נדה לג

נדה לג

אִילֵּימָא תַּחְתָּיו דְּזָב — מִ״וְּאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּמִשְׁכָּבוֹ״ נָפְקָא! אֶלָּא: הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה הַזָּב תַּחְתָּיו, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — עֶלְיוֹן שֶׁל זָב.

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.

״וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא״ נָמֵי יִטְמָא, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — נִישָּׂא. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְהַנִּשָּׂא״ כְּתִיב.

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.

נִתְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, וֶהֱבִיאוֹ לִידֵי טוּמְאָה קַלָּה, לוֹמַר לָךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין.

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.

אֵימַר נִתְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, דְּלֹא מְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים, אֲבָל אָדָם אוֹ בְּגָדִים לִיטַמֵּא? אָמַר קְרָא ״יִטְמָא״, טוּמְאָה קַלָּה מַשְׁמַע.

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.

וְתַחְתּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו״,

§ 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).

יָכוֹל יַעֲלֶה לְרַגְלָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״.

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.”

וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו״? שֶׁיָּכוֹל לֹא יְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּכְלִי חֶרֶס, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו״ — מָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה אָדָם וּכְלִי חֶרֶס, אַף הוּא מְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּכְלִי חֶרֶס.

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.

אִי מָה הִיא עוֹשָׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים, אַף הוּא עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכׇל הַמִּשְׁכָּב אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב עָלָיו יִטְמָא״.

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).

שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכׇל הַמִּשְׁכָּב אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב עָלָיו יִטְמָא״, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכׇל הַמִּשְׁכָּב אֲשֶׁר וְגוֹ׳״ — נִתְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וֶהֱבִיאוֹ לִידֵי טוּמְאָה קַלָּה, לוֹמַר לְךָ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין.

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.

פָּרֵיךְ רַב אַחַאי: אֵימָא נִתְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וֶהֱבִיאוֹ לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה — דְּלָא לִיטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמּוֹיֵי בְּגָדִים, אֲבָל אָדָם וּבְגָדִים לִיטַמֵּא! אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: ״יִטְמָא״ — טוּמְאָה קַלָּה מַשְׁמַע.

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.

אֵימָא: ״וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו״ — כָּלַל, ״וְכׇל הַמִּשְׁכָּב״ — פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט, מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא!

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.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״ מַפְסֵיק הָעִנְיָן, הָוֵי כְּלָל וּפְרָט הַמְרוּחָקִין זֶה מִזֶּה, וְכׇל כְּלָל וּפְרָט הַמְרוּחָקִין זֶה מִזֶּה אֵין דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט.

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.

רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם דָּנִין, ״וְכׇל״ — רִיבּוּיָא הוּא.

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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: אֵימָא כְּהִיא, מָה הִיא — לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בָּהּ בֵּין מַגָּעָהּ לְמִשְׁכָּבָהּ, לְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּלְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים לְחוּמְרָא, אַף הוּא — לֹא תַּחְלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין מַגָּעוֹ לְמִשְׁכָּבוֹ, לְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּלְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים לְקוּלָּא!

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: ״עָלָיו״ — לְהַטְעִינוֹ מַשְׁמַע.

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.

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בּוֹעֲלֵי נִדּוֹת וְכוּ׳. אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ בּוֹעֲלֵי נִדּוֹת נִינְהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק מַגְדְּלָאָה: בִּנְשׂוּאוֹת שָׁנוּ.

§ 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.

וְהֵן יוֹשְׁבוֹת עַל דָּם וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִם הֵן יוֹשְׁבוֹת עַל כׇּל דָּם וָדָם — תַּקָּנָה גְּדוֹלָה הִיא לָהֶן,

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.

אֶלָּא שֶׁרוֹאוֹת דָּם אָדוֹם וּמַשְׁלִימוֹת אוֹתוֹ לְדָם יָרוֹק.

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.

דָּבָר אַחֵר: יוֹם שֶׁפּוֹסֶקֶת בּוֹ — סוֹפַרְתּוֹ לְמִנְיַן שִׁבְעָה.

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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: וְתִסְפְּרֶנּוּ, וַאֲנַן נָמֵי נִיסְפְּרֵיהּ, דְּקַיְימָא לַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ!

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: אִם כֵּן, שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע (דסתר) [דְּסָתְרָה] בְּזִיבָה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? וְהָא מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ!

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.

אִי דַּחֲזַאי בְּפַלְגָא דְּיוֹמָא — הָכִי נָמֵי, הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דַּחֲזַאי סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה.

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.

וְלֵיקוּם וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ לִקְרָא, כִּי כְּתִיבָא — סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה כְּתִיבָא? אִין, עַל כׇּרְחָךְ שִׁבְקֵיהּ לִקְרָא, דְּאִיהוּ דָּחֵיק וּמוֹקֵי אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ.

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.

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: פּוֹלֶטֶת שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, מַהוּ שֶׁתִּסְתּוֹר בְּזִיבָה? רוֹאָה הָיְתָה וְסוֹתֶרֶת,

§ 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.

אוֹ דִילְמָא נוֹגַעַת הָיְתָה וְלָא סָתְרָה?

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: לְפוּם חוּרְפָּא שַׁבֶּשְׁתָּא! נְהִי נָמֵי דְּסָתְרָה, כְּמָה תִּסְתּוֹר? תִּסְתּוֹר שִׁבְעָה? דַּיָּה כְּבוֹעֲלָהּ!

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.

תִּסְתּוֹר יוֹם אֶחָד ״וְאַחַר תִּטְהָר״? אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״אַחַר״ — אַחַר לְכוּלָּן, שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא טוּמְאָה מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶם.

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.

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, זָב גּוּפֵיהּ הֵיכִי סָתַר? ״לְטׇהֳרָתוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא טוּמְאָה מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן!

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.

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר? שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא טוּמְאַת זִיבָה מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן, הָכָא נָמֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא טוּמְאַת זִיבָה מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן.

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.

וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְכוּ׳. רַב פָּפָּא אִיקְּלַע לִתְוָאךְ, אֲמַר: אִי אִיכָּא צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן הָכָא, אֵיזִיל אֲקַבֵּל אַפֵּיהּ. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ הָהִיא סַבְתָּא: אִיכָּא הָכָא צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן, וְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל שְׁמֵיהּ, וְתָנֵי מַתְנְיָתָא. יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּתֶהְוֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ!

§ 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.

אֲמַר: מִדְּקָמְבָרְכִי לִי בְּגַוֵּויהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם הוּא. אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ, רְמָא לֵיהּ תּוֹרָא, רְמָא לֵיהּ מַתְנְיָתָא אַהֲדָדֵי: תְּנַן ״אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ, וְאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁטּוּמְאָתָהּ סָפֵק״ — אַלְמָא מִסְּפֵיקָא לָא שָׂרְפִינַן תְּרוּמָה.

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.

וּרְמִינְהִי: עַל שִׁשָּׁה סְפֵקוֹת שׂוֹרְפִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, עַל סְפֵק בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ!

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.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּלִתְאֲכִיל הַאי תּוֹרָא לִשְׁלָמָא, הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּכוּתִי חָבֵר.

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.

כּוּתִי חָבֵר — בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה מְשַׁוֵּית לֵיהּ?

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?

שַׁבְקֵיהּ, וַאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מְשַׁנֵּית לֵיהּ בְּכוּתִי שֶׁטָּבַל וְעָלָה, וְדָרַס עַל בִּגְדֵי חָבֵר, וַאֲזוּל בִּגְדֵי חָבֵר וּנְגַעוּ בִּתְרוּמָה?

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.

דְּאִי מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאַת עַם הָאָרֶץ — הָא טְבֵיל לֵיהּ, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה — סָפֵק בָּעַל בְּקָרוֹב, סָפֵק לֹא בָּעַל בְּקָרוֹב.

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.

וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר בָּעַל בְּקָרוֹב, סָפֵק הִשְׁלִימַתּוּ יָרוֹק, סָפֵק לֹא הִשְׁלִימַתּוּ, וְהָוֵי סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא, וְאַסְּפֵק סְפֵיקָא לָא שָׂרְפִינַן תְּרוּמָה.

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.

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ, דְּאָמַר מָר: בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ מִדְרָס לַפְּרוּשִׁין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּכוּתִי עָרוֹם.

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.

מַתְנִי’ בְּנוֹת צַדּוּקִין, בִּזְמַן שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכוּתִיּוֹת. פָּרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִיּוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם הֵן כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִיּוֹת, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן.

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.

גְּמָ’ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: סְתָמָא מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּנוֹת צַדּוּקִין, בִּזְמַן שֶׁנּוֹהֲגוֹת לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכוּתִיּוֹת. הָא סְתָמָא — כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִיּוֹת! אֵימָא סֵיפָא: פֵּרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִיּוֹת. הָא סְתָמָא — כְּכוּתִיּוֹת! אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם הֵן כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִיּוֹת, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן. מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: סְתָמָא כְּכוּתִיּוֹת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּצַדּוּקִי אֶחָד שֶׁסִּפֵּר עִם כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בַּשּׁוּק, וְנִתְּזָה צִנּוֹרָא מִפִּיו וְנָפְלָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עַל בְּגָדָיו, וְהוֹרִיקוּ פָּנָיו שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְקָדַם אֵצֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ.

§ 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.

אָמְרָה לוֹ: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנְּשֵׁי צַדּוּקִים הֵן, מִתְיָרְאוֹת מִן הַפְּרוּשִׁים, וּמַרְאוֹת דָּם לַחֲכָמִים.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בְּקִיאִין אָנוּ בָּהֶן יוֹתֵר מִן הַכֹּל, וְהֵן מַרְאוֹת דָּם לַחֲכָמִים, חוּץ מֵאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּשְׁכוּנָתֵינוּ, שֶׁלֹּא הֶרְאָת דָּם לַחֲכָמִים וּמֵתָה.

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.

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם צִנּוֹרָא דְּעַם הָאָרֶץ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּצַדּוּקִי חָבֵר. אָמַר רָבָא: צַדּוּקִי חָבֵר בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה מְשַׁוֵּית לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא:

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: