A braita is brought to support Rava’s opinion that from a kal vachomer (logical argument) one can learn that even items the woman sat on within the period of 24 hours before she saw blood or from her last examination carry high level impurity (items that are sat on or lied upon can make a person impure and in turn the clothes that person is wearing). There are two different version of what Rav Huna said regarding retroactive impurification – does it refer only to kodashim (from the Temlpe) or also to truma. Six questions are raised but answered regarding the opinion that it is not applicable to truma. One question from a braita is raised on the other version but it is also resolved.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Niddah 6
כְּמַגַּע עַצְמָהּ, מָה מַגַּע עַצְמָהּ מְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים, אַף מִשְׁכָּבָהּ וּמוֹשָׁבָהּ מְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים.
are like her touch itself. Just as her touch transmits impurity to a person who comes in contact with them to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing, so too her bed and her chair transmit impurity to a person who comes in contact with them to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָרוֹאָה דָּם — מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת, וּמָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה? מִשְׁכָּבוֹת וּמוֹשָׁבוֹת, אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין, וּכְלִי חֶרֶס הַמּוּקָּף צָמִיד פָּתִיל, וְאֵינָהּ מְקוּלְקֶלֶת לְמִנְיָנָהּ, וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ לְמַפְרֵעַ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מְטַמֵּא אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ, וְאֵינָהּ מוֹנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁרָאֲתָה.
§ It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If a woman sees menstrual blood, it renders her impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. And what does she render impure during that period? Beds and chairs, food and drink, and an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover [tzamid patil], if she moves it. But she does not disrupt her count of the periods of menstruation and ziva, i.e., she starts her cycle only from that day when she saw the blood, and she does not render impure retroactively a man who engaged in intercourse with her. Rabbi Akiva says: She does render impure a man who engaged in intercourse with her. And she counts her seven days of impurity only from the time that she saw her menstrual blood, not retroactively.
הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם, מְטַמְּאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ, וּמָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה? אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין, מִשְׁכָּבוֹת וּמוֹשָׁבוֹת, וּכְלִי חֶרֶס הַמּוּקָּף צָמִיד פָּתִיל, וּמְקוּלְקֶלֶת לְמִנְיָנָהּ, וּמְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ, וְאֵינָהּ מוֹנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁרָאֲתָה.
The baraita continues: With regard to a woman who sees a blood stain, it renders her impure retroactive to when the garment was last checked. And what does she render impure during that period? Food and drink, beds and chairs, and an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover, if she moves it. And it also disrupts her count of eleven days during which emission of blood renders the woman a zava, as the time of the stain is unknown, and she renders ritually impure a man who engaged in intercourse with her. And she counts her seven days of impurity only from the time that she saw her menstrual blood, not retroactively.
וְזֶה וָזֶה תּוֹלִין, לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין.
The baraita further teaches: With regard to both this, one who sees menstrual blood, and that, one who sees a blood stain, if they had touched teruma, its status is suspended. It is not eaten, as impure teruma is prohibited in consumption, but it is not burned either, since it is prohibited to burn pure teruma.
וְרָבָא, אִי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתָא — לֵימָא מַתְנִיתָא, וְאִי לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתָא — קַל וָחוֹמֶר מְנָא לֵיהּ?
The Gemara raises a difficulty: And as for Rava, why is the halakha of an earthenware vessel more obvious to him than the halakha of a bed and a chair? If he had heard this baraita, which states the halakha of an earthenware vessel, then let him say that the baraita itself is proof for his opinion with regard to a bed and a chair as well, as the baraita states both halakhot. And if he had not heard this baraita, from where did he learn his a fortiori inference, which is based on the halakha that an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover is not spared from impurity if a menstruating woman moved it during her twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity?
לְעוֹלָם שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתָא, וְאִי מִמַּתְנִיתָא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אוֹ אָדָם אוֹ בְּגָדִים, אֲבָל אָדָם וּבְגָדִים — לָא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָאָמַר קַל וָחוֹמֶר.
The Gemara answers: Actually, he did hear the baraita. But if his proof had been merely from the baraita, I would say that a different halakha applies to a bed and chair than to the earthenware vessels, as the baraita means that the bed and chair render impure a person or garments that they touch, but they do not render a person impure to the extent that he then transmits impurity to his garments. It is due to that reason that Rava says the a fortiori inference.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁבְּנִדָּה לַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לַתְּרוּמָה. אִי הָכִי, לִיתְנֵי גַּבֵּי מַעֲלוֹת! כִּי קָתָנֵי הֵיכָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְּטוּמְאָה, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְּטוּמְאָה — לָא קָתָנֵי.
§ Rav Huna says: The twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman applies only to sacrificial food but not to teruma. The Gemara asks: If so, let the mishna in Ḥagiga 20b teach this among the other higher levels of purity that apply to sacrificial foods but not to teruma. That mishna lists stringencies of ritual purity that are in effect with regard to sacrificial foods and not teruma. The Gemara answers: When that mishna teaches those higher levels of purity, it is referring only to types of impurity that have a connection [derara] to impurity as defined by Torah law. But it does not teach a case where there is no connection to impurity as defined by Torah law, and the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman is by rabbinic law.
מֵיתִיבִי: מָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה? אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין. מַאי לָאו, בֵּין דְּקֹדֶשׁ בֵּין דִּתְרוּמָה? לָא, דְּקֹדֶשׁ.
The Gemara raises an objection from the aforementioned baraita that deals with the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman: What does she render impure during that period? Food and drink. The Gemara asks: What, is it not correct to say that this is referring both to sacrificial food and to teruma? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring only to sacrificial food, not to teruma.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף בִּשְׁעַת עֲבָרָתָן מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי דַהֲוָה הֲוָה!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (11a): With regard to women of priestly families who must examine themselves before partaking of teruma, Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when they conclude partaking of teruma, they still need to examine themselves. And we discussed this statement of Rabbi Yehuda and asked: Why do they need to examine themselves after they finish eating teruma? What was, was; i.e., if a woman was impure when she ate the teruma, what is achieved by an examination now?
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְתַקֵּן שִׁירַיִם שֶׁבְּפָנֶיהָ.
And Rav Ḥisda says in explanation: It was necessary only in order to amend the situation of the remaining teruma that is left before her, i.e., to prevent it from being rendered ritually impure. In other words, if she later experiences a flow of menstrual blood, her retroactive impurity status will not render the remaining teruma impure. This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman affects only sacrificial foods, not teruma.
רַב הוּנָא מַתְנֵי לִישְׂרוֹף שִׁירַיִם שֶׁבְּיָדֶיהָ, שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כְּשִׁיעוּר וֶסֶת.
The Gemara answers: According to Rav Huna, Rabbi Yehuda teaches that since impure teruma must be burned, she must examine herself in order to determine whether it is correct to burn the remaining teruma that was in her hands. If she examined herself immediately after eating the teruma, in the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation (see 14b), and she found that she was impure, it is assumed as a certainty that she was impure when she ate the teruma. Consequently, the remaining teruma must be burned, in accordance with the halakha of teruma that was definitely rendered impure. But in fact, Rav Huna maintains that she does not render that remaining teruma impure retroactively, in a case where she did not examine herself.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַעֲשֶׂה, וְעָשָׂה רַבִּי כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: There was an incident in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi performed an action by ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating any longer, and therefore any menstrual blood that she emits later renders her ritually impure only from then onward, but not retroactively. By contrast, the Rabbis contend that this halakha applies only to an older woman, for whom it is natural to stop menstruating, but not to a young woman, even if three typical periods have passed without bleeding.
לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר, אָמַר: כְּדַי הוּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לִסְמוֹךְ עָלָיו
The baraita continues: After Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that Rabbi Eliezer’s colleagues disagree with Rabbi Eliezer on this matter and that he had apparently ruled incorrectly, he nevertheless said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy [kedai] to rely upon
בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי ״לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר״? אִילֵּימָא לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר דְּאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא כְּרַבָּנַן, בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק הֵיכִי עָבֵיד כְּוָתֵיהּ?
in exigent circumstances [bishe’at hadeḥak]. And we discussed it and asked: What is the meaning of: After he remembered? If we say that this means after he remembered that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer but in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, if so, how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi act in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer even in exigent circumstances, since the halakha has been decided against him?
אֶלָּא (לָאו) דְּלָא אִיתְּמַר הִלְכְתָא, לָא כְּמָר וְלָא כְּמָר, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּזְכַּר דְּלָאו יָחִיד פְּלִיג עֲלֵיהּ, אֶלָּא רַבִּים פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ, אָמַר: ״כְּדַי הוּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לִסְמוֹךְ עָלָיו בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק״.
Rather, is it not correct that the halakha had not been stated on this matter, neither in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, nor in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, i.e., the Rabbis. And once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that it was not a single authority who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, but it was several Sages who disagreed with him, and there is a principle that the halakha follows the opinion of the many over that of an individual, he nevertheless said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לִתְרוּמָה, הַיְינוּ דַּהֲוַאי תְּרוּמָה בִּימֵי רַבִּי, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְקֹדֶשׁ — קֹדֶשׁ בִּימֵי רַבִּי מִי הֲוַאי?
The Gemara explains the proof from the baraita: Granted, if you say that it was a case of a menstruating woman who had touched teruma during the previous twenty-four hours, this is fine, as teruma still existed in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But if you say that it was a case of a woman who touched sacrificial food, was there still sacrificial food in days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, after the destruction of the Temple? Clearly, the case involved teruma, and according to the Rabbis, whose opinion is accepted as halakha, this woman who had skipped three menstrual cycles nevertheless renders teruma impure retroactively. This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna.
כִּדְעוּלָּא, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: חַבְרַיָּא מְדַכַּן בְּגָלִילָא. הָכָא נָמֵי בִּימֵי רַבִּי.
The Gemara answers: This can be answered in accordance with the testimony of Ulla, as Ulla said: Ḥaverim purify their wine and oil in the Galilee, i.e., they produce their wine and oil by the standards of purity used for sacrificial food, in the hope that the Temple will be rebuilt in their lifetime. Here, too, in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there were those who kept the standards of purity observed for sacrificial food.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁפְחָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיְתָה אוֹפָה כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וּבֵין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מְדִיחָה יָדָהּ בְּמַיִם וּבוֹדֶקֶת, בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טְמֵאָה, וּבָאת וְשָׁאֲלָה אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְאָמַר לָהּ: כּוּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, וַהֲלֹא בְּדִיקָה הָיְתָה לִי בֵּין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת! אָמַר לָהּ: אִם כֵּן, הִיא טְמֵאָה וְכוּלָּן טְהוֹרוֹת.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: There was an incident involving the maidservant of Rabban Gamliel, who was baking loaves of teruma bread. And in between each and every one she would wash her hand in water and examine herself. After the last one she examined herself and found that she was impure due to menstrual blood, and she came and asked Rabban Gamliel about the status of the loaves. And he said to her: They are all impure, due to her retroactive impurity for the previous twenty-four hours. She said to him: My teacher, didn’t I perform an examination in between each and every one? Rabban Gamliel said to her: If so, then this last one is impure and the rest are all pure, as your retroactive impurity is reduced until the time of the most recent examination.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. מַאי תְּרוּמָה? תְּרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה. תְּרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה בַּאֲפִיָּה מַאי בָּעֲיָא?
The Gemara explains the difficulty: In any event, the baraita teaches that the case involved loaves of teruma bread. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rabban Gamliel applied retroactive impurity in a case of teruma. The Gemara answers: What is meant by: Teruma? It means teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, i.e., the four loaves of the thanks offering that were separated from the total of forty and eaten by the priests. These are sacrificial foods, not teruma. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this interpretation: What was she doing baking the teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering alone? All forty loaves of the thanks offering are baked together, and only afterward are four set aside as teruma to be eaten by priests.
דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּלֵישַׁיְיהוּ, וְכִי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב טוֹבִי בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא: לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה שֶׁאֲפָאָן אַרְבַּע חַלּוֹת — יָצָא, וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: וְהָא בָּעֵינַן אַרְבָּעִים! לְמִצְוָה.
The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where dough for the teruma loaves was separated and designated for the priests during its kneading. And this halakha is in accordance with that which Rav Tovi bar Rav Ketina said: If one baked the loaves of the thanks offering as four loaves, rather than the requisite forty loaves, he has fulfilled his obligation. And we discussed it and asked: Isn’t one required to bring forty loaves with the thanks offering, ten loaves of each of the four different types? The Gemara answers: One must bake forty loaves in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation with four loaves, one of each type.
וְהָא בָּעֵינַן אַפְרוֹשֵׁי תְּרוּמָה מִינַּיְיהוּ! וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּמַפְרֵישׁ פְּרוּסָה מִכׇּל חַד וְחַד, ״אֶחָד״ אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא, שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל פְּרוּסָה, וְאָמְרִינַן דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּלֵישַׁיְיהוּ, הָכָא נָמֵי דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּלֵישַׁיְיהוּ.
The Gemara continues its answer by further elucidating the statement of Rav Tovi bar Rav Ketina. And we asked with regard to this opinion: But he is required to separate teruma from it, i.e., to designate one loaf from each type that is given to the priests. And if you would say that he separates a slice from each one of the four loaves and gives them to the priest, this cannot be the case, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift to the Lord; it shall be the priest’s” (Leviticus 7:14). The word “one” indicates that he may not take a slice, but rather he takes a complete loaf. The Gemara answers: Rather, we must say that he separated dough for the teruma loaves during its kneading. Here too, in the incident involving Rabban Gamliel’s maidservant, she separated the dough during its kneading.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שׁוּב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁפְחָה שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שֶׁהָיְתָה גָּפָה חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן, וּבֵין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מְדִיחָה יָדֶיהָ בְּמַיִם וּבוֹדֶקֶת, וּבָאַחֲרוֹנָה בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טְמֵאָה, וּבָאת וְשָׁאֲלָה לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְאָמַר לָהּ: כּוּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. אָמְרָה לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא בְּדִיקָה הָיְתָה לִי בֵּין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת! אֲמַר לַהּ: אִם כֵּן, הִיא טְמֵאָה וְכוּלָּן טְהוֹרוֹת.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: There was another incident involving the maidservant of Rabban Gamliel who was sealing barrels of wine. And in between each and every one she would wash her hands in water and examine herself. And after the last one she examined herself and found that she was ritually impure, and she came and asked Rabban Gamliel about the wine. And he said to her: They are all impure. She said to him: My teacher, didn’t I perform an examination in between each and every one? Rabban Gamliel said to her: If so, this last one is impure and the rest are all pure.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא חֲדָא דְּקֹדֶשׁ, וַחֲדָא דִּתְרוּמָה הִיא, הַיְינוּ דְּהָדְרָה וְשָׁיְילָה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּקֹדֶשׁ, לְמָה לַהּ לְמֶהְדַּר וּלְשַׁיּוֹלֵיהּ? מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה — בִּשְׁתֵּי שְׁפָחוֹת הָיָה.
The Gemara clarifies the difficulty with regard to Rav Huna’s opinion: Granted, if you say that one incident involved a case of sacrificial food and one incident involved a case of teruma, this is the reason that she returned and again asked Rabban Gamliel what to do. But if you say that both this incident and that incident involved sacrificial food, why did she need to return and ask him the same question a second time? The Gemara answers: Each incident that occurred was with sacrificial food and they happened with two different maidservants.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁבְּנִדָּה מְטַמְּאָה בֵּין לַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין לַתְּרוּמָה. מִמַּאי? מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ גַּבֵּי מַעֲלוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: וְהָא תָּנֵי תַּנָּא לַקֹּדֶשׁ אֲבָל לֹא לַתְּרוּמָה!
Some say another version of Rav Huna’s statement. Rav Huna says: During the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman, she renders impure both sacrificial food and teruma. The Gemara asks: From where is this derived? The Gemara answers: It can be inferred from the fact that the mishna in Ḥagiga (20b) does not teach this matter among the other matters where higher levels of purity are required only for sacrificial foods but not for teruma. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: But doesn’t the tanna explicitly teach in a baraita: The retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman applies only with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma?
קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קֹדֶשׁ, וְלֹא בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה.
The Gemara answers: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak received the following explanation from Rav Naḥman: The baraita means that this retroactive impurity applies to non-sacred food that was prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, but not to non-sacred food that was prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma. It does apply to teruma itself.
תְּנַן הָתָם: נוֹלַד לָהּ סְפֵק טוּמְאָה, עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּלְגְּלָה — תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטוּמְאָה, מִשֶּׁגִּלְגְּלָה — תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטׇהֳרָה.
§ With regard to a non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma, we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Ḥalla 3:2): In a case of dough where uncertainty developed as to whether it was ritually impure, if the uncertainty developed before it was kneaded, it may be prepared even in definite impurity, i.e., with impure vessels. If it developed after it was kneaded, it must be prepared in purity.
עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּלְגְּלָהּ — תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטוּמְאָה, חוּלִּין נִינְהוּ, וּמוּתָּר לִגְרוֹם טוּמְאָה לְחוּלִּין שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל; מִשֶּׁגִּלְגְּלָה — תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטׇהֳרָה, חוּלִּין הַטְּבוּלִין לְחַלָּה כְּחָלָה דָּמוּ, וְאָסוּר לִגְרוֹם טוּמְאָה לְחַלָּה.
The baraita elaborates: Before it was kneaded it may be prepared even in definite impurity because it is non-sacred food, and the halakha is that it is permitted to cause impurity to non-sacred food in Eretz Yisrael. After it was kneaded it must be prepared in purity, since non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to the obligation to separate ḥalla, i.e., its ḥalla has not yet been separated, is considered like ḥalla, and it is prohibited to cause impurity to ḥalla.
תָּנָא:
It is taught in a baraita:
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy in Early Rabbinic Law, Part 2 of 3: The Law of Niddah
06.30.2021 | כ׳ בתמוז תשפ״א
Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Niddah, Prakim Bet and Gimel
09.27.2012 | י״א בתשרי תשע״ג
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
Niddah 6
כְּמַגַּע עַצְמָהּ, מָה מַגַּע עַצְמָהּ מְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים, אַף מִשְׁכָּבָהּ וּמוֹשָׁבָהּ מְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים.
are like her touch itself. Just as her touch transmits impurity to a person who comes in contact with them to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing, so too her bed and her chair transmit impurity to a person who comes in contact with them to the extent that he transmits impurity to the garments he is wearing.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָרוֹאָה דָּם — מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת, וּמָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה? מִשְׁכָּבוֹת וּמוֹשָׁבוֹת, אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין, וּכְלִי חֶרֶס הַמּוּקָּף צָמִיד פָּתִיל, וְאֵינָהּ מְקוּלְקֶלֶת לְמִנְיָנָהּ, וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ לְמַפְרֵעַ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מְטַמֵּא אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ, וְאֵינָהּ מוֹנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁרָאֲתָה.
§ It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If a woman sees menstrual blood, it renders her impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period. And what does she render impure during that period? Beds and chairs, food and drink, and an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover [tzamid patil], if she moves it. But she does not disrupt her count of the periods of menstruation and ziva, i.e., she starts her cycle only from that day when she saw the blood, and she does not render impure retroactively a man who engaged in intercourse with her. Rabbi Akiva says: She does render impure a man who engaged in intercourse with her. And she counts her seven days of impurity only from the time that she saw her menstrual blood, not retroactively.
הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם, מְטַמְּאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ, וּמָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה? אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין, מִשְׁכָּבוֹת וּמוֹשָׁבוֹת, וּכְלִי חֶרֶס הַמּוּקָּף צָמִיד פָּתִיל, וּמְקוּלְקֶלֶת לְמִנְיָנָהּ, וּמְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ, וְאֵינָהּ מוֹנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁרָאֲתָה.
The baraita continues: With regard to a woman who sees a blood stain, it renders her impure retroactive to when the garment was last checked. And what does she render impure during that period? Food and drink, beds and chairs, and an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover, if she moves it. And it also disrupts her count of eleven days during which emission of blood renders the woman a zava, as the time of the stain is unknown, and she renders ritually impure a man who engaged in intercourse with her. And she counts her seven days of impurity only from the time that she saw her menstrual blood, not retroactively.
וְזֶה וָזֶה תּוֹלִין, לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין.
The baraita further teaches: With regard to both this, one who sees menstrual blood, and that, one who sees a blood stain, if they had touched teruma, its status is suspended. It is not eaten, as impure teruma is prohibited in consumption, but it is not burned either, since it is prohibited to burn pure teruma.
וְרָבָא, אִי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתָא — לֵימָא מַתְנִיתָא, וְאִי לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתָא — קַל וָחוֹמֶר מְנָא לֵיהּ?
The Gemara raises a difficulty: And as for Rava, why is the halakha of an earthenware vessel more obvious to him than the halakha of a bed and a chair? If he had heard this baraita, which states the halakha of an earthenware vessel, then let him say that the baraita itself is proof for his opinion with regard to a bed and a chair as well, as the baraita states both halakhot. And if he had not heard this baraita, from where did he learn his a fortiori inference, which is based on the halakha that an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover is not spared from impurity if a menstruating woman moved it during her twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity?
לְעוֹלָם שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתָא, וְאִי מִמַּתְנִיתָא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אוֹ אָדָם אוֹ בְּגָדִים, אֲבָל אָדָם וּבְגָדִים — לָא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָאָמַר קַל וָחוֹמֶר.
The Gemara answers: Actually, he did hear the baraita. But if his proof had been merely from the baraita, I would say that a different halakha applies to a bed and chair than to the earthenware vessels, as the baraita means that the bed and chair render impure a person or garments that they touch, but they do not render a person impure to the extent that he then transmits impurity to his garments. It is due to that reason that Rava says the a fortiori inference.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁבְּנִדָּה לַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לַתְּרוּמָה. אִי הָכִי, לִיתְנֵי גַּבֵּי מַעֲלוֹת! כִּי קָתָנֵי הֵיכָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְּטוּמְאָה, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְּטוּמְאָה — לָא קָתָנֵי.
§ Rav Huna says: The twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman applies only to sacrificial food but not to teruma. The Gemara asks: If so, let the mishna in Ḥagiga 20b teach this among the other higher levels of purity that apply to sacrificial foods but not to teruma. That mishna lists stringencies of ritual purity that are in effect with regard to sacrificial foods and not teruma. The Gemara answers: When that mishna teaches those higher levels of purity, it is referring only to types of impurity that have a connection [derara] to impurity as defined by Torah law. But it does not teach a case where there is no connection to impurity as defined by Torah law, and the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman is by rabbinic law.
מֵיתִיבִי: מָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה? אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין. מַאי לָאו, בֵּין דְּקֹדֶשׁ בֵּין דִּתְרוּמָה? לָא, דְּקֹדֶשׁ.
The Gemara raises an objection from the aforementioned baraita that deals with the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman: What does she render impure during that period? Food and drink. The Gemara asks: What, is it not correct to say that this is referring both to sacrificial food and to teruma? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring only to sacrificial food, not to teruma.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף בִּשְׁעַת עֲבָרָתָן מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי דַהֲוָה הֲוָה!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (11a): With regard to women of priestly families who must examine themselves before partaking of teruma, Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when they conclude partaking of teruma, they still need to examine themselves. And we discussed this statement of Rabbi Yehuda and asked: Why do they need to examine themselves after they finish eating teruma? What was, was; i.e., if a woman was impure when she ate the teruma, what is achieved by an examination now?
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְתַקֵּן שִׁירַיִם שֶׁבְּפָנֶיהָ.
And Rav Ḥisda says in explanation: It was necessary only in order to amend the situation of the remaining teruma that is left before her, i.e., to prevent it from being rendered ritually impure. In other words, if she later experiences a flow of menstrual blood, her retroactive impurity status will not render the remaining teruma impure. This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman affects only sacrificial foods, not teruma.
רַב הוּנָא מַתְנֵי לִישְׂרוֹף שִׁירַיִם שֶׁבְּיָדֶיהָ, שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כְּשִׁיעוּר וֶסֶת.
The Gemara answers: According to Rav Huna, Rabbi Yehuda teaches that since impure teruma must be burned, she must examine herself in order to determine whether it is correct to burn the remaining teruma that was in her hands. If she examined herself immediately after eating the teruma, in the period of time needed for the onset of menstruation (see 14b), and she found that she was impure, it is assumed as a certainty that she was impure when she ate the teruma. Consequently, the remaining teruma must be burned, in accordance with the halakha of teruma that was definitely rendered impure. But in fact, Rav Huna maintains that she does not render that remaining teruma impure retroactively, in a case where she did not examine herself.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַעֲשֶׂה, וְעָשָׂה רַבִּי כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: There was an incident in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi performed an action by ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating any longer, and therefore any menstrual blood that she emits later renders her ritually impure only from then onward, but not retroactively. By contrast, the Rabbis contend that this halakha applies only to an older woman, for whom it is natural to stop menstruating, but not to a young woman, even if three typical periods have passed without bleeding.
לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר, אָמַר: כְּדַי הוּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לִסְמוֹךְ עָלָיו
The baraita continues: After Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that Rabbi Eliezer’s colleagues disagree with Rabbi Eliezer on this matter and that he had apparently ruled incorrectly, he nevertheless said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy [kedai] to rely upon
בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי ״לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר״? אִילֵּימָא לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר דְּאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא כְּרַבָּנַן, בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק הֵיכִי עָבֵיד כְּוָתֵיהּ?
in exigent circumstances [bishe’at hadeḥak]. And we discussed it and asked: What is the meaning of: After he remembered? If we say that this means after he remembered that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer but in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, if so, how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi act in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer even in exigent circumstances, since the halakha has been decided against him?
אֶלָּא (לָאו) דְּלָא אִיתְּמַר הִלְכְתָא, לָא כְּמָר וְלָא כְּמָר, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּזְכַּר דְּלָאו יָחִיד פְּלִיג עֲלֵיהּ, אֶלָּא רַבִּים פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ, אָמַר: ״כְּדַי הוּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לִסְמוֹךְ עָלָיו בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק״.
Rather, is it not correct that the halakha had not been stated on this matter, neither in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, nor in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, i.e., the Rabbis. And once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that it was not a single authority who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, but it was several Sages who disagreed with him, and there is a principle that the halakha follows the opinion of the many over that of an individual, he nevertheless said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לִתְרוּמָה, הַיְינוּ דַּהֲוַאי תְּרוּמָה בִּימֵי רַבִּי, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְקֹדֶשׁ — קֹדֶשׁ בִּימֵי רַבִּי מִי הֲוַאי?
The Gemara explains the proof from the baraita: Granted, if you say that it was a case of a menstruating woman who had touched teruma during the previous twenty-four hours, this is fine, as teruma still existed in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But if you say that it was a case of a woman who touched sacrificial food, was there still sacrificial food in days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, after the destruction of the Temple? Clearly, the case involved teruma, and according to the Rabbis, whose opinion is accepted as halakha, this woman who had skipped three menstrual cycles nevertheless renders teruma impure retroactively. This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna.
כִּדְעוּלָּא, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: חַבְרַיָּא מְדַכַּן בְּגָלִילָא. הָכָא נָמֵי בִּימֵי רַבִּי.
The Gemara answers: This can be answered in accordance with the testimony of Ulla, as Ulla said: Ḥaverim purify their wine and oil in the Galilee, i.e., they produce their wine and oil by the standards of purity used for sacrificial food, in the hope that the Temple will be rebuilt in their lifetime. Here, too, in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there were those who kept the standards of purity observed for sacrificial food.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁפְחָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיְתָה אוֹפָה כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וּבֵין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מְדִיחָה יָדָהּ בְּמַיִם וּבוֹדֶקֶת, בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טְמֵאָה, וּבָאת וְשָׁאֲלָה אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְאָמַר לָהּ: כּוּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, וַהֲלֹא בְּדִיקָה הָיְתָה לִי בֵּין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת! אָמַר לָהּ: אִם כֵּן, הִיא טְמֵאָה וְכוּלָּן טְהוֹרוֹת.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: There was an incident involving the maidservant of Rabban Gamliel, who was baking loaves of teruma bread. And in between each and every one she would wash her hand in water and examine herself. After the last one she examined herself and found that she was impure due to menstrual blood, and she came and asked Rabban Gamliel about the status of the loaves. And he said to her: They are all impure, due to her retroactive impurity for the previous twenty-four hours. She said to him: My teacher, didn’t I perform an examination in between each and every one? Rabban Gamliel said to her: If so, then this last one is impure and the rest are all pure, as your retroactive impurity is reduced until the time of the most recent examination.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. מַאי תְּרוּמָה? תְּרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה. תְּרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה בַּאֲפִיָּה מַאי בָּעֲיָא?
The Gemara explains the difficulty: In any event, the baraita teaches that the case involved loaves of teruma bread. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rabban Gamliel applied retroactive impurity in a case of teruma. The Gemara answers: What is meant by: Teruma? It means teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering, i.e., the four loaves of the thanks offering that were separated from the total of forty and eaten by the priests. These are sacrificial foods, not teruma. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this interpretation: What was she doing baking the teruma of the loaves of the thanks offering alone? All forty loaves of the thanks offering are baked together, and only afterward are four set aside as teruma to be eaten by priests.
דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּלֵישַׁיְיהוּ, וְכִי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב טוֹבִי בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא: לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה שֶׁאֲפָאָן אַרְבַּע חַלּוֹת — יָצָא, וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: וְהָא בָּעֵינַן אַרְבָּעִים! לְמִצְוָה.
The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where dough for the teruma loaves was separated and designated for the priests during its kneading. And this halakha is in accordance with that which Rav Tovi bar Rav Ketina said: If one baked the loaves of the thanks offering as four loaves, rather than the requisite forty loaves, he has fulfilled his obligation. And we discussed it and asked: Isn’t one required to bring forty loaves with the thanks offering, ten loaves of each of the four different types? The Gemara answers: One must bake forty loaves in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation with four loaves, one of each type.
וְהָא בָּעֵינַן אַפְרוֹשֵׁי תְּרוּמָה מִינַּיְיהוּ! וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּמַפְרֵישׁ פְּרוּסָה מִכׇּל חַד וְחַד, ״אֶחָד״ אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא, שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל פְּרוּסָה, וְאָמְרִינַן דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּלֵישַׁיְיהוּ, הָכָא נָמֵי דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּלֵישַׁיְיהוּ.
The Gemara continues its answer by further elucidating the statement of Rav Tovi bar Rav Ketina. And we asked with regard to this opinion: But he is required to separate teruma from it, i.e., to designate one loaf from each type that is given to the priests. And if you would say that he separates a slice from each one of the four loaves and gives them to the priest, this cannot be the case, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “And of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift to the Lord; it shall be the priest’s” (Leviticus 7:14). The word “one” indicates that he may not take a slice, but rather he takes a complete loaf. The Gemara answers: Rather, we must say that he separated dough for the teruma loaves during its kneading. Here too, in the incident involving Rabban Gamliel’s maidservant, she separated the dough during its kneading.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שׁוּב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁפְחָה שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שֶׁהָיְתָה גָּפָה חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן, וּבֵין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מְדִיחָה יָדֶיהָ בְּמַיִם וּבוֹדֶקֶת, וּבָאַחֲרוֹנָה בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טְמֵאָה, וּבָאת וְשָׁאֲלָה לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְאָמַר לָהּ: כּוּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. אָמְרָה לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא בְּדִיקָה הָיְתָה לִי בֵּין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת! אֲמַר לַהּ: אִם כֵּן, הִיא טְמֵאָה וְכוּלָּן טְהוֹרוֹת.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: There was another incident involving the maidservant of Rabban Gamliel who was sealing barrels of wine. And in between each and every one she would wash her hands in water and examine herself. And after the last one she examined herself and found that she was ritually impure, and she came and asked Rabban Gamliel about the wine. And he said to her: They are all impure. She said to him: My teacher, didn’t I perform an examination in between each and every one? Rabban Gamliel said to her: If so, this last one is impure and the rest are all pure.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא חֲדָא דְּקֹדֶשׁ, וַחֲדָא דִּתְרוּמָה הִיא, הַיְינוּ דְּהָדְרָה וְשָׁיְילָה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּקֹדֶשׁ, לְמָה לַהּ לְמֶהְדַּר וּלְשַׁיּוֹלֵיהּ? מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה — בִּשְׁתֵּי שְׁפָחוֹת הָיָה.
The Gemara clarifies the difficulty with regard to Rav Huna’s opinion: Granted, if you say that one incident involved a case of sacrificial food and one incident involved a case of teruma, this is the reason that she returned and again asked Rabban Gamliel what to do. But if you say that both this incident and that incident involved sacrificial food, why did she need to return and ask him the same question a second time? The Gemara answers: Each incident that occurred was with sacrificial food and they happened with two different maidservants.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁבְּנִדָּה מְטַמְּאָה בֵּין לַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין לַתְּרוּמָה. מִמַּאי? מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ גַּבֵּי מַעֲלוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: וְהָא תָּנֵי תַּנָּא לַקֹּדֶשׁ אֲבָל לֹא לַתְּרוּמָה!
Some say another version of Rav Huna’s statement. Rav Huna says: During the twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman, she renders impure both sacrificial food and teruma. The Gemara asks: From where is this derived? The Gemara answers: It can be inferred from the fact that the mishna in Ḥagiga (20b) does not teach this matter among the other matters where higher levels of purity are required only for sacrificial foods but not for teruma. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: But doesn’t the tanna explicitly teach in a baraita: The retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman applies only with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma?
קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קֹדֶשׁ, וְלֹא בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה.
The Gemara answers: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak received the following explanation from Rav Naḥman: The baraita means that this retroactive impurity applies to non-sacred food that was prepared according to the standards of purity of sacrificial food, but not to non-sacred food that was prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma. It does apply to teruma itself.
תְּנַן הָתָם: נוֹלַד לָהּ סְפֵק טוּמְאָה, עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּלְגְּלָה — תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטוּמְאָה, מִשֶּׁגִּלְגְּלָה — תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטׇהֳרָה.
§ With regard to a non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma, we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Ḥalla 3:2): In a case of dough where uncertainty developed as to whether it was ritually impure, if the uncertainty developed before it was kneaded, it may be prepared even in definite impurity, i.e., with impure vessels. If it developed after it was kneaded, it must be prepared in purity.
עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּלְגְּלָהּ — תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטוּמְאָה, חוּלִּין נִינְהוּ, וּמוּתָּר לִגְרוֹם טוּמְאָה לְחוּלִּין שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל; מִשֶּׁגִּלְגְּלָה — תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטׇהֳרָה, חוּלִּין הַטְּבוּלִין לְחַלָּה כְּחָלָה דָּמוּ, וְאָסוּר לִגְרוֹם טוּמְאָה לְחַלָּה.
The baraita elaborates: Before it was kneaded it may be prepared even in definite impurity because it is non-sacred food, and the halakha is that it is permitted to cause impurity to non-sacred food in Eretz Yisrael. After it was kneaded it must be prepared in purity, since non-sacred food that is untithed with regard to the obligation to separate ḥalla, i.e., its ḥalla has not yet been separated, is considered like ḥalla, and it is prohibited to cause impurity to ḥalla.
תָּנָא:
It is taught in a baraita:
Follow
