Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 25, 2019 | 讻状讝 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖状驻

Niddah 33

From where do we derive that something a zav carries is only a first degree impurity and can only carry impurity to food and drink? From where do we derive that one who has intercourse with a niddah, items he sits/lies on have the level of impurity like the zav who carries? In which two details regarding niddah so the Cutim differ from the Jews (Pharasees)? If semen (live) discharges from a woman’s body, does it cancel her clean day/s of zava? Why don’t we burn truma in the Cutim case but we do in an Am Haaretz case – what is the difference between the cases? How are Saducee women considered for niddah issues – like the Cutim or like the Pharasees? In terms of tradition, they believe like the Citum but do they practice that way or not?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗讬诇讬诪讗 转讞转讬讜 讚讝讘 诪讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘诪砖讻讘讜 谞驻拽讗 讗诇讗 讛谞讜讙注 讘讻诇 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讛讝讘 转讞转讬讜 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 注诇讬讜谉 砖诇 讝讘


If we say the verse is teaching that a mattress beneath a zav is impure, this is already derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd whoever touches his bed鈥 (Leviticus 15:5). Rather, the verse is referring to that which touches any item under which the zav will be. And what is this item? It is the bedding above a zav. The verse teaches that the bedding above a zav imparts ritual impurity.


讜讛谞讜砖讗 谞诪讬 讬讟诪讗 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 谞讬砖讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讛谞砖讗 讻转讬讘


The verse further states: 鈥淎nd he who bears [vehanoseh] these things shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:10), indicating that he who bears also becomes impure. And what is this? This is an item borne [nisa] by a zav. What is the reason, i.e., how is this indicated by the verse? The term vehanisa is written in the verse.


谞转拽讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉


The Gemara continues: The verse removed the halakha of the bedding above a zav from the status of severe impurity and brought it to the status of lesser impurity, to tell you that it imparts impurity only to food and drink, but not to people or garments.


讗讬诪专 谞转拽讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讚诐 讗讜 讘讙讚讬诐 诇讬讟诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诪砖诪注


The Gemara objects: Say that the verse removed the bedding above a zav from severe impurity, in the sense that it does not impart impurity to a person to the extent that he may in turn impart impurity to the garments he is wearing. But let the bedding above a zav impart impurity to people or garments. The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淎nd whoever touches anything that was under him shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:10), which indicates lesser impurity.


讜转讞转讜谞讜 砖诇 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜转讛讬 谞讚转讛 注诇讬讜


搂 The mishna teaches that Samaritan men are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, and consequently they impart impurity to the bedding beneath them. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the bedding beneath one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman is impure? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a menstruating woman: 鈥淎nd if any man lie with her, and her impurity be upon him, he shall be impure seven days, and every bed upon which he lies shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:24).


讬讻讜诇 讬注诇讛 诇专讙诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讟诪讗 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐


The baraita explains: One might have thought that the phrase: 鈥淎nd her impurity be upon him,鈥 indicates that the man assumes the impure status of the menstruating woman with whom he engaged in intercourse, such that if they were together on the sixth day of her menstruation he may elevate himself at her time, i.e., he may immerse in a ritual bath the next day, just like the menstruating woman. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall be impure seven days.鈥


讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜转讛讬 谞讚转讛 注诇讬讜 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬 讞专住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜转讛讬 谞讚转讛 注诇讬讜 诪讛 讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬 讞专住 讗祝 讛讜讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬 讞专住


But if so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd her impurity be upon him鈥? As, one might have thought that a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman will not impart impurity to people and earthenware vessels. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd her impurity be upon him,鈥 to teach that he imparts impurity like a menstruating woman. In other words, just as she imparts impurity to people and earthenware vessels, so too, he imparts impurity to people and earthenware vessels.


讗讬 诪讛 讛讬讗 注讜砖讛 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗祝 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讛诪砖讻讘 讗砖专 讬砖讻讘 注诇讬讜 讬讟诪讗


If so, i.e., that one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman is compared to the woman herself, then say: Just as she renders the bedding beneath her and the seat upon which she sits impure to the extent that they impart impurity to a person to in turn impart impurity to the garments he is wearing, so too, he renders the bedding beneath him and the seat upon which he sits impure to the extent that they impart impurity to a person to in turn impart impurity to the garments he is wearing. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd every bed upon which he lies shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:24).


砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讛诪砖讻讘 讗砖专 讬砖讻讘 注诇讬讜 讬讟诪讗 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讛诪砖讻讘 讗砖专 讜讙讜壮 谞转拽讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉


The baraita elaborates: As, there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淎nd every bed upon which he lies shall be impure,鈥 since it is already written: 鈥淎nd her impurity be upon him,鈥 which indicates that just as a menstruating woman imparts impurity to her bedding, so too does one who has intercourse with her. And if so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd every bed upon which he lies shall be impure鈥? The verse separated the halakha of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman from the severe impurity of the menstruating woman herself, and brought him to lesser impurity, to tell you that he imparts impurity only to food and drink, but not to people or garments.


驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗讬 讗讬诪讗 谞转拽讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 讚诇讗 诇讬讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讜讬讬 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讚诐 讜讘讙讚讬诐 诇讬讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诪砖诪注


Rav A岣i refutes this derivation: Say that the verse removed the halakha of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman from severe impurity and brought it to lesser impurity, in the sense that his bedding does not impart impurity to a person to in turn impart impurity to the garments upon him. But let his bedding impart impurity to people or garments. Rav Asi says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd every bed upon which he lies shall be impure,鈥 which indicates a lesser impurity.


讗讬诪讗 讜转讛讬 谞讚转讛 注诇讬讜 讻诇诇 讜讻诇 讛诪砖讻讘 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗


The Gemara objects: But say that the phrase: 鈥淎nd her impurity be upon him,鈥 is a generalization, and the phrase: 鈥淎nd every bed upon which he lies shall be impure,鈥 is a detail. If so, the verse constitutes a generalization and a detail, and it is a hermeneutical principle that in such a case the generalization is referring only to that which is specified in the detail. Accordingly, with regard to the bedding and seat upon which the man rests, yes, they are rendered impure, but other items are not.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬讟诪讗 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 讛讜讬 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟


Abaye says that when the verse states: 鈥淗e shall be impure seven days,鈥 between the generalization and the detail, this interrupts the matter. Accordingly, this is a case of a generalization and a detail that are distant from one another, and with regard to any generalization and detail that are distant from one another, one does not derive a halakha from them in accordance with the principle of a generalization and a detail.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讚谞讬谉 讜讻诇 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗


Rava says: Actually, one may derive a halakha from a generalization and a detail that are distant from one another. But this verse does not constitute a case of a generalization and a detail, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd every bed upon which he lies.鈥 The term 鈥渁nd every鈥 is an amplification.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讬诪讗 讻讛讬讗 诪讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讛 讘讬谉 诪讙注讛 诇诪砖讻讘讛 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗祝 讛讜讗 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 诪讙注讜 诇诪砖讻讘讜 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 诇拽讜诇讗


Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov objects to this: Say that as the verse compares a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman to the woman herself, the man should be like her, i.e., just as with regard to her you did not differentiate between her touch and her bedding in terms of imparting impurity to a person and imparting impurity to garments, as the halakha is stringent concerning both in that her touch and her bedding impart impurity to people to in turn impart impurity to their garments; so too, with regard to him, you shall not differentiate between his touch and his bedding in terms of imparting impurity to a person and imparting impurity to garments, and the halakha should be lenient in both cases: Neither his bedding nor his touch should impart impurity to people to in turn impart impurity to their garments.


讗诪专 专讘讗 注诇讬讜 诇讛讟注讬谞讜 诪砖诪注


Rava says in response that when the verse states: 鈥淎nd her impurity be upon him,鈥 this indicates that the Torah intends for the impurity to weigh upon him, i.e., in a stringent manner.


诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讘讜注诇讬 谞讚讜转 讜讻讜壮 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讜注诇讬 谞讚讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讙讚诇讗讛 讘谞砖讜讗讜转 砖谞讜


搂 The mishna teaches that the impurity of Samaritan men is due to the fact that Samaritan men are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, and this is because they observe the seven-day menstrual period of impurity for each and every emission of blood. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that all Samaritan men are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women? Aren鈥檛 there some unmarried men who do not engage in intercourse with menstruating women? Rabbi Yitz岣k of Migdal says: They taught this halakha only with regard to men to whom women are married.


讜讛谉 讬讜砖讘讜转 注诇 讚诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诐 讛谉 讬讜砖讘讜转 注诇 讻诇 讚诐 讜讚诐 转拽谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 诇讛谉


The mishna further teaches: And Samaritan men are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women because they observe the seven-day menstrual period of impurity for each and every emission of blood. In this regard it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: If Samaritan women would begin observing a seven-day period of impurity for each and every emission of blood, it would be a great remedy for them, i.e., this practice would not lead to sin, as they would observe a seven-day period from each emission. But this is not their practice.


讗诇讗 砖专讜讗讜转 讚诐 讗讚讜诐 讜诪砖诇讬诪讜转 讗讜转讜 诇讚诐 讬专讜拽


Rather, when Samaritan women see green blood, which does not render them impure, they begin counting seven days of impurity from that emission. As, if they see red blood, which is impure, during that period, they do not begin observing another seven days. Instead, they consider it an additional emission of blood and they complete the remaining days from the seven days they began observing for the green blood. Consequently, the women will have immersed in a ritual bath while still impure.


讚讘专 讗讞专 讬讜诐 砖驻讜住拽转 讘讜 住讜驻专转讜 诇诪谞讬谉 砖讘注讛


Alternatively, a Samaritan woman is considered ritually impure because she counts the day on which she ceases to experience three consecutive days of emissions of ziva toward the total of seven clean days that a zava must experience before being able to immerse in a ritual bath. Accordingly, she does not wait seven full days, as is required by halakha.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讜转住驻专谞讜 讜讗谞谉 谞诪讬 谞讬住驻专讬讛 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜


Rami bar 岣ma objects to this: And let her count that day on which she ceases to experience emissions of ziva, and we, i.e., Jewish women, shall also count it, as we maintain that the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讚住转专 讘讝讬讘讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讜讛讗 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜


Rava says in response: If so, that even with regard to ziva the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, one can object: It is taught in a baraita that if a zav experiences an emission of semen while counting seven clean days toward his purity, the seminal emission negates the day on which he experiences it. How can you find the circumstances of this halakha with regard to ziva? Isn鈥檛 the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day? If so, let the remainder of the day on which he experiences the emission count as a day.


讗讬 讚讞讝讗讬 讘驻诇讙讗 讚讬讜诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讞讝讗讬 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Perhaps even with regard to ziva the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, and if the zav sees the seminal emission in the middle of the day, the remainder of the day is indeed counted as a whole day. But here we are dealing with a zav who sees a seminal emission adjacent to sunset, when there is no remaining time in the day that can be counted as an entire day.


讜诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讻转讬讘讗 讗讬谉 注诇 讻专讞讱 砖讘拽讬讛 诇拽专讗 讚讗讬讛讜 讚讞讬拽 讜诪讜拽讬 讗谞驻砖讬讛


The Gemara objects: But the halakha that a seminal emission negates a day from the count of a zav is derived from the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the zav, and of him from whom the flow of seed goes out, so that he is impure thereby鈥 (Leviticus 15:32). Is it right that one will stand and say about the verse that when it is written, it is written specifically with regard to a seminal emission that occurs adjacent to sunset? The Gemara explains: Yes, perforce you must leave aside the plain meaning of this verse, as it compels itself to be established as referring to such limited circumstances because it must conform to the principle that the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day.


讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 驻讜诇讟转 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诪讛讜 砖转住转讜专 讘讝讬讘讛 专讜讗讛 讛讬转讛 讜住讜转专转


搂 The Gemara mentioned earlier that if a zav experiences a seminal emission while counting seven clean days toward his purity, the seminal emission negates the day on which he experiences it. On a similar note, Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: In the case of a woman who discharges semen after engaging in intercourse with her husband, what is the halakha as to whether she negates her counting with regard to ziva? Rami bar 岣ma elaborates: In general, a woman who discharges semen is impure, but the reason for this halakha is uncertain. Is it because she was considered one who saw semen, i.e., the emission of semen itself renders her impure just like a man who experiences a seminal emission? And if so, this woman negates her count.


讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 谞讜讙注转 讛讬转讛 讜诇讗 住转专讛


Or perhaps it is because she was touching the semen, and if so she has not thereby negated her count, just as a zav does not negate his count if he touches semen.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇驻讜诐 讞讜专驻讗 砖讘砖转讗 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚住转专讛 讻诪讛 转住转讜专 转住转讜专 砖讘注讛 讚讬讛 讻讘讜注诇讛


Rava says: Commensurate with the sharpness of Rami bar 岣ma is the extent of his error, as this is not a dilemma at all, since even if one could suggest that a zava who discharges semen has indeed negated her count, one must ask: How much should she negate? If one suggests she should negate all seven days of her counting, this is untenable, as it is enough for her that she should negate her count like the man who engages in intercourse with her, i.e., like a zav who discharges semen, who negates only one day.


转住转讜专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讞专 转讟讛专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞专 讗讞专 诇讻讜诇谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛诐


And if one suggests that she should negate one day alone, this too is untenable, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淏ut if she is purified from her ziva then she shall count to herself seven days, and after that she shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 15:28). The word 鈥渁fter鈥 indicates that she shall be pure only after all of them, i.e., after seven consecutive clean days, such that there should be no impurity separating between them. If so, there cannot be a situation where a zava negates a single day, and consequently it cannot be that a zava who discharges semen negates any part of her count.


讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讝讘 讙讜驻讬讛 讛讬讻讬 住转专 诇讟讛专转讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛谉


The Gemara rejects Rava鈥檚 response: And according to your reasoning, how does a zav himself negate only one day from his count due to a seminal emission? After all, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd when the zav is purified of his ziva, then he shall count for himself seven days for his purification, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 15:13). The phrase: 鈥淪even days for his purification,鈥 indicates that there should be no impurity separating between them.


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗转 讝讬讘讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗转 讝讬讘讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛谉


Rather, what have you to say? The verse means only that there should not be an impurity of ziva separating between them. Here too, with regard to a zava, the verse means only that there should not be an impurity of ziva separating between them; a discharge of semen is not included in this restriction. It is therefore possible that a discharge of semen from a zava negates only one day from her count. Accordingly, the dilemma raised by Rami bar 岣ma remains in place.


讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讻讜壮 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇转讜讗讱 讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 讗讬讝讬诇 讗拽讘诇 讗驻讬讛 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 住讘转讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诪讬讛 讜转谞讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚转讛讜讬 讻讜讜转讬讛


搂 The mishna teaches: But one who enters the Temple while wearing those garments upon which a Samaritan had lain is not liable to bring an offering for entering the Temple, nor does one burn teruma that came into contact with those garments, because their impurity is uncertain. In connection to these halakhot, the Gemara relates that Rav Pappa happened to come to the city of Tavakh. He said: If there is a Torah scholar here I will go and greet him. A certain elderly woman said to him: There is a Torah scholar here and Rav Shmuel is his name, and he teaches mishnayot; may it be God鈥檚 will that you should be like him.


讗诪专 诪讚拽诪讘专讻讬 诇讬 讘讙讜讜讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬专讗 砖诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专诪讗 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 专诪讗 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 转谞谉 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讟讜诪讗转讛 住驻拽 讗诇诪讗 诪住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 砖专驻讬谞谉 转专讜诪讛


Rav Pappa said to himself: From the fact that they bless me through this Rav Shmuel that I should be like him, I may conclude from it that he is a God-fearing individual. Rav Pappa went to visit him, and Rav Shmuel raised a bull for him, i.e., he slaughtered a bull in honor of Rav Pappa, and he also raised a difficulty between two mishnayot that apparently contradict one another: We learn in the mishna: One who enters the Temple while wearing those garments upon which a Samaritan had lain is not liable to bring an offering for entering the Temple, nor does one burn teruma that came into contact with those garments, because their impurity is uncertain. Evidently, we do not burn teruma due to uncertain impurity.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注诇 砖砖讛 住驻拽讜转 砖讜专驻讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 注诇 住驻拽 讘讙讚讬 注诐 讛讗专抓


And one can raise a contradiction from another mishna (Teharot 4:5): For six cases of uncertain impurity one burns the teruma if it came into contact with them, or if a person came into contact with them and subsequently touched the teruma. One of these is for the uncertain case of the garments of one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [am ha鈥檃retz]. Such garments impart impurity through contact and through carrying, due to a concern that the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz might have sat on them while she was menstruating. Evidently, one burns teruma due to uncertain impurity.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚诇转讗讻讬诇 讛讗讬 转讜专讗 诇砖诇诪讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻讜转讬 讞讘专


Rav Pappa began his response with a supplication and said: May it be God鈥檚 will that this bull shall be eaten peacefully, i.e., that I will provide a satisfactory resolution of this contradiction. Since the bull was slaughtered in my honor, failing to resolve the contradiction might spoil the meal. Rav Pappa continued: Here we are dealing with a Samaritan who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes [岣ver]. There is therefore less concern with regard to his ritual purity than that of an am ha鈥檃retz. Consequently, the mishna here states that teruma is not burned on account of him.


讻讜转讬 讞讘专 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 诪砖讜讬转 诇讬讛


Rav Shmuel rejected this response: Since the mishna is referring to men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, are you equating a Samaritan 岣ver with a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman?


砖讘拽讬讛 讜讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖谞讬转 诇讬讛 讘讻讜转讬 砖讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讜讚专住 注诇 讘讙讚讬 讞讘专 讜讗讝诇讜 讘讙讚讬 讞讘专 讜谞讙注讜 讘转专讜诪讛


Rav Pappa left Rav Shmuel in embarrassment and came before Rav Shimi bar Ashi, to whom he related this incident. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: What is the reason that you did not respond to him that the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a Samaritan who immersed in a ritual bath and arose from his impure status, and subsequently trod on the garments of a 岣ver, which means they are now considered the bedding of the Samaritan, and then those garments of the 岣ver went and touched teruma? In such a case one does not burn the teruma.


讚讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讛讗 讟讘讬诇 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 住驻拽 讘注诇 讘拽专讜讘 住驻拽 诇讗 讘注诇 讘拽专讜讘


As, if one would say to burn it due to the impurity of an am ha鈥檃retz, he has immersed in a ritual bath. And if one were to suggest that it should be burned because the Samaritan is one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman, this too is an unsatisfactory reason. This is because it is uncertain whether he recently engaged in intercourse with his wife, in which case his immersion does not remove his impurity; and it is uncertain whether he did not recently engage in intercourse with his wife, in which case he is in fact pure.


讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讘注诇 讘拽专讜讘 住驻拽 讛砖诇讬诪转讜 讬专讜拽 住驻拽 诇讗 讛砖诇讬诪转讜 讜讛讜讬 住驻拽 住驻讬拽讗 讜讗住驻拽 住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 砖专驻讬谞谉 转专讜诪讛


And even if you say that he recently engaged in intercourse with his wife, another uncertainty remains: It is uncertain whether his wife began counting seven days from an emission of green blood and ignored any subsequent emission of red blood and completed her count for the green blood, which would mean that she was in fact a menstruating woman when she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband; and it is uncertain whether she did not complete a count of seven days from the emission of the green blood, rather from the emission of red blood, in which case she was not a menstruating woman when her husband engaged in intercourse with her. And therefore this is a compound uncertainty, and there is a principle that one does not burn teruma on account of a compound uncertainty.


讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讙讚讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘讙讚讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪讚专住 诇驻专讜砖讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讻讜转讬 注专讜诐


Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rav Shimi bar Ashi: And let one derive that the garments of the 岣ver are impure because they came into contact with the garments of an am ha鈥檃retz. As the Master said: The garments of an am ha鈥檃retz are considered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, which means they impart impurity to people and to garments, for individuals who are scrupulous with regard to impurity [perushin]. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: The mishna is referring to a naked Samaritan. Consequently, none of his garments came into contact with the garments of the 岣ver.


诪转谞讬壮 讘谞讜转 爪讚讜拽讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖谞讛讙讜 诇诇讻转 讘讚专讻讬 讗讘讜转讬讛谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讻讜转讬讜转 驻专砖讜 诇诇讻转 讘讚专讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讬砖专讗诇讬转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讛谉 讻讬砖专讗诇讬转 注讚 砖讬驻专砖讜 诇诇讻转 讘讚专讻讬 讗讘讜转讬讛谉


MISHNA: With regard to Sadducee girls, when they were accustomed to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors their status is like that of Samaritan women, whose halakha was discussed in the previous mishna. If the Sadducee women abandoned the customs of their ancestors in order to follow in the ways of the Jewish people their status is like that of a Jewish woman. Rabbi Yosei says: Their status is always like that of a Jewish woman, until they will abandon the ways of the Jewish people in order to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors.


讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 住转诪讗 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讘谞讜转 爪讚讜拽讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖谞讜讛讙讜转 诇诇讻转 讘讚专讻讬 讗讘讜转讬讛谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讻讜转讬讜转 讛讗 住转诪讗 讻讬砖专讗诇讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 驻专砖讜 诇诇讻转 讘讚专讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讬砖专讗诇讬转 讛讗 住转诪讗 讻讻讜转讬讜转 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛


GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha in an unspecified case, i.e., when the custom of a Sadducee woman is unknown? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear evidence from the mishna: With regard to Sadducee girls, when they are accustomed to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors their status is like that of Samaritan women. It can be inferred from the mishna that in an unspecified case their status is like that of a Jewish woman. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Say the latter clause: If the Sadducee women abandoned the customs of their ancestors in order to follow in the ways of the Jewish people their status is like that of a Jewish woman. One may infer from this that in an unspecified case their status is like that of Samaritan women. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna.


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讛谉 讻讬砖专讗诇讬转 注讚 砖讬驻专砖讜 诇诇讻转 讘讚专讻讬 讗讘讜转讬讛谉 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 住转诪讗 讻讻讜转讬讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the last clause of the mishna, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: Their status is always like that of a Jewish woman, until they will abandon the ways of the Jewish people in order to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors. By inference, one may conclude that the first tanna holds that in an unspecified case their status is like that of Samaritan women. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is the case.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘爪讚讜拽讬 讗讞讚 砖住驻专 注诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘砖讜拽 讜谞转讝讛 爪谞讜专讗 诪驻讬讜 讜谞驻诇讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注诇 讘讙讚讬讜 讜讛讜专讬拽讜 驻谞讬讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜拽讚诐 讗爪诇 讗砖转讜


The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who was conversing with the High Priest in the marketplace, and as he was speaking, saliva [tzinora] sprayed from his mouth and fell onto the garments of the High Priest. And the face of the High Priest turned green, as he feared that his garments had been rendered ritually impure. And he rushed to the Sadducee鈥檚 wife to inquire whether she properly observed the halakhot of menstruation, in which case his garments were not rendered impure by the saliva of her husband, as he is not considered one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman.


讗诪专讛 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞砖讬 爪讚讜拽讬诐 讛谉 诪转讬专讗讜转 诪谉 讛驻专讜砖讬诐 讜诪专讗讜转 讚诐 诇讞讻诪讬诐


She said to him: Even though women such as myself are the wives of Sadducees, who do not follow in the ways of the perushim, they are scared of the perushim and they show their blood to the Sages when an uncertainty arises. The garments of the High Priest are therefore pure, as the Sadducee wives properly observe the halakhot of menstruation.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讛谉 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛讻诇 讜讛谉 诪专讗讜转 讚诐 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讛讬转讛 讘砖讻讜谞转讬谞讜 砖诇讗 讛专讗转 讚诐 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜诪转讛


Rabbi Yosei says: We are familiar with the wives of Sadducees more so than everyone else, as they are our neighbors, and I can testify that they all show their blood to the Sages, except for a certain woman who was living in our neighborhood who did not show her blood to the Sages, and she died, as a punishment for her behavior.


讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 爪谞讜专讗 讚注诐 讛讗专抓 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘爪讚讜拽讬 讞讘专 讗诪专 专讘讗 爪讚讜拽讬 讞讘专 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 诪砖讜讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗


The Gemara objects: And let the High Priest derive that his garments are impure due to the saliva of an am ha鈥檃retz, which imparts impurity. Abaye said: That case involved a Sadducee 岣ver, who was particular with regard to the halakhot of ritual purity. Rava said: Are you equating a Sadducee 岣ver with a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman? After all, the High Priest was initially concerned that the Sadducee might engage in intercourse with his wife while she is still menstruating. Rather, Rava said:


Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 33

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 33

讗讬诇讬诪讗 转讞转讬讜 讚讝讘 诪讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘诪砖讻讘讜 谞驻拽讗 讗诇讗 讛谞讜讙注 讘讻诇 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讛讝讘 转讞转讬讜 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 注诇讬讜谉 砖诇 讝讘


If we say the verse is teaching that a mattress beneath a zav is impure, this is already derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd whoever touches his bed鈥 (Leviticus 15:5). Rather, the verse is referring to that which touches any item under which the zav will be. And what is this item? It is the bedding above a zav. The verse teaches that the bedding above a zav imparts ritual impurity.


讜讛谞讜砖讗 谞诪讬 讬讟诪讗 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 谞讬砖讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讛谞砖讗 讻转讬讘


The verse further states: 鈥淎nd he who bears [vehanoseh] these things shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:10), indicating that he who bears also becomes impure. And what is this? This is an item borne [nisa] by a zav. What is the reason, i.e., how is this indicated by the verse? The term vehanisa is written in the verse.


谞转拽讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉


The Gemara continues: The verse removed the halakha of the bedding above a zav from the status of severe impurity and brought it to the status of lesser impurity, to tell you that it imparts impurity only to food and drink, but not to people or garments.


讗讬诪专 谞转拽讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讚诐 讗讜 讘讙讚讬诐 诇讬讟诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诪砖诪注


The Gemara objects: Say that the verse removed the bedding above a zav from severe impurity, in the sense that it does not impart impurity to a person to the extent that he may in turn impart impurity to the garments he is wearing. But let the bedding above a zav impart impurity to people or garments. The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淎nd whoever touches anything that was under him shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:10), which indicates lesser impurity.


讜转讞转讜谞讜 砖诇 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜转讛讬 谞讚转讛 注诇讬讜


搂 The mishna teaches that Samaritan men are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, and consequently they impart impurity to the bedding beneath them. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the bedding beneath one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman is impure? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a menstruating woman: 鈥淎nd if any man lie with her, and her impurity be upon him, he shall be impure seven days, and every bed upon which he lies shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:24).


讬讻讜诇 讬注诇讛 诇专讙诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讟诪讗 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐


The baraita explains: One might have thought that the phrase: 鈥淎nd her impurity be upon him,鈥 indicates that the man assumes the impure status of the menstruating woman with whom he engaged in intercourse, such that if they were together on the sixth day of her menstruation he may elevate himself at her time, i.e., he may immerse in a ritual bath the next day, just like the menstruating woman. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall be impure seven days.鈥


讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜转讛讬 谞讚转讛 注诇讬讜 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬 讞专住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜转讛讬 谞讚转讛 注诇讬讜 诪讛 讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬 讞专住 讗祝 讛讜讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬 讞专住


But if so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd her impurity be upon him鈥? As, one might have thought that a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman will not impart impurity to people and earthenware vessels. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd her impurity be upon him,鈥 to teach that he imparts impurity like a menstruating woman. In other words, just as she imparts impurity to people and earthenware vessels, so too, he imparts impurity to people and earthenware vessels.


讗讬 诪讛 讛讬讗 注讜砖讛 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗祝 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讛诪砖讻讘 讗砖专 讬砖讻讘 注诇讬讜 讬讟诪讗


If so, i.e., that one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman is compared to the woman herself, then say: Just as she renders the bedding beneath her and the seat upon which she sits impure to the extent that they impart impurity to a person to in turn impart impurity to the garments he is wearing, so too, he renders the bedding beneath him and the seat upon which he sits impure to the extent that they impart impurity to a person to in turn impart impurity to the garments he is wearing. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd every bed upon which he lies shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:24).


砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讛诪砖讻讘 讗砖专 讬砖讻讘 注诇讬讜 讬讟诪讗 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讛诪砖讻讘 讗砖专 讜讙讜壮 谞转拽讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉


The baraita elaborates: As, there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淎nd every bed upon which he lies shall be impure,鈥 since it is already written: 鈥淎nd her impurity be upon him,鈥 which indicates that just as a menstruating woman imparts impurity to her bedding, so too does one who has intercourse with her. And if so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd every bed upon which he lies shall be impure鈥? The verse separated the halakha of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman from the severe impurity of the menstruating woman herself, and brought him to lesser impurity, to tell you that he imparts impurity only to food and drink, but not to people or garments.


驻专讬讱 专讘 讗讞讗讬 讗讬诪讗 谞转拽讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 讚诇讗 诇讬讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讜讬讬 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讚诐 讜讘讙讚讬诐 诇讬讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讬讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诪砖诪注


Rav A岣i refutes this derivation: Say that the verse removed the halakha of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman from severe impurity and brought it to lesser impurity, in the sense that his bedding does not impart impurity to a person to in turn impart impurity to the garments upon him. But let his bedding impart impurity to people or garments. Rav Asi says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd every bed upon which he lies shall be impure,鈥 which indicates a lesser impurity.


讗讬诪讗 讜转讛讬 谞讚转讛 注诇讬讜 讻诇诇 讜讻诇 讛诪砖讻讘 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗


The Gemara objects: But say that the phrase: 鈥淎nd her impurity be upon him,鈥 is a generalization, and the phrase: 鈥淎nd every bed upon which he lies shall be impure,鈥 is a detail. If so, the verse constitutes a generalization and a detail, and it is a hermeneutical principle that in such a case the generalization is referring only to that which is specified in the detail. Accordingly, with regard to the bedding and seat upon which the man rests, yes, they are rendered impure, but other items are not.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬讟诪讗 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 讛讜讬 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟


Abaye says that when the verse states: 鈥淗e shall be impure seven days,鈥 between the generalization and the detail, this interrupts the matter. Accordingly, this is a case of a generalization and a detail that are distant from one another, and with regard to any generalization and detail that are distant from one another, one does not derive a halakha from them in accordance with the principle of a generalization and a detail.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讚谞讬谉 讜讻诇 专讬讘讜讬讗 讛讜讗


Rava says: Actually, one may derive a halakha from a generalization and a detail that are distant from one another. But this verse does not constitute a case of a generalization and a detail, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd every bed upon which he lies.鈥 The term 鈥渁nd every鈥 is an amplification.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讬诪讗 讻讛讬讗 诪讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讛 讘讬谉 诪讙注讛 诇诪砖讻讘讛 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗祝 讛讜讗 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 诪讙注讜 诇诪砖讻讘讜 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 诇拽讜诇讗


Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov objects to this: Say that as the verse compares a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman to the woman herself, the man should be like her, i.e., just as with regard to her you did not differentiate between her touch and her bedding in terms of imparting impurity to a person and imparting impurity to garments, as the halakha is stringent concerning both in that her touch and her bedding impart impurity to people to in turn impart impurity to their garments; so too, with regard to him, you shall not differentiate between his touch and his bedding in terms of imparting impurity to a person and imparting impurity to garments, and the halakha should be lenient in both cases: Neither his bedding nor his touch should impart impurity to people to in turn impart impurity to their garments.


讗诪专 专讘讗 注诇讬讜 诇讛讟注讬谞讜 诪砖诪注


Rava says in response that when the verse states: 鈥淎nd her impurity be upon him,鈥 this indicates that the Torah intends for the impurity to weigh upon him, i.e., in a stringent manner.


诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讘讜注诇讬 谞讚讜转 讜讻讜壮 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讜注诇讬 谞讚讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讙讚诇讗讛 讘谞砖讜讗讜转 砖谞讜


搂 The mishna teaches that the impurity of Samaritan men is due to the fact that Samaritan men are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, and this is because they observe the seven-day menstrual period of impurity for each and every emission of blood. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that all Samaritan men are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women? Aren鈥檛 there some unmarried men who do not engage in intercourse with menstruating women? Rabbi Yitz岣k of Migdal says: They taught this halakha only with regard to men to whom women are married.


讜讛谉 讬讜砖讘讜转 注诇 讚诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诐 讛谉 讬讜砖讘讜转 注诇 讻诇 讚诐 讜讚诐 转拽谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 诇讛谉


The mishna further teaches: And Samaritan men are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women because they observe the seven-day menstrual period of impurity for each and every emission of blood. In this regard it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: If Samaritan women would begin observing a seven-day period of impurity for each and every emission of blood, it would be a great remedy for them, i.e., this practice would not lead to sin, as they would observe a seven-day period from each emission. But this is not their practice.


讗诇讗 砖专讜讗讜转 讚诐 讗讚讜诐 讜诪砖诇讬诪讜转 讗讜转讜 诇讚诐 讬专讜拽


Rather, when Samaritan women see green blood, which does not render them impure, they begin counting seven days of impurity from that emission. As, if they see red blood, which is impure, during that period, they do not begin observing another seven days. Instead, they consider it an additional emission of blood and they complete the remaining days from the seven days they began observing for the green blood. Consequently, the women will have immersed in a ritual bath while still impure.


讚讘专 讗讞专 讬讜诐 砖驻讜住拽转 讘讜 住讜驻专转讜 诇诪谞讬谉 砖讘注讛


Alternatively, a Samaritan woman is considered ritually impure because she counts the day on which she ceases to experience three consecutive days of emissions of ziva toward the total of seven clean days that a zava must experience before being able to immerse in a ritual bath. Accordingly, she does not wait seven full days, as is required by halakha.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讜转住驻专谞讜 讜讗谞谉 谞诪讬 谞讬住驻专讬讛 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜


Rami bar 岣ma objects to this: And let her count that day on which she ceases to experience emissions of ziva, and we, i.e., Jewish women, shall also count it, as we maintain that the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讚住转专 讘讝讬讘讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讜讛讗 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜


Rava says in response: If so, that even with regard to ziva the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, one can object: It is taught in a baraita that if a zav experiences an emission of semen while counting seven clean days toward his purity, the seminal emission negates the day on which he experiences it. How can you find the circumstances of this halakha with regard to ziva? Isn鈥檛 the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day? If so, let the remainder of the day on which he experiences the emission count as a day.


讗讬 讚讞讝讗讬 讘驻诇讙讗 讚讬讜诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讞讝讗讬 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Perhaps even with regard to ziva the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, and if the zav sees the seminal emission in the middle of the day, the remainder of the day is indeed counted as a whole day. But here we are dealing with a zav who sees a seminal emission adjacent to sunset, when there is no remaining time in the day that can be counted as an entire day.


讜诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讻转讬讘讗 讗讬谉 注诇 讻专讞讱 砖讘拽讬讛 诇拽专讗 讚讗讬讛讜 讚讞讬拽 讜诪讜拽讬 讗谞驻砖讬讛


The Gemara objects: But the halakha that a seminal emission negates a day from the count of a zav is derived from the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the zav, and of him from whom the flow of seed goes out, so that he is impure thereby鈥 (Leviticus 15:32). Is it right that one will stand and say about the verse that when it is written, it is written specifically with regard to a seminal emission that occurs adjacent to sunset? The Gemara explains: Yes, perforce you must leave aside the plain meaning of this verse, as it compels itself to be established as referring to such limited circumstances because it must conform to the principle that the halakhic status of part of the day is like that of an entire day.


讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 驻讜诇讟转 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诪讛讜 砖转住转讜专 讘讝讬讘讛 专讜讗讛 讛讬转讛 讜住讜转专转


搂 The Gemara mentioned earlier that if a zav experiences a seminal emission while counting seven clean days toward his purity, the seminal emission negates the day on which he experiences it. On a similar note, Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: In the case of a woman who discharges semen after engaging in intercourse with her husband, what is the halakha as to whether she negates her counting with regard to ziva? Rami bar 岣ma elaborates: In general, a woman who discharges semen is impure, but the reason for this halakha is uncertain. Is it because she was considered one who saw semen, i.e., the emission of semen itself renders her impure just like a man who experiences a seminal emission? And if so, this woman negates her count.


讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 谞讜讙注转 讛讬转讛 讜诇讗 住转专讛


Or perhaps it is because she was touching the semen, and if so she has not thereby negated her count, just as a zav does not negate his count if he touches semen.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇驻讜诐 讞讜专驻讗 砖讘砖转讗 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚住转专讛 讻诪讛 转住转讜专 转住转讜专 砖讘注讛 讚讬讛 讻讘讜注诇讛


Rava says: Commensurate with the sharpness of Rami bar 岣ma is the extent of his error, as this is not a dilemma at all, since even if one could suggest that a zava who discharges semen has indeed negated her count, one must ask: How much should she negate? If one suggests she should negate all seven days of her counting, this is untenable, as it is enough for her that she should negate her count like the man who engages in intercourse with her, i.e., like a zav who discharges semen, who negates only one day.


转住转讜专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讞专 转讟讛专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞专 讗讞专 诇讻讜诇谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛诐


And if one suggests that she should negate one day alone, this too is untenable, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淏ut if she is purified from her ziva then she shall count to herself seven days, and after that she shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 15:28). The word 鈥渁fter鈥 indicates that she shall be pure only after all of them, i.e., after seven consecutive clean days, such that there should be no impurity separating between them. If so, there cannot be a situation where a zava negates a single day, and consequently it cannot be that a zava who discharges semen negates any part of her count.


讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讝讘 讙讜驻讬讛 讛讬讻讬 住转专 诇讟讛专转讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛谉


The Gemara rejects Rava鈥檚 response: And according to your reasoning, how does a zav himself negate only one day from his count due to a seminal emission? After all, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd when the zav is purified of his ziva, then he shall count for himself seven days for his purification, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 15:13). The phrase: 鈥淪even days for his purification,鈥 indicates that there should be no impurity separating between them.


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗转 讝讬讘讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗转 讝讬讘讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛谉


Rather, what have you to say? The verse means only that there should not be an impurity of ziva separating between them. Here too, with regard to a zava, the verse means only that there should not be an impurity of ziva separating between them; a discharge of semen is not included in this restriction. It is therefore possible that a discharge of semen from a zava negates only one day from her count. Accordingly, the dilemma raised by Rami bar 岣ma remains in place.


讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讻讜壮 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇转讜讗讱 讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 讗讬讝讬诇 讗拽讘诇 讗驻讬讛 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 住讘转讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诪讬讛 讜转谞讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚转讛讜讬 讻讜讜转讬讛


搂 The mishna teaches: But one who enters the Temple while wearing those garments upon which a Samaritan had lain is not liable to bring an offering for entering the Temple, nor does one burn teruma that came into contact with those garments, because their impurity is uncertain. In connection to these halakhot, the Gemara relates that Rav Pappa happened to come to the city of Tavakh. He said: If there is a Torah scholar here I will go and greet him. A certain elderly woman said to him: There is a Torah scholar here and Rav Shmuel is his name, and he teaches mishnayot; may it be God鈥檚 will that you should be like him.


讗诪专 诪讚拽诪讘专讻讬 诇讬 讘讙讜讜讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬专讗 砖诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬讛 专诪讗 诇讬讛 转讜专讗 专诪讗 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 转谞谉 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讟讜诪讗转讛 住驻拽 讗诇诪讗 诪住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 砖专驻讬谞谉 转专讜诪讛


Rav Pappa said to himself: From the fact that they bless me through this Rav Shmuel that I should be like him, I may conclude from it that he is a God-fearing individual. Rav Pappa went to visit him, and Rav Shmuel raised a bull for him, i.e., he slaughtered a bull in honor of Rav Pappa, and he also raised a difficulty between two mishnayot that apparently contradict one another: We learn in the mishna: One who enters the Temple while wearing those garments upon which a Samaritan had lain is not liable to bring an offering for entering the Temple, nor does one burn teruma that came into contact with those garments, because their impurity is uncertain. Evidently, we do not burn teruma due to uncertain impurity.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注诇 砖砖讛 住驻拽讜转 砖讜专驻讬谉 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛 注诇 住驻拽 讘讙讚讬 注诐 讛讗专抓


And one can raise a contradiction from another mishna (Teharot 4:5): For six cases of uncertain impurity one burns the teruma if it came into contact with them, or if a person came into contact with them and subsequently touched the teruma. One of these is for the uncertain case of the garments of one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [am ha鈥檃retz]. Such garments impart impurity through contact and through carrying, due to a concern that the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz might have sat on them while she was menstruating. Evidently, one burns teruma due to uncertain impurity.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚诇转讗讻讬诇 讛讗讬 转讜专讗 诇砖诇诪讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻讜转讬 讞讘专


Rav Pappa began his response with a supplication and said: May it be God鈥檚 will that this bull shall be eaten peacefully, i.e., that I will provide a satisfactory resolution of this contradiction. Since the bull was slaughtered in my honor, failing to resolve the contradiction might spoil the meal. Rav Pappa continued: Here we are dealing with a Samaritan who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes [岣ver]. There is therefore less concern with regard to his ritual purity than that of an am ha鈥檃retz. Consequently, the mishna here states that teruma is not burned on account of him.


讻讜转讬 讞讘专 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 诪砖讜讬转 诇讬讛


Rav Shmuel rejected this response: Since the mishna is referring to men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, are you equating a Samaritan 岣ver with a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman?


砖讘拽讬讛 讜讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖谞讬转 诇讬讛 讘讻讜转讬 砖讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讜讚专住 注诇 讘讙讚讬 讞讘专 讜讗讝诇讜 讘讙讚讬 讞讘专 讜谞讙注讜 讘转专讜诪讛


Rav Pappa left Rav Shmuel in embarrassment and came before Rav Shimi bar Ashi, to whom he related this incident. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: What is the reason that you did not respond to him that the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a Samaritan who immersed in a ritual bath and arose from his impure status, and subsequently trod on the garments of a 岣ver, which means they are now considered the bedding of the Samaritan, and then those garments of the 岣ver went and touched teruma? In such a case one does not burn the teruma.


讚讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讛讗 讟讘讬诇 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 住驻拽 讘注诇 讘拽专讜讘 住驻拽 诇讗 讘注诇 讘拽专讜讘


As, if one would say to burn it due to the impurity of an am ha鈥檃retz, he has immersed in a ritual bath. And if one were to suggest that it should be burned because the Samaritan is one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman, this too is an unsatisfactory reason. This is because it is uncertain whether he recently engaged in intercourse with his wife, in which case his immersion does not remove his impurity; and it is uncertain whether he did not recently engage in intercourse with his wife, in which case he is in fact pure.


讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讘注诇 讘拽专讜讘 住驻拽 讛砖诇讬诪转讜 讬专讜拽 住驻拽 诇讗 讛砖诇讬诪转讜 讜讛讜讬 住驻拽 住驻讬拽讗 讜讗住驻拽 住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 砖专驻讬谞谉 转专讜诪讛


And even if you say that he recently engaged in intercourse with his wife, another uncertainty remains: It is uncertain whether his wife began counting seven days from an emission of green blood and ignored any subsequent emission of red blood and completed her count for the green blood, which would mean that she was in fact a menstruating woman when she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband; and it is uncertain whether she did not complete a count of seven days from the emission of the green blood, rather from the emission of red blood, in which case she was not a menstruating woman when her husband engaged in intercourse with her. And therefore this is a compound uncertainty, and there is a principle that one does not burn teruma on account of a compound uncertainty.


讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讙讚讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘讙讚讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪讚专住 诇驻专讜砖讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讻讜转讬 注专讜诐


Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rav Shimi bar Ashi: And let one derive that the garments of the 岣ver are impure because they came into contact with the garments of an am ha鈥檃retz. As the Master said: The garments of an am ha鈥檃retz are considered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, which means they impart impurity to people and to garments, for individuals who are scrupulous with regard to impurity [perushin]. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: The mishna is referring to a naked Samaritan. Consequently, none of his garments came into contact with the garments of the 岣ver.


诪转谞讬壮 讘谞讜转 爪讚讜拽讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖谞讛讙讜 诇诇讻转 讘讚专讻讬 讗讘讜转讬讛谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讻讜转讬讜转 驻专砖讜 诇诇讻转 讘讚专讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讬砖专讗诇讬转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讛谉 讻讬砖专讗诇讬转 注讚 砖讬驻专砖讜 诇诇讻转 讘讚专讻讬 讗讘讜转讬讛谉


MISHNA: With regard to Sadducee girls, when they were accustomed to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors their status is like that of Samaritan women, whose halakha was discussed in the previous mishna. If the Sadducee women abandoned the customs of their ancestors in order to follow in the ways of the Jewish people their status is like that of a Jewish woman. Rabbi Yosei says: Their status is always like that of a Jewish woman, until they will abandon the ways of the Jewish people in order to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors.


讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 住转诪讗 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讘谞讜转 爪讚讜拽讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖谞讜讛讙讜转 诇诇讻转 讘讚专讻讬 讗讘讜转讬讛谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讻讜转讬讜转 讛讗 住转诪讗 讻讬砖专讗诇讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 驻专砖讜 诇诇讻转 讘讚专讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讬砖专讗诇讬转 讛讗 住转诪讗 讻讻讜转讬讜转 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛


GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha in an unspecified case, i.e., when the custom of a Sadducee woman is unknown? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear evidence from the mishna: With regard to Sadducee girls, when they are accustomed to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors their status is like that of Samaritan women. It can be inferred from the mishna that in an unspecified case their status is like that of a Jewish woman. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Say the latter clause: If the Sadducee women abandoned the customs of their ancestors in order to follow in the ways of the Jewish people their status is like that of a Jewish woman. One may infer from this that in an unspecified case their status is like that of Samaritan women. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna.


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讛谉 讻讬砖专讗诇讬转 注讚 砖讬驻专砖讜 诇诇讻转 讘讚专讻讬 讗讘讜转讬讛谉 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 住转诪讗 讻讻讜转讬讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the last clause of the mishna, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: Their status is always like that of a Jewish woman, until they will abandon the ways of the Jewish people in order to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors. By inference, one may conclude that the first tanna holds that in an unspecified case their status is like that of Samaritan women. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is the case.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘爪讚讜拽讬 讗讞讚 砖住驻专 注诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘砖讜拽 讜谞转讝讛 爪谞讜专讗 诪驻讬讜 讜谞驻诇讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注诇 讘讙讚讬讜 讜讛讜专讬拽讜 驻谞讬讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜拽讚诐 讗爪诇 讗砖转讜


The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who was conversing with the High Priest in the marketplace, and as he was speaking, saliva [tzinora] sprayed from his mouth and fell onto the garments of the High Priest. And the face of the High Priest turned green, as he feared that his garments had been rendered ritually impure. And he rushed to the Sadducee鈥檚 wife to inquire whether she properly observed the halakhot of menstruation, in which case his garments were not rendered impure by the saliva of her husband, as he is not considered one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman.


讗诪专讛 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞砖讬 爪讚讜拽讬诐 讛谉 诪转讬专讗讜转 诪谉 讛驻专讜砖讬诐 讜诪专讗讜转 讚诐 诇讞讻诪讬诐


She said to him: Even though women such as myself are the wives of Sadducees, who do not follow in the ways of the perushim, they are scared of the perushim and they show their blood to the Sages when an uncertainty arises. The garments of the High Priest are therefore pure, as the Sadducee wives properly observe the halakhot of menstruation.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讛谉 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛讻诇 讜讛谉 诪专讗讜转 讚诐 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讛讬转讛 讘砖讻讜谞转讬谞讜 砖诇讗 讛专讗转 讚诐 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜诪转讛


Rabbi Yosei says: We are familiar with the wives of Sadducees more so than everyone else, as they are our neighbors, and I can testify that they all show their blood to the Sages, except for a certain woman who was living in our neighborhood who did not show her blood to the Sages, and she died, as a punishment for her behavior.


讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 爪谞讜专讗 讚注诐 讛讗专抓 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘爪讚讜拽讬 讞讘专 讗诪专 专讘讗 爪讚讜拽讬 讞讘专 讘讜注诇 谞讚讛 诪砖讜讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗


The Gemara objects: And let the High Priest derive that his garments are impure due to the saliva of an am ha鈥檃retz, which imparts impurity. Abaye said: That case involved a Sadducee 岣ver, who was particular with regard to the halakhot of ritual purity. Rava said: Are you equating a Sadducee 岣ver with a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman? After all, the High Priest was initially concerned that the Sadducee might engage in intercourse with his wife while she is still menstruating. Rather, Rava said:


Scroll To Top