Niddah 33

אילימא תחתיו דזב מואיש אשר יגע במשכבו נפקא אלא הנוגע בכל אשר יהיה הזב תחתיו ומאי ניהו עליון של זב

If we say the verse is teaching that a mattress beneath a zav is impure, this is already derived from the verse: “And whoever touches his bed” (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.

והנושא נמי יטמא ומאי ניהו נישא מאי טעמא והנשא כתיב

The verse further states: “And he who bears [vehanoseh] these things shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be impure until the evening” (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.

נתקו הכתוב מטומאה חמורה והביאו לידי טומאה קלה לומר לך שאינו מטמא אלא אוכלין ומשקין

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.

אימר נתקו הכתוב מטומאה חמורה דלא מטמא אדם לטמא בגדים אבל אדם או בגדים ליטמא אמר קרא יטמא טומאה קלה משמע

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: “And whoever touches anything that was under him shall be impure” (Leviticus 15:10), which indicates lesser impurity.

ותחתונו של בועל נדה מנלן דתניא ותהי נדתה עליו

§ 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: “And 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” (Leviticus 15:24).

יכול יעלה לרגלה תלמוד לומר יטמא שבעת ימים

The baraita explains: One might have thought that the phrase: “And her impurity be upon him,” 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: “He shall be impure seven days.”

ומה תלמוד לומר ותהי נדתה עליו שיכול לא יטמא אדם וכלי חרס תלמוד לומר ותהי נדתה עליו מה היא מטמאה אדם וכלי חרס אף הוא מטמא אדם וכלי חרס

But if so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And her impurity be upon him”? 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: “And her impurity be upon him,” 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.

אי מה היא עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים אף הוא עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים תלמוד לומר וכל המשכב אשר ישכב עליו יטמא

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: “And every bed upon which he lies shall be impure” (Leviticus 15:24).

שאין תלמוד לומר וכל המשכב אשר ישכב עליו יטמא ומה תלמוד לומר וכל המשכב אשר וגו׳ נתקו הכתוב מטומאה חמורה והביאו לידי טומאה קלה לומר לך שאינו מטמא אלא אוכלין ומשקין

The baraita elaborates: As, there is no need for the verse to state: “And every bed upon which he lies shall be impure,” since it is already written: “And her impurity be upon him,” 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: “And every bed upon which he lies shall be impure”? 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.

פריך רב אחאי אימא נתקו הכתוב מטומאה חמורה והביאו לטומאה קלה דלא ליטמא אדם לטמויי בגדים אבל אדם ובגדים ליטמא אמר רב אסי יטמא טומאה קלה משמע

Rav Aḥai 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: “And every bed upon which he lies shall be impure,” which indicates a lesser impurity.

אימא ותהי נדתה עליו כלל וכל המשכב פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט משכב ומושב אין מידי אחרינא לא

The Gemara objects: But say that the phrase: “And her impurity be upon him,” is a generalization, and the phrase: “And every bed upon which he lies shall be impure,” 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.

אמר אביי יטמא שבעת ימים מפסיק הענין הוי כלל ופרט המרוחקין זה מזה וכל כלל ופרט המרוחקין זה מזה אין דנין אותו בכלל ופרט

Abaye says that when the verse states: “He shall be impure seven days,” 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.

רבא אמר לעולם דנין וכל ריבויא הוא

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: “And every bed upon which he lies.” The term “and every” is an amplification.

מתקיף לה רבי יעקב אימא כהיא מה היא לא חלקת בה בין מגעה למשכבה לטמא אדם ולטמא בגדים לחומרא אף הוא לא תחלוק בו בין מגעו למשכבו לטמא אדם ולטמא בגדים לקולא

Rabbi Ya’akov 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.

אמר רבא עליו להטעינו משמע

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

מפני שהן בועלי נדות וכו׳ אטו כולהו בועלי נדות נינהו אמר רבי יצחק מגדלאה בנשואות שנו

§ 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’t there some unmarried men who do not engage in intercourse with menstruating women? Rabbi Yitzḥak of Migdal says: They taught this halakha only with regard to men to whom women are married.

והן יושבות על דם וכו׳ תניא אמר רבי מאיר אם הן יושבות על כל דם ודם תקנה גדולה היא להן

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.

אלא שרואות דם אדום ומשלימות אותו לדם ירוק

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.

דבר אחר יום שפוסקת בו סופרתו למנין שבעה

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.

מתקיף לה רמי בר חמא ותספרנו ואנן נמי ניספריה דקיימא לן מקצת היום ככולו

Rami bar Ḥama 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.

אמר רבא אם כן שכבת זרע דסתר בזיבה היכי משכחת לה והא מקצת היום ככולו

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’t 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.

אי דחזאי בפלגא דיומא הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינן דחזאי סמוך לשקיעת החמה

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.

וליקום ולימא ליה לקרא כי כתיבא סמוך לשקיעת החמה כתיבא אין על כרחך שבקיה לקרא דאיהו דחיק ומוקי אנפשיה

The Gemara objects: But the halakha that a seminal emission negates a day from the count of a zav is derived from the verse: “This is the law of the zav, and of him from whom the flow of seed goes out, so that he is impure thereby” (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.

בעי רמי בר חמא פולטת שכבת זרע מהו שתסתור בזיבה רואה היתה וסותרת

§ 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 Ḥama 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 Ḥama 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.

או דילמא נוגעת היתה ולא סתרה

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.

אמר רבא לפום חורפא שבשתא נהי נמי דסתרה כמה תסתור תסתור שבעה דיה כבועלה

Rava says: Commensurate with the sharpness of Rami bar Ḥama 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.

תסתור יום אחד ואחר תטהר אמר רחמנא אחר אחר לכולן שלא תהא טומאה מפסקת ביניהם

And if one suggests that she should negate one day alone, this too is untenable, as the Merciful One states: “But if she is purified from her ziva then she shall count to herself seven days, and after that she shall be pure” (Leviticus 15:28). The word “after” 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.

וליטעמיך זב גופיה היכי סתר לטהרתו אמר רחמנא שלא תהא טומאה מפסקת ביניהן

The Gemara rejects Rava’s 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: “And 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” (Leviticus 15:13). The phrase: “Seven days for his purification,” indicates that there should be no impurity separating between them.

אלא מאי אית לך למימר שלא תהא טומאת זיבה מפסקת ביניהן הכא נמי שלא תהא טומאת זיבה מפסקת ביניהן

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 Ḥama remains in place.

ואין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש וכו׳ רב פפא איקלע לתואך אמר אי איכא צורבא מרבנן הכא איזיל אקבל אפיה אמרה ליה ההיא סבתא איכא הכא צורבא מרבנן ורב שמואל שמיה ותני מתניתא יהא רעוא דתהוי כוותיה

§ 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’s will that you should be like him.

אמר מדקמברכי לי בגוויה שמע מינה ירא שמים הוא אזל לגביה רמא ליה תורא רמא ליה מתניתין אהדדי תנן אין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהן את התרומה מפני שטומאתה ספק אלמא מספיקא לא שרפינן תרומה

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.

ורמינהי על ששה ספקות שורפין את התרומה על ספק בגדי עם הארץ

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’aretz]. Such garments impart impurity through contact and through carrying, due to a concern that the wife of the am ha’aretz might have sat on them while she was menstruating. Evidently, one burns teruma due to uncertain impurity.

אמר רב פפא יהא רעוא דלתאכיל האי תורא לשלמא הכא במאי עסקינן בכותי חבר

Rav Pappa began his response with a supplication and said: May it be God’s 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 [ḥaver]. There is therefore less concern with regard to his ritual purity than that of an am ha’aretz. Consequently, the mishna here states that teruma is not burned on account of him.

כותי חבר בועל נדה משוית ליה

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

שבקיה ואתא לקמיה דרב שימי בר אשי אמר ליה מאי טעמא לא משנית ליה בכותי שטבל ועלה ודרס על בגדי חבר ואזלו בגדי חבר ונגעו בתרומה

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 ḥaver, which means they are now considered the bedding of the Samaritan, and then those garments of the ḥaver went and touched teruma? In such a case one does not burn the teruma.

דאי משום טומאת עם הארץ הא טביל ליה ואי משום בועל נדה ספק בעל בקרוב ספק לא בעל בקרוב

As, if one would say to burn it due to the impurity of an am ha’aretz, 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.

ואם תמצי לומר בעל בקרוב ספק השלימתו ירוק ספק לא השלימתו והוי ספק ספיקא ואספק ספיקא לא שרפינן תרומה

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.

ותיפוק ליה משום בגדי עם הארץ דאמר מר בגדי עם הארץ מדרס לפרושין אמר ליה בכותי ערום

Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rav Shimi bar Ashi: And let one derive that the garments of the ḥaver are impure because they came into contact with the garments of an am ha’aretz. As the Master said: The garments of an am ha’aretz 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 ḥaver.

מתני׳ בנות צדוקין בזמן שנהגו ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן הרי הן ככותיות פרשו ללכת בדרכי ישראל הרי הן כישראלית רבי יוסי אומר לעולם הן כישראלית עד שיפרשו ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן

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.

גמ׳ איבעיא להו סתמא מאי תא שמע בנות צדוקין בזמן שנוהגות ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן הרי הן ככותיות הא סתמא כישראלית אימא סיפא פרשו ללכת בדרכי ישראל הרי הן כישראלית הא סתמא ככותיות אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מיניה

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.

תא שמע דתנן רבי יוסי אומר לעולם הן כישראלית עד שיפרשו ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן מכלל דתנא קמא סבר סתמא ככותיות שמע מינה

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.

תנו רבנן מעשה בצדוקי אחד שספר עם כהן גדול בשוק ונתזה צנורא מפיו ונפלה לכהן גדול על בגדיו והוריקו פניו של כהן גדול וקדם אצל אשתו

§ 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’s 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.

אמרה לו אף על פי שנשי צדוקים הן מתיראות מן הפרושים ומראות דם לחכמים

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.

אמר רבי יוסי בקיאין אנו בהן יותר מן הכל והן מראות דם לחכמים חוץ מאשה אחת שהיתה בשכונתינו שלא הראת דם לחכמים ומתה

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.

ותיפוק ליה משום צנורא דעם הארץ אמר אביי בצדוקי חבר אמר רבא צדוקי חבר בועל נדה משוית ליה אלא אמר רבא

The Gemara objects: And let the High Priest derive that his garments are impure due to the saliva of an am ha’aretz, which imparts impurity. Abaye said: That case involved a Sadducee ḥaver, who was particular with regard to the halakhot of ritual purity. Rava said: Are you equating a Sadducee ḥaver 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: