֵין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הָאֳוכָלִין. מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַמַּשְׁקִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ דְּחוּלִּין, וְאֵין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הָאֳוכָלִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ דִּתְרוּמָה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַמַּשְׁקִין וּפוֹסְלִין אֶת הָאֳוכָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other** case in which the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Teharot* 8:7): With regard to **the exterior of vessels that contracted ritual impurity** through contact **with** impure **liquids,** i.e., with liquids that had touched the carcass of a creeping animal, **Rabbi Eliezer says,** with regard to this impurity that applies by rabbinic law: These exteriors **transmit impurity to liquids** that come in contact with them, but **they do not disqualify foods** with which they come into contact. The mishna elaborates: **They transmit impurity to** other **liquids, and even non-sacred** liquids. **And they do not disqualify foods, and even *teruma*. Rabbi Yehoshua says:** These exteriors **transmit impurity to liquids and they disqualify** *teruma* **foods,** as well.


###### Niddah 7b:14
[Niddah 7b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וּמָה טְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁאֵין מְטַמֵּא מַשְׁקֵה חוּלִּין, פּוֹסֵל אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה, אֲחוֹרֵי כֵלִים שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא מַשְׁקֵה חוּלִּין, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁפּוֹסֵל אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua says:** I derived my ruling via **an *a fortiori*** inference from the *halakha* of one who was ritually impure, who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed. **And if one who immersed that day, who** has second-degree ritual impurity status and therefore he **does not transmit impurity to non-sacred liquids,** nevertheless **disqualifies *teruma* foods** with which he comes into contact, then with regard to the **exteriors of vessels, which** do **transmit impurity to non-sacred liquids, is it not logical that** they should **render *teruma* food disqualified?**


###### Niddah 7b:15
[Niddah 7b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:15)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֲחוֹרֵי כֵלִים דְּרַבָּנַן, וּטְבוּל יוֹם דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְרַבָּנַן מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא עָבְדִינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אֵין אוֹכֶל מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי, וְאֵין מַשְׁקֶה מְטַמֵּא כְּלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Eliezer,** how does he refute this inference? The Gemara answers: He would counter that the *halakha* that the **exterior of vessels** are rendered impure through contact with impure foods or liquids is **by rabbinic law, and** the *halakhot* of **one who immersed that day** apply **by Torah law. And** there is a principle that one does not **apply *a fortiori*** inferences to derive conclusions **by rabbinic law from** cases that apply **by Torah law. As by Torah law** impure **foods do not transmit impurity to vessels, and** similarly, impure **liquids do not transmit impurity to vessels.**


###### Niddah 7b:16
[Niddah 7b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:16)

וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזוּר גְּזֵרָה, מִשּׁוּם מַשְׁקִין דְּזָב וְזָבָה, מַשְׁקִין דַּעֲלוּלִין לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה — גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן, אֳוכָלִין דְּאֵין עֲלוּלִין לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה — לָא גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And** it was **the Sages who issued a decree** that the exterior of a vessel is rendered impure when it comes into contact with impure liquids, and they decreed that only liquids, not foods, are rendered impure when they come into contact with impure vessel exteriors. The reason for this is **due to** the **liquids** secreted **by a *zav* or *zava*,** e.g., their saliva and urine, which have a primary degree of ritual impurity and therefore transmit impurity to vessels. Consequently, with regard to **liquids, which are apt to contract impurity, the Sages issued a decree that they** contract impurity when they come in contact with these impure vessel exteriors. But with regard to **foods, which are not** as **apt to contract impurity,** as they must first be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid, **the Sages did not issue** such **a decree with regard to them.**


###### Niddah 7b:17
[Niddah 7b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:17)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא אֲחוֹרֵי כֵלִים דְּנָקֵט? מִשּׁוּם דְּקִילִּי, דִּתְנַן: כְּלִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא מֵאֲחוֹרָיו בְּמַשְׁקִין — אֲחוֹרָיו טָמֵא, תּוֹכוֹ, אׇזְנוֹ, אוֹגְנוֹ, יָדָיו — טְהוֹרִין. נִטְמָא תּוֹכוֹ — כּוּלּוֹ טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Rabbi Eliezer agrees that if the interior of a vessel is rendered impure by contact with impure liquids, it renders impure any *teruma* foods that come into contact with it. **But what is different** about the **exterior of vessels, that** Rabbi Eliezer **cited** them as having a more lenient status? The Gemara answers: This is **due to** the fact **that** their *halakhot* are more **lenient** than those of the other parts of the vessel. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Kelim* 25:6): With regard to **a vessel whose exterior was rendered impure by** contact with impure **liquids,** its **exterior is impure,** while its others parts, such as **its interior, its ear,** i.e., its looped handle, **its rim,** the edge of the vessel that protrudes outward, and **its handles, are pure.** But if its **interior was rendered impure, it is all impure.**


###### Niddah 7b:18
[Niddah 7b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:18)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן שְׁמוּאֵל? בְּכוּלְּהוּ תְּנַן הִלְכְתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
These are the four cases with regard to which Shmuel said that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: **What is Shmuel teaching us? In all** of these cases **we learned** explicitly that **the *halakha*** is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


###### Niddah 7b:19
[Niddah 7b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:19)

וְכִי תֵימָא, אֲחוֹרֵי כֵלִים קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא תְּנַן, וְלֵימָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בַּאֲחוֹרֵי כֵלִים! אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, שֶׁאֵין לְמֵדִין הֲלָכָה מִפִּי תַלְמוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that he is **teaching us** the *halakha* with regard to the **exterior of vessels, whose** *halakha* **we did not learn** from the mishna, **let** Shmuel simply **state** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer with regard to** the **exterior of vessels.** The Gemara explains: **Rather, this** is what Shmuel **teaches us: That** a final ***halakha* may not be learned** directly **from the Talmud,** i.e., from a statement of a mishna or *baraita* that the *halakha* is in accordance with a specific opinion, unless the ruling is confirmed by *amora’im*.


###### Niddah 7b:20
[Niddah 7b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7b:20)

וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is there nothing more** that can be added to the list of cases in which the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? **But isn’t there** another case **that we learned** in a mishna (*Yevamot* 109a): Two brothers married two sisters, one an adult and the other a minor. If the husband of the adult dies, the Torah obligation of levirate marriage applies to the other brother, which is not abrogated by the rabbinic prohibition of the *yevama* as the sister of his minor wife. In such a case, **Rabbi Eliezer says:**