[the difficulty would arise:] If it1 causes the uncleanness of others,2 is it not obvious that it causes that of the man himself?3 It is consequently obvious that this has been said of a zab who is a leper.4 And since a Scriptural text was required to include him in the category of uncleanness after a second observation,5 it may be inferred that the place of the zibah is no source.6 Said Rab Judah of Diskarta7 to Raba: What is the proof?8 Is it not still possible to maintain that the text deals with one who is only a zab;9 and as to your objection 'If it causes the uncleanness of others, is it not obvious that it causes that of the man himself?' [It can be retorted:] The case of the scapegoat10 proves [the invalidity of your argument], for it causes uncleanness to others11 while it is itself clean.12 Abaye observed: Why did he13 at all raise such a question, seeing that he himself stated, 'This is the law of him that hath an issue,14 implies, whether he is of age or a minor', and since this law15 has been deduced by him from that text,14 the expression of 'whether it be a man'16 remains free for the purpose of including a leper in regard to his source and 'or a woman' serves to include a female leper in regard to her sources; and the All Merciful has compared17 the leper to the confirmed zab:18 As the confirmed zab conveys uncleanness through carriage so does the first discharge of a leper convey uncleanness by carriage.
R. Huna ruled: The first observed discharge of a zab conveys uncleanness19 even in the case of a mishap; for it is said, This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him from whom the flow of seed goeth out;14 as 'the flow of seed' conveys uncleanness even in the case of a mishap so does the first observed discharge of a zab convey uncleanness even in the case of a mishap. Come and hear: If he observed a first discharge, he must be examined.20 Is not this done to determine his21 uncleanness?22 — No; in regard to a sacrifice.23 Come and hear: At the second observation of a discharge he must be examined.20 Now for what purpose? If it be suggested: For that of a sacrifice but not for that of uncleanness24 [it could be retorted:] Apply here the Scriptural text 'out of his flesh'.25 which implies, but not as a result of a mishap.26 Consequently it must be for the purpose of uncleanness. And since the final clause refers to an examination in regard to uncleanness must not the first clause also refer to one for uncleanness?27 — What an argument! Each might refer to an examination for different purposes.28
Come and hear: R. Eliezer ruled: Even at the third observation he must be examined on account of the sacrifice.' From which it follows, does it not, that the first Tanna requires it29 on account of the uncleanness?22 — No; all may require it29 on account of the sacrifice, but here they30 differ on the exposition of the eth31 particles. The Rabbis base no exposition on the eth particles and R. Eliezer does. 'The Rabbis base no exposition on the eth particles': 'He that hath an issue'32 represents one discharge, 'his issue'33 represents a second one; so far 'for the man';34 while at the third discharge the All Merciful compared him to the woman.35 'And R. Eliezer does': 'He that hath an issue'36 represents one discharge, 'eth'37 represents a second one, 'his issue'38 represents a third one, while at the fourth discharge the All Merciful compared him to the woman.39
Come and hear: R. Isaac said, A zab, surely, was included in the same law of uncleanness as one who emitted semen,40 why then was he excluded?41 In order to relax the law for him in one respect and to restrict it for him in another respect. 'To relax the law for him' in that he does not become unclean in case of a mishap; and to restrict it for him'
Original footnotes renumbered.
- The issue of a zab.
- Anything that the zab carries is unclean.
- What need then is there to mention the obvious?
- To whom, being unclean on account of his leprosy, the inference a minori ad majus cannot be applied.
- Thus implying that a first issue is clean.
- And, therefore, causes no uncleanness by carriage. Had it been a source the first discharge would have been unclean and there would have been no need to include in the uncleanness a second one.
- [Deskarah, sixteen parasangs N.E. of Bagdad. v. Obermeyer. p. 146].
- Lit., 'from what'.
- While the discharge of a leper requires no Scriptural text to tell of its uncleanness since even a first one is unclean by reason of its issue from a leper's source.
- Cf. Lev, XVI, 5ff.
- The man who carries it to Azazel (cf. Lev. XVI, 8, 26).
- As any other live beast.
- R. Joseph.
- Lev. XV, 32.
- The uncleanness of a minor.
- Lev. XV, 33, from which it was deduced supra that the first discharge of a minor is unclean.
- By including the expression of 'whether it be a man' (applied to the leper) in the text dealing with the zab.
- One who observed two discharges (for the proof cf. Rashi).
- Of a light nature: Only by contact and for the duration of one day; and only when it was followed by a second discharge does the person become a confirmed zab in respect of the counting of the seven days of uncleanness.
- Zabim II, 2.
- Lit., 'what, not to'.
- By ascertaining whether the discharge was or was not due to a mishap. In the former case it would be deemed clean. An objection against R. Huna.
- Which must be brought after three observed discharges. In case of a mishap the discharge is not reckoned as one of the three.
- Sc. the major uncleanness.
- Lev. XV, 2, dealing with one who observed two discharges.
- How then could it be held that no examination is required for this purpose?
- Cf. supra n. 3,
- Lit., 'that as it is and that as it is'. sc. while the latter examination serves the purposes of ascertaining the person's subjection to uncleanness, the former (as stated supra) may serve that of ascertaining whether he is liable to a sacrifice.
- The examination.
- R. Eliezer and the first Tanna.
- Grammatically the sign of the defined accusative.
- Lev. XV. 33. V. following n.
- Ibid. E.V.. Of them that have an issue,
- Ibid. (E.V.. whether it be a man). Sc. in the case of a mishap it is not subject to uncleanness.
- Ibid. (E.V. or a woman). Sc. even in the case of a mishap it is subject to uncleanness (cf. infra 36b) and also the obligation of a sacrifice.
- Lev. XV, 33. V. infra n. 3.
- Grammatically the sign of the defined accusative.
- Ibid. E.V., Of them that have an issue.
- Cf. prev. nn. In this case, however, the comparison is restricted to the case of a mishap. viz., if such a discharge occurred after some of the seven days have been counted all the counting is void. Uncleanness sets in after two discharges while a sacrifice is incurred after the third discharge.
- As will he shown infra.
- In being given a special section to himself.
in that he causes a couch and a seat to be unclean.1 Now when [does this ruling apply]? If it be suggested: When a second discharge was observed [the objection would arise]: How could he then be included in 'the same law of uncleanness as one who emitted semen'? It is consequently obvious [that is was meant to apply] when a first discharge was observed;2 and yet it was stated, was it not, 'To relax the law for him in that he does not become unclean in case of a mishap'?3 — But how do you understand this: 'To restrict it for him in that he causes a couch and a seat to be unclean'; is he capable4 after a first observation to cause a couch and a seat to be unclean? But the fact is that it is this that was meant: 'R. Isaac said, A zab after his first observation was surely included in the same law of uncleanness as one who emitted semen, why then was he in the case of a second observation excluded? In order to relax the law for him in one respect and to restrict it for him in another respect. "To relax the law for him" in that he does not become unclean in case of a mishap; "and to restrict it for him" in that he causes a couch and a bed to be unclean'.5
R. Huna stated: The discharge of a zab resembles the dough water of barley. The discharge of the zab issues from dead flesh while semen issues from live flesh. The former is watery and resembles the white of a crushed egg while the latter is viscous and resembles the white of a sound egg.
THE BLOOD OF A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH WHO DID NOT UNDERGO RITUAL IMMERSION etc. It was taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai, Do you not agree that if a menstruant who did not undergo ritual Immersion observed some blood she is unclean?6 Said Beth Shammai to them: [This is] no [comparison]. If you apply this law7 to a menstruant who, even after she had undergone immersion, is unclean if she observed a discharge, would you also apply it to a woman after childbirth who, if she had undergone immersion and then observed a discharge, is clean? The former retorted: The case of one who gave birth during zibah proves our case; for if such a woman had undergone ritual immersion8 and observed a discharge after the counted days she is clean9 while if she did not undergo immersion and observed a discharge she is unclean. The latter replied: The same law10 applies,11 and this is our reply. This then implies that they12 are in disagreement.13 But have we not learnt: THEY12 AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT IF SHE GAVE BIRTH WHILE IN ZIBAH, IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY? — This is no difficulty, since the latter14 refers to one who already counted the prescribed days while the former15 refers to one who did not count them.16 And so it was also taught: If a woman who gave birth during zibah had counted the prescribed number of clean days but did not undergo ritual immersion and then observed a discharge. Beth Shammai gave their ruling17 in accordance with their own view18 and Beth Hillel ruled in accordance with their own view.19
It was stated: Rab said, [the blood discharge20 emanates21 from] one and the same source; but it is the Torah that declared it unclean during one period22 and clean during another.23 Levi, however, said, It emanates from two different sources. When the unclean one is closed24 the clean one opens, and when the clean one closes,25 the unclean one opens. What is the practical difference between them?26 — The practical difference between them is the case of a continuous discharge from within the seven days into the period following these seven days, or from within the fourteen days into the period after the fourteenth, or from within the forty days to the period after the forty days or from within the eighty days into the period following eighty days. According to Rab the law is to be relaxed in the first case27 and restricted in the latter;28 but according to Levi the law is to be restricted in the first case29 and relaxed in the latter.30
An objection was raised: THE BLOOD OF A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH WHO DID NOT UNDERGO RITUAL IMMERSION, BETH SHAMMAI RULED, IS LIKE HER SPITTLE AND HER URINE, BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY, It was now presumed that this is a case where31 there was a break.32 This then is satisfactory according to Rab who said that the discharge emanates from one and the same source,33 for this reason it conveys uncleanness both when wet and dry.34 But according to Levi who said that it emanated from two different sources why35 should it convey uncleanness both when wet and when dry? — Levi can answer you: We are here dealing with the case of a woman whose discharge was continuous.36 But if the discharge was continuous, what is Beth Shammai's reason? — Beth Shammai are of the opinion that there exists only once source. According to Levi37 one can quite well see the point that divides Beth Shammai from Beth Hillel;38 but, according to Rab,39 what40 is the point that divides them?41 — The point that divides them in the question whether42 both the termination of the prescribed number of days and also ritual immersion are required; Beth Shammai holding that the All Merciful made the cleanness dependent on the days alone while Beth Hillel hold that43 it is dependent on both the days and immersion.44
Come and hear: THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT IF SHE GAVE BIRTH WHILE IN ZIBAH, IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY. It was now assumed that here also45 it is a case where there was a break.46 Now, according to Rab who stated that there exists only one source one can quite well see the reason why the discharge conveys UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY;47 but according to Levi who stated that the sources are two why does the discharge48 CONVEY UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY?49 — He can answer you: Here also it is a case of a continuous discharge. But if the discharge was continuous, what was the need of stating the law?50 — It was necessary to state it for the sake of Beth Shammai: Although Beth Shammai maintain that there is only one source and that the All Merciful had ordained the uncleanness to be dependent entirely on the lapse of the prescribed number of days,51 this applies only to a woman in normal52 childbirth, the prescribed number of whose unclean days had passed,53 but not to a woman who gave birth in zibah who is required also to count seven clean days.54
Come and hear: Her sickness shall be unclean55 includes56 the man who had intercourse with her;57 'her sickness shall be unclean'55 includes58 the nights;59 'her sickness shall she be unclean'60 includes58 a woman who gave birth while in zibah who remains in her uncleanness61 until seven clean days have passed.62 This63 is quite intelligible according to Rab who said that there exists only one source, since it is for this reason that she64 requires seven clean days,65
Original footnotes renumbered.
- As a 'father of uncleanness'.
- When (cf. supra 34b ad fin.) he may well be compared to one who emitted semen.
- An objection against R. Huna.
- Lit., 'a son of'.
- As a 'father of uncleanness'.
- If they do in this case, why do they differ in that of a WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH?
- Of uncleanness.
- After counting the seven clean days in addition to the unclean days of childbirth.
- Because it is clean blood.
- That is applicable to a woman after childbirth in the absence of zibah.
- To a childbirth in zibah: sc. the latter also is clean, if the discharge occurred after the unclean days of childbirth and the seven clean days after zibah had been counted, though she had undergone no immersion.
- Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
- On the uncleanness of one who was in childbirth during zibah.
- The Baraitha.
- Our Mishnah.
- Sc. the discharge occurred before the lapse of seven clean days after the zibah. As she is then still a zibah her discharge (unlike that of a woman in childbirth in the absence of zibah that is unclean only when wet) is unclean whether wet or dry.
- Lit., 'went',
- Expressed in the case of a childbirth that was free from zibah, viz., that even prior to immersion the discharge is clean if the prescribed number of clean days had been duly counted.
- That cleanness cannot be attained unless there was immersion as well as the due counting of the clean days.
- After childbirth.
- During the prescribed unclean and clean days.
- For seven days after the birth of a male child and for fourteen days after the birth of a female child.
- For thirty-three days after the seven in the case of the birth of a male and for sixty-six days after the fourteen in the case of the birth of a female.
- At the end of seven and the fourteen days respectively (cf. prev. n. but one).
- At the termination (cf. prev. n. but one) of the forty and the eighty days respectively.
- Rab and Levi.
- From within the seven and the fourteen days to the respective periods following them. Though the discharge was continuous it becomes clean, in accordance with the ordinance of the Torah, after the seventh and the fourteenth day respectively.
- From within the forty and the eighty days to the respective periods following them. Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
- Cf. prev. n. but one. Since the discharge was continuous it must be assumed that the unclean source had not yet closed.
- Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
- At the termination of the unclean days.
- In the continuity of the discharge.
- And that it is only an ordinance of the Torah that brings about the distinction.
- As the woman had not yet undergone ritual immersion the source must remain unclean and the discharge continues to convey uncleanness whether it is wet or dry.
- Since at the termination of the unclean days the clean source opens.
- Sc. there was no break in it when the unclean period had ended, which is an indication that the unclean source had not yet been closed.
- Who stated that according to Beth Hillel there are two different sources.
- According to the latter, since the sources are two, and since the unclean one had not yet closed, the discharge must be unclean; while according to the former, since there is only one source and the Torah ordained that after the unclean days prescribed it becomes clean, the discharge must be clean.
- Who stated that there is only one source.
- If Beth Hillel uphold this view.
- Beth Shammai from Beth Hillel, seeing that both agree that there is only one source for the clean and the unclean blood.
- To enable the woman to attain cleanness.
- Irrespective of whether the discharge was continuous or ceased for a time at the termination of the unclean days.
- One without the other does not suffice for the attainment of cleanness.
- Where, as was explained supra, the days prescribed for a childbirth had passed but the seven clean days that are to follow zibah had not yet been counted.
- In the continuity of the discharge, at the conclusion of the unclean period.
- The reason being that the Torah ordained the blood to be regarded as unclean until the seven clean days that must follow zibah had passed.
- Which after the unclean period emanates from the clean source.
- Sc. while, by reason of its emanating from the source of a zab, it is rightly unclean when wet, why should it also be unclean when dry?
- That it CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH etc.
- Sc. that the discharge after these unclean days have passed becomes naturally clean.
- Lit., 'alone'.
- Lit., 'completed'.
- After the zibah. So long as she had not counted these days she remains subject to the uncleanness of zibah.
- Lev. XII, 2.
- Since otherwise the text is superfluous after the previous statement 'then she shall be unclean seven days as in the days of impurity' (ibid.).
- Sc. that he becomes as unclean as she.
- V. p. 246. n. 12.
- I.e., that the uncleanness is not restricted to the days, though 'days' only were spoken of in the context.
- Lev. XII, 2.
- After all discharge had ceased.
- Infra 37b.
- The last mentioned ruling.
- To attain cleanness.
- The discharge emanating from the same source as the unclean blood, the Torah (by its insertion of the superfluous text mentioned) ordained that cleanness cannot be attained before the woman had counted seven clean days.