![]() |
![]() |
|||||
Previous Folio /
Niddah Directory /
Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate NiddahFolio 73aNot in the time of her menstruation,1 implying,2 close to the time of her menstruation.3 Thus I only know about4 the three days that immediately follow5 the period of her menstruation, whence is it deduced that the same restrictions apply where the three days are separated from the period of her menstruation by one day? It was explicitly stated, Or if she have an issue.6 Thus I only know about an interval of one day, whence is it deduced that the restrictions extend [where the day or the days on which the discharge appeared were] separated [from the menstruation period] by two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine or ten days? You may reason thus: As we find in the case of the fourth day7 that8 it is suitable for the counting9 and10 is also appropriate as one for zibah11 so may I also introduce12 the tenth day13 since it is both suitable for the prescribed counting14 and appropriate as one for zibah.15 But whence is it deduced that the eleventh day16 is also included?17 It was explicitly stated, Not in the time of her menstruation.18 Might I also19 include17 the twelfth day?7 You must admit that this cannot be done.20 But what reason do you see for including17 the eleventh and for excluding the twelfth? I include the eleventh since it is suitable for being counted [as one of the seven clean days following the one21 that is deduced22 from] 'or if she have an issue'23 and I exclude the twelfth since it is not suitable for being counted as one of the seven clean days following the one that is deduced from 'or if she have an issue'.24 But so far I only know that zibah25 is established after a discharge on26 three days, whence is it deduced that the restrictions apply to a discharge on two days? It was explicitly stated, Days.27 Whence the deduction that the same applies also to a discharge on one day? It was explicitly stated, All the days.27 'Unclean',27 implies that she conveys uncleanness to the man who had intercourse with her like a menstruant. 'She',27 implies that only she conveys uncleanness to the man who had intercourse with her but that the zab conveys no uncleanness to the woman with whom he had intercourse. But is there not an argument [a minori ad majus]: If she, who does not contract uncleanness on account of observation28 as on account of days,29 does convey uncleanness to the man who had intercourse with her, is there not more reason that the man who does contract uncleanness on account of observation as on account of days30 should convey uncleanness to the woman with whom he had intercourse? It was expressly stated, 'she',27 implying that only she conveys uncleanness to the man who had intercourse with her but that a zab does not convey uncleanness to the woman with whom he had intercourse. But whence is it deduced that he conveys uncleanness to couch and seat? It was expressly stated, As the bed of her menstruation.31 From this,31 however, I would only know the case of a man who experienced a discharge on three days, whence the deduction that the restrictions apply to a discharge on two days? It was explicitly stated, 'Days'. But whence the deduction that the same applies to a discharge on one day? It was stated, 'All the days' — And whence do we infer that the woman must count one day to correspond to one day?32 It was stated, She shall be.33 As it might have been presumed that she should count seven days after a discharge has appeared on two days only, this being arrived at by the following argument, 'If the man who does not count one day to correspond to one day34 counts seven days after a discharge on two days, how much more reason is there that she who does count one day to correspond to one day32 should count seven days after a discharge on two days', it was explicitly stated, She shall be,33 implying that she counts one day only. It is thus evident,35 is it not, that these36 are derived from Scriptural texts?37 — According to R. Akiba they are derived from Scriptural texts, but according to R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah they are traditional halachahs.Said R. Shemaiah38 to R. Abba:39 Might it be suggested that on account of a discharge in the day time40 a woman is a zabah, and that on account of one in the night41 she is a menstruant? — For your sake,42 the other replied, Scripture stated, By43 the time of her menstruation,44 implying45 a discharge close to the time of her menstruation. Now which is a discharge that is close to the time of her menstruation? One that occurred in the night;46 and yet Scripture called her a zabah.47 The Tanna debe Eliyahu48 [teaches]: Whoever repeats49 halachahs every day may rest assured that he will be a denizen of the world to come, for it is said, Halikoth — the world is his;50 read not halikoth51 but halakoth.52
|
||||||
![]() |
![]() |