Traité Niddah

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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?

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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?

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.