If it be suggested: Under the zab [it could be objected: This]1 is derived from, And whosoever toucheth his bed.2 Consequently it must mean: Whosoever toucheth any thing under which the zab was';3 and this is4 the cover above the zab,5 Scripture6 segregated it from a grave uncleanness7 and transferred it to a lighter uncleanness in order to tell you that it imparts uncleanness to foods and drinks only.8 Might it not be suggested that Scripture segregated it from the grave uncleanness only in order that it shall not impart uncleanness to a man9 and thereby also impart uncleanness to his clothes, but that it does impart uncleanness to a man9 or to clothes?10 — Scripture said: Shall be unclean,11 which implies12 an uncleanness of a lighter character, And whence is the law concerning the couch beneath one who had intercourse with a menstruant deduced? — From what was taught: And her impurity be upon him.13 As it might have been presumed that he is released from his uncleanness as soon as he is released,14 it was explicitly stated, He shall be unclean seven days.13 Then why was it explicitly stated, 'And her impurity be upon him'? As it might have been presumed that he imparts no uncleanness to man or earthenware, it was explicitly stated, 'And her impurity be upon him',13 as she imparts uncleanness to man15 and to earthenware16 so does he impart uncleanness to man15 and earthenware.16 In case it might be suggested:17 As she causes a couch or a seat to become unclean so as to impart uncleanness to a man and thereby also impart uncleanness to his clothes, so does he also cause his couch and seat to impart uncleanness to man and thereby impart uncleanness to his clothes, it was explicitly stated: And every bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.18 For19 it should not have been stated. 'and every bed on which he lieth shall be unclean', then why was it written, 'And every bed on which etc.'? Scripture has, thereby, segregated it from a grave uncleanness20 and transferred it to a lighter uncleanness, to tell you that it imparts uncleanness to foods and drinks only. R. Ahai demurred: Might it not be suggested that Scripture had segregated it from a grave uncleanness and transferred it to a lighter uncleanness only in order that it shall not impart uncleanness to a man and thereby also convey it to his clothes, but that it does impart uncleanness to a man21 or to clothes?22 — R. Assi replied: Shall be unclean23 implies24 an uncleanness of a lighter nature. Might it not be argued: 'And her impurity be upon him'18 is a generalization, 'and every bed'18 is a specification25 and, since the scope of a generalization when followed by a specialization already comprehended in it is limited by the thing specified, only26 a bed and a seat, but no other thing should convey uncleanness? — Abaye replied: 'He shall be unclean for seven days'18 makes a break in the context, so that this is a case of a generalization and a specification that are distant from one another and whenever a generalization and a specification are distant from one another the rule of generalization and specification does not apply. Raba replied: The rule27 in fact does apply, but the expression of 'and every'18 is an extension.28 R. Jacob demurred: Might it not be argued that he29 is30 subject to the same uncleanness as she in this respect: As in her case no distinction is made between her touch and her bed as regards the conveyance of uncleanness to a person and to his clothes, thus adopting the stricter course,31 so also in his case no distinction should be made between his touch and his bed as regards the conveyance of uncleanness to a person and to his clothes, the lenient course being adopted?32 — Raba replied:33 'Upon him' implies: To put a load upon him.34
SINCE THEY COHABIT WITH MENSTRUANTS etc. Do they all35 cohabit with menstruants? — R. Isaac of Magdala replied: This was learnt about married persons only.
BECAUSE [THEIR WIVES] CONTINUE [UNCLEAN FOR SEVEN DAYS] ON ACCOUNT OF A DISCHARGE OF ANY BLOOD etc. It was taught: R. Meir stated, If they continue [unclean for seven days] on account of a discharge of any blood,36 is not this37 rather an important safeguard for them? But the fact is that when they observe a discharge of red blood they treat it as supplementary to a previous discharge of yellow blood.38 Another explanation: She includes the day on which her discharge ceases39 in the number of the seven days.40 Rami b. Hama demurred: Why indeed should she not count it,41 and why should not we also count it,41 seeing that we have an established rule that part of a day is regarded as the whole of it? — Raba retorted: If so,42 how could it be possible for an emission of semen to cause the counting43 after a zibah to be void seeing that a part of the day is to be counted as the whole of it?44 If one had observed the discharge in the middle of the day the law might indeed be so,45 but here we might be dealing with one who observed the discharge near sunset?46 — Could it then definitely be assumed that47 the Scriptural text was written only [in regard to a discharge] near sunset? — Yes; you must indeed allow the text to be so explained, for it48 forces this interpretation upon itself.
Rami b. Hama enquired: If a woman49 ejected some semen;50 does she cause her counting51 after a zibah to be void? Is she regarded as one who observed an emission of semen and causes, therefore, the counting51 to be void
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Since it is midras (cf. Prev. n. but two).
- Lev. XV, 5.
- The Heb, yiheyeh tahtaw may be rendered as E.V. 'that was under him' as well as 'under which he (the zab) was'.
- Lit., 'and what is it',
- Cf. Rashal and Rashi. Cur. edd. in parenthesis add: 'And he who carries shall also be unclean; and what is that? What is being carried. What is the reason? It is written: And that which is carried'.
- By separating the law of touching from that of carrying with the expression of 'shall be unclean'.
- Carrying which imparts uncleanness to a person as well as to his clothes.
- But not to a person.
- Who touches it.
- That came in direct contact with it.
- Lev. XV, 10.
- Since the washing of garments was not mentioned in that part of the verse.
- Lev. XV, 24.
- Lit., 'he shall go up at her foot'. sc. if, for instance, on the sixth day of her uncleanness he became unclean through her he should become clean on the following day (which is her seventh day) on which she is released from her uncleanness.
- And to the clothes he wears.
- By heset (v. Glos.).
- Lit., 'if'.
- Lev, XV, 24.
- Since it was written, 'and her impurity be upon him' and about her it is written, that one who touches her bed must wash his garments.
- That of the couch of the menstruant which imparts uncleanness to a person as well as to the clothes he wears.
- Who touches it.
- That came in direct contact with it.
- Lev. XV, 10.
- Since the washing of garments was not mentioned in that part of the verse.
- Of the same general rule.
- Lit., 'yes'.
- Of generalization followed by a specification.
- Of the general rule. The rule of generalization and specification does not, therefore, apply here.
- Who cohabits with a menstruant.
- Since the man and the woman were compared.
- Sc. that both the person and his clothes are unclean.
- Viz., that neither his person nor his clothes contract uncleanness.
- Var. lec. Scripture said.
- I.e., in his case too the stricter course must be adopted.
- Sc. married and unmarried men.
- Whether clean or unclean.
- The counting of seven days after each discharge whose colour differed from the previous one.
- Cf. relevant n. on our Mishnah.
- Sc. the third day of three consecutive days (after the termination of her period of menstruation) on each of which she experienced a discharge and in consequence of which, she is a confirmed zabah.
- While in the case of a zabah the law requires seven full days clear of any discharge whatsoever.
- As one of the seven clean days.
- That as regards the counting of the clean days after zibah a part of a day could be regarded as the whole of it.
- Of any one of the seven days (cf. supra 22a).
- And a part of the day presumably remains after the emission.
- The remaining part of the day being counted as a full day and the counting of the seven days is in no way interrupted.
- So that no part of the day remained,
- Lit., 'and let him arise and say to him to'.
- In view of the accepted rule that part of a day counts as the whole of it.
- Who had intercourse during her zibah.
- While she was counting her clean days after her zibah had terminated.
- Of the one day on which the ejection occurred.
or is she rather regarded as one who merely touched it and, therefore, she does not cause the counting to be void? — Raba replied, His error is as deep as his subtlety: Granted that she causes her counting to be void, how many days could be affected? Should it be suggested that the counting of all the seven days should be void [it could be objected]: Is it not enough that she is treated like the man who had the intercourse with her?1 Should it be suggested that she should cause the counting of one day to be void [it could be retorted:] Did not the All Merciful say, And after that she shall be clean,2 'after' means after all of them, implying that no uncleanness3 may intervene between them? — But according to your view, how could a zab himself cause the counting of one day to be void seeing that the All Merciful said, He shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing.4 which implies that no uncleanness must intervene between them?5 What then have you to say in reply? That the meaning is that only the uncleanness of zibah must not intervene between them;6 well, here also it may be explained that the meaning is that only the uncleanness of zibah must not intervene between them.7
ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR [UNCLEANNESS]. HOWEVER, NO OBLIGATION IS INCURRED FOR ENTRANCE INTO THE TEMPLE etc. R. Papa once visited Tuak8 when he remarked, 'If there lives a scholar in this place I would go and pay him my respects'.9 'A scholar lives here', said an old woman to him, 'and his name is R. Samuel and he learns Tannaitic traditions. May it be God's will that you be like him'. 'Since', he thought. 'she blesses me by him I can gather10 that he is a God11-fearing man'. He thereupon visited him when the latter treated him to12 a bull; and he also treated him to an incongruity13 between Tannaitic teachings: We have learnt, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR [UNCLEANNESS]. HOWEVER, NO OBLIGATION IS INCURRED FOR ENTRANCE INTO THE TEMPLE NOR IS TERUMAH BURNT ON THEIR ACCOUNT, SINCE THEIR14 UNCLEANNESS IS ONLY OF A DOUBTFUL NATURE, from which it is evident that terumah is not burnt in a case of doubt. But have we not learnt to the contrary: In six doubtful cases of uncleanness is terumah burnt [and one of them is] the doubtful uncleanness of the clothes of an 'am ha-arez?15 — 'May it be God's will', exclaimed R. Papa, 'that this bull shall be eaten in peace:16 Here17 we are dealing with the case of a Samaritan who was a haber'.18 'But would you presume19 [the other retorted] that a Samaritan who is a haber had intercourse with a menstruant?' When he left him20 and came to R. Shimi b. Ashi the latter said to him: Why did you not answer him [that our Mishnah21 deals] with the case of a Samaritan who, having performed ritual immersion, came up and trod upon the clothes22 of a haber and the clothes22 of this haber then came in contact with terumah,23 so that if [the terumah were to be treated as unclean] on account of the uncleanness of the 'am ha-arez [it could be objected]: He has, surely, performed ritual immersion.24 And if the uncleanness were to be attributed to his likely intercourse with a menstruant [it could be objected]: It is doubtful whether he had his intercourse recently or some time ago.25 And even if you were to find some ground for assuming that his intercourse took place recently there is still the doubt whether she had completed her period of cleanness for yellow blood or not.26 This then is a case of double doubt,27 and no terumah may be burnt on account of a doubly doubtful uncleanness. But why should not the uncleanness of the terumah be established28 on account of its contact with the clothes of an 'am ha-arez, a Master having stated: The clothes of an 'am ha-arez are like midras uncleanness29 to Pharisees?30 — The other replied: This is a case of a naked Samaritan.
MISHNAH. THE DAUGHTERS OF THE SADDUCEES, SO LONG AS THEY ARE IN THE HABIT OF WALKING IN THE PATHS OF THEIR FATHERS, ARE TO BE REGARDED AS SAMARITAN WOMEN. IF THEY LEFT THOSE PATHS31 TO WALK IN THE PATHS OF ISRAEL, THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS ISRAELITISH WOMEN. R. JOSE RULED: THEY ARE ALWAYS REGARDED AS ISRAELITISH WOMEN UNLESS THEY LEAVE THE PATHS OF ISRAEL TO WALK IN THE PATHS OF THEIR FATHERS.
GEMARA. The question was raised: What is the law32 where their attitude is unknown?33 — Come and hear: THE DAUGHTERS OF THE SADDUCEES, SO LONG AS THEY ARE IN THE HABIT OF WALKING IN THE PATHS OF THEIR FATHERS, ARE TO BE REGARDED AS SAMARITAN WOMEN; from which it follows that if their attitude is unknown they are like Israelitish women. Read then the final clause: IF THEY LEFT THESE PATHS TO WALK IN THE PATHS OF ISRAEL, THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS ISRAELITISH WOMEN; from which it follows that if their attitude is unknown they are like Samaritan women! But the fact is that no inference may be drawn from this [Mishnah].
Come and hear what we have learnt: R. JOSE RULED, THEY ARE ALWAYS REGARDED AS ISRAELITISH WOMEN UNLESS THEY LEAVE THE PATHS OF ISRAEL TO WALK IN THE PATHS OF THEIR FATHERS. Thus it follows that the first Tanna34 holds that when their attitude is unknown they are to be regarded as Samaritan women. This is conclusive.
Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a Sadducee was conversing with a High Priest in the market place when some spittle was squirted from his mouth and fell on the clothes of the High Priest. The face of the High Priest35 turned yellow and he hurried to his36 wife37 who assured him that although they were wives of Sadducees they paid homage to the Pharisees and showed their blood to the Sages.38 R. Jose observed: We39 know them better than anybody else [and can testify] that they show their menstrual blood to the Sages. There was only one exception, a woman who lived in our neighbourhood who did not show her blood to the Sages but she died. But why was he40 not concerned about the uncleanness41 that is occasioned by the spittle of an 'am ha-arez?42 — Abaye replied: This was a case of a Sadducee who was a haber.43 Said Raba: Is a Sadducee who is a haber presumed44 to have intercourse with a menstruant? Rather, said Raba:
Original footnotes renumbered.
- If a man who was a zab emitted semen on one of the seven clean days following a zibah he loses that day only.
- Lev, XV, 28.
- Even that of one day.
- Lev. XV, 13.
- The seven days. How then is he allowed to interrupt his seven days by the exclusion of the day on which he emitted semen?
- Sc. if there was such an intervention, all the days counted are void and another seven days must be counted.
- The uncleanness of an emission of semen, however, is not regarded as an intervention.
- Near Naresh, the home of R. Papa not far from Sura, v. Obermeyer. p. 208.
- Lit., 'I will receive his countenance'.
- Lit., 'infer from it'.
- Lit., 'heaven'.
- Lit., 'cast down for him', sc. had it slaughtered to prepare a feast in his honour.
- Lit., 'cast for him', (cf. prev. n.).
- So our Mishnah. The reading here is 'her'.
- That came in contact with the terumah; Toh. IV, 5. As a Samaritan is presumably in the same category why is the terumah spoken of in our Mishnah not to be burnt?
- Sc. that the feast shall not be disturbed by his inability to reconcile the apparent contradiction.
- In our Mishnah.
- Whose clothes could not be suspected of any uncleanness.
- Lit., 'make'.
- Rashi: He left his host because he embarrassed him.
- According to which terumah is not burnt on account of its contact with a couch that was underneath a Samaritan.
- Sc. the bed clothes, a couch.
- The terumah thus coming in contact with midras uncleanness.
- Whereby his uncleanness came to an end.
- In the latter case his uncleanness may have terminated before he performed the immersion and he is now clean.
- It is quite possible that she counted her clean days after a discharge of unclean blood.
- Lit., 'a doubt of a doubt',
- Lit., 'and let it go out for him'.
- As midras conveys uncleanness to man and clothes so do the clothes of an 'am ha-arez.
- Who were meticulous in the observance of the laws of cleanness, Hag. 18b.
- Lit., 'they separated'.
- According to the first Tanna who ruled: IF THEY ARE IN THE HABIT OF WALKING IN THE PATHS OF THEIR FATHERS THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS SAMARITAN WOMEN and IF THEY LEFT THESE PATHS for THE PATHS OF ISRAEL THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS ISRAELITISH WOMEN.
- Are they then regarded as Samaritan, or as Israelitish women?
- Who obviously differs from R. Jose.
- Who was afraid that the Sadducee may have been unclean owing to intercourse with his menstruant wife and that his spittle consequently conveyed uncleanness to the clothes on which it fell.
- The Sadducee's.
- To ascertain whether she observed the laws of menstruation and knew the distinction between clean and unclean blood.
- Who gave their decisions in accordance with the rulings of the Pharisees.
- Who live in their neighbourhood.
- The High Priest.
- Lit., 'and let it go out to him'.
- Even if he is not suspected of intercourse with a menstruant.
- V. Glos.
- Lit., 'you make',