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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 29, 2019 | 诇壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Niddah 6

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.


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

讻诪讙注 注爪诪讛 诪讛 诪讙注 注爪诪讛 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗祝 诪砖讻讘讛 讜诪讜砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛专讜讗讛 讚诐 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪讛 讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 诪砖讻讘讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讜讻诇讬 讞专住 讛诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜诇拽诇转 诇诪谞讬谞讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 诇诪驻专注 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注讛 砖专讗转讛

搂 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.

讛专讜讗讛 讻转诐 诪讟诪讗讛 诇诪驻专注 讜诪讛 讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 诪砖讻讘讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 讜讻诇讬 讞专住 讛诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 讜诪拽讜诇拽诇转 诇诪谞讬谞讛 讜诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注讛 砖专讗转讛

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.

讜讝讛 讜讝讛 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉

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.

讜专讘讗 讗讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讗 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

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?

诇注讜诇诐 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讗 讜讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讜 讗讚诐 讗讜 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讚诐 讜讘讙讚讬诐 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 讙讘讬 诪注诇讜转 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专专讗 讚讟讜诪讗讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专专讗 讚讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬

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 岣giga 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讛 讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讬谉 讚拽讚砖 讘讬谉 讚转专讜诪讛 诇讗 讚拽讚砖

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.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘砖注转 注讘专转谉 诪诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇转拽谉 砖讬专讬诐 砖讘驻谞讬讛

And Rav 岣sda 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.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬砖专讜祝 砖讬专讬诐 砖讘讬讚讬讛 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讜住转

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 讜注砖讛 专讘讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

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.

诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讗诪专 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜

The baraita continues: After Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 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

讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讻讜转讬讛

in exigent circumstances [bishe鈥檃t hade岣k]. 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?

讗诇讗 (诇讗讜) 讚诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讻诪专 讜诇讗 讻诪专 讜讻讬讜谉 砖谞讝讻专 讚诇讗讜 讬讞讬讚 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬诐 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽

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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讛讜讗讬 转专讜诪讛 讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇拽讚砖 拽讚砖 讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 诪讬 讛讜讗讬

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.

讻讚注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讞讘专讬讗 诪讚讻谉 讘讙诇讬诇讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讬诪讬 专讘讬

The Gemara answers: This can be answered in accordance with the testimony of Ulla, as Ulla said: 岣verim 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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 讘砖驻讞转讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬转讛 讗讜驻讛 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讘讬谉 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讚讬讞讛 讬讚讛 讘诪讬诐 讜讘讜讚拽转 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讘讗转 讜砖讗诇讛 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 讜讛诇讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讛讬转讛 诇讬 讘讬谉 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讜转

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鈥檛 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.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 诪讗讬 转专讜诪讛 转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讘讗驻讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬讗

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.

讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘诇讬砖讬讬讛讜 讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 砖讗驻讗谉 讗专讘注 讞诇讜转 讬爪讗 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讗专讘注讬诐 诇诪爪讜讛

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鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讗驻专讜砖讬 转专讜诪讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诪驻专讬砖 驻专讜住讛 诪讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讗讞讚 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 砖诇讗 讬讟讜诇 驻专讜住讛 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘诇讬砖讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘诇讬砖讬讬讛讜

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: 鈥淎nd of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift to the Lord; it shall be the priest鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 7:14). The word 鈥渙ne鈥 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鈥檚 maidservant, she separated the dough during its kneading.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘砖驻讞讛 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬转讛 讙驻讛 讞讘讬讜转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讘讬谉 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讚讬讞讛 讬讚讬讛 讘诪讬诐 讜讘讜讚拽转 讜讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讘讗转 讜砖讗诇讛 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讛讬转讛 诇讬 讘讬谉 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讜转

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鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞讚讗 讚拽讚砖 讜讞讚讗 讚转专讜诪讛 讛讬讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讛讚专讛 讜砖讬讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚拽讚砖 诇诪讛 诇讛 诇诪讛讚专 讜诇砖讬讬诇讬讛 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讘砖转讬 砖驻讞讜转 讛讬讛

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty with regard to Rav Huna鈥檚 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.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讬谉 诇拽讚砖 讜讘讬谉 诇转专讜诪讛 诪诪讗讬 诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讙讘讬 诪注诇讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬 转谞讗 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛

Some say another version of Rav Huna鈥檚 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 岣giga (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 Na岣an said to Rav Huna: But doesn鈥檛 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?

拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara answers: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k received the following explanation from Rav Na岣an: 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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 谞讜诇讚 诇讛 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讙诇讙诇讛 转注砖讛 讘讟讜诪讗讛 诪砖讙诇讙诇讛 转注砖讛 讘讟讛专讛

搂 With regard to a non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma, we learned in a mishna elsewhere (岣lla 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.

注讚 砖诇讗 讙诇讙诇讛 转注砖讛 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讞讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诪讜转专 诇讙专讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讙诇讙诇讛 转注砖讛 讘讟讛专讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜 讜讗住讜专 诇讙专讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞诇讛

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 岣lla, i.e., its 岣lla has not yet been separated, is considered like 岣lla, and it is prohibited to cause impurity to 岣lla.

转谞讗

It is taught in a baraita:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 6

讻诪讙注 注爪诪讛 诪讛 诪讙注 注爪诪讛 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗祝 诪砖讻讘讛 讜诪讜砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛专讜讗讛 讚诐 诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪讛 讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 诪砖讻讘讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讜讻诇讬 讞专住 讛诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜诇拽诇转 诇诪谞讬谞讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 诇诪驻专注 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注讛 砖专讗转讛

搂 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.

讛专讜讗讛 讻转诐 诪讟诪讗讛 诇诪驻专注 讜诪讛 讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 诪砖讻讘讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 讜讻诇讬 讞专住 讛诪讜拽祝 爪诪讬讚 驻转讬诇 讜诪拽讜诇拽诇转 诇诪谞讬谞讛 讜诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注讛 砖专讗转讛

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.

讜讝讛 讜讝讛 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉

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.

讜专讘讗 讗讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讗 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

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?

诇注讜诇诐 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讗 讜讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讜 讗讚诐 讗讜 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讚诐 讜讘讙讚讬诐 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 讙讘讬 诪注诇讜转 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专专讗 讚讟讜诪讗讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专专讗 讚讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬

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 岣giga 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讛 讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪砖拽讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讬谉 讚拽讚砖 讘讬谉 讚转专讜诪讛 诇讗 讚拽讚砖

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.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘砖注转 注讘专转谉 诪诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇转拽谉 砖讬专讬诐 砖讘驻谞讬讛

And Rav 岣sda 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.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬砖专讜祝 砖讬专讬诐 砖讘讬讚讬讛 砖讘讚拽讛 注爪诪讛 讻砖讬注讜专 讜住转

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 讜注砖讛 专讘讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

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.

诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讗诪专 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜

The baraita continues: After Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi remembered that Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 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

讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讻讜转讬讛

in exigent circumstances [bishe鈥檃t hade岣k]. 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?

讗诇讗 (诇讗讜) 讚诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讻诪专 讜诇讗 讻诪专 讜讻讬讜谉 砖谞讝讻专 讚诇讗讜 讬讞讬讚 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬诐 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽

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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇转专讜诪讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讛讜讗讬 转专讜诪讛 讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇拽讚砖 拽讚砖 讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 诪讬 讛讜讗讬

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.

讻讚注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讞讘专讬讗 诪讚讻谉 讘讙诇讬诇讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讬诪讬 专讘讬

The Gemara answers: This can be answered in accordance with the testimony of Ulla, as Ulla said: 岣verim 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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 讘砖驻讞转讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬转讛 讗讜驻讛 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讘讬谉 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讚讬讞讛 讬讚讛 讘诪讬诐 讜讘讜讚拽转 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讘讗转 讜砖讗诇讛 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 讜讛诇讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讛讬转讛 诇讬 讘讬谉 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讜转

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鈥檛 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.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 诪讗讬 转专讜诪讛 转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 转专讜诪转 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讘讗驻讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬讗

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.

讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘诇讬砖讬讬讛讜 讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 砖讗驻讗谉 讗专讘注 讞诇讜转 讬爪讗 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讗专讘注讬诐 诇诪爪讜讛

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鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讗驻专讜砖讬 转专讜诪讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诪驻专讬砖 驻专讜住讛 诪讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讗讞讚 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 砖诇讗 讬讟讜诇 驻专讜住讛 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘诇讬砖讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 讘诇讬砖讬讬讛讜

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: 鈥淎nd of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift to the Lord; it shall be the priest鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 7:14). The word 鈥渙ne鈥 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鈥檚 maidservant, she separated the dough during its kneading.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘砖驻讞讛 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬转讛 讙驻讛 讞讘讬讜转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讘讬谉 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讚讬讞讛 讬讚讬讛 讘诪讬诐 讜讘讜讚拽转 讜讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讘讚拽讛 讜诪爪讗讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讘讗转 讜砖讗诇讛 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讜转 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讛讬转讛 诇讬 讘讬谉 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讜转

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鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞讚讗 讚拽讚砖 讜讞讚讗 讚转专讜诪讛 讛讬讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讛讚专讛 讜砖讬讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚拽讚砖 诇诪讛 诇讛 诇诪讛讚专 讜诇砖讬讬诇讬讛 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讘砖转讬 砖驻讞讜转 讛讬讛

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty with regard to Rav Huna鈥檚 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.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪注转 诇注转 砖讘谞讚讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讬谉 诇拽讚砖 讜讘讬谉 诇转专讜诪讛 诪诪讗讬 诪讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讙讘讬 诪注诇讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬 转谞讗 诇拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛

Some say another version of Rav Huna鈥檚 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 岣giga (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 Na岣an said to Rav Huna: But doesn鈥檛 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?

拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞注砖讜 注诇 讟讛专转 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara answers: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k received the following explanation from Rav Na岣an: 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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 谞讜诇讚 诇讛 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讙诇讙诇讛 转注砖讛 讘讟讜诪讗讛 诪砖讙诇讙诇讛 转注砖讛 讘讟讛专讛

搂 With regard to a non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma, we learned in a mishna elsewhere (岣lla 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.

注讚 砖诇讗 讙诇讙诇讛 转注砖讛 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讞讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诪讜转专 诇讙专讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞讜诇讬谉 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讙诇讙诇讛 转注砖讛 讘讟讛专讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讟讘讜诇讬谉 诇讞诇讛 讻讞诇讛 讚诪讜 讜讗住讜专 诇讙专讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞诇讛

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 岣lla, i.e., its 岣lla has not yet been separated, is considered like 岣lla, and it is prohibited to cause impurity to 岣lla.

转谞讗

It is taught in a baraita:

Scroll To Top