נדה עא

נדה עא

וַיְקַדֵּשׁ עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ.

and sanctify himself by acting modestly at the time of sexual intercourse.

אָמְרוּ: הַרְבֵּה עָשׂוּ כֵּן, וְלֹא הוֹעִילוּ! אֶלָּא יְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים מִמִּי שֶׁהַבָּנִים שֶׁלּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִנֵּה נַחֲלַת ה׳ בָּנִים שָׂכָר פְּרִי הַבָּטֶן״.

The sages of Alexandria said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Many people have done so, and it did not help them. Rabbi Yehoshua said: Rather, they should pray to receive sons from the One to Whom sons belong, as it is stated: “Behold, children are a heritage of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalms 127:3).

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? דְּהָא בְּלָא הָא לָא סַגִּי.

The Gemara again asks: Since the path to sons is through prayer, what is Rabbi Yehoshua teaching us when he said that one should marry an appropriate woman and conduct himself with modesty during intercourse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehoshua is teaching that this, prayer, without that, marrying an appropriate woman and being modest, does not suffice.

מַאי ״שָׂכָר פְּרִי הַבָּטֶן״? אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁמְּשַׁהִין עַצְמָן בַּבֶּטֶן, כְּדֵי (שֶׁתַּזְרִיעַ אִשְׁתּוֹ) [שֶׁיַּזְרִיעוּ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן] תְּחִילָּה — נוֹתֵן לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׂכַר פְּרִי הַבֶּטֶן.

With regard to the verse from Psalms, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: “The fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalms 127:3)? What act is rewarded here? Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: In reward for men withholding their semen in their belly in order to allow their wives to emit seed first, the Holy One, Blessed be He, gives him the reward of the fruit of the womb, i.e., sons.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים [וְכוּ׳]. מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? אִי נֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״וַתִּתְחַלְחַל הַמַּלְכָּה״, וְאָמַר רַב: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁפֵּרְסָה נִדָּה. הָכָא נָמֵי, אַגַּב בִּיעֲתוּתָא דְּמַלְאֲכָא דְמוֹתָא — חָזְיָא, וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן שֶׁחֲרָדָה מְסַלֶּקֶת אֶת הַדָּמִים! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: פַּחְדָּא — צָמֵית, בִּיעֲתוּתָא — מְרַפְּיָא.

§ The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai say: The status of all women when they die is as though they were menstruating women. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai? If we say that their opinion is due to that which is written: “Then the queen was exceedingly distressed [vatitḥalḥal]” (Esther 4:4), this is difficult. The Gemara first explains the derivation. And Rav said: This teaches that she began to menstruate out of fear, as the cavities [ḥalalim] of her body opened. Here too, when a woman is about to die, due to the fear of the Angel of Death she sees blood. This is difficult, as didn’t we learn in a mishna (39a) that trepidation eliminates the flow of menstrual blood? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Anxiety generated by extended worry contracts the muscles and prevents the blood from flowing, but sudden fear relaxes the muscles and causes the blood to flow.

אֶלָּא, הָא דִּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הָאֲנָשִׁים מֵתִים זָבִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין זָב אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁמֵּת זָב.

But if the reason Beit Shammai hold that all women who die have the status of menstruating women is due to fear, then what about that which we learned in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: The status of all men when they die is as though they were zavim; and Beit Hillel say: Only a man who died with the impurity of a zav has the status of a zav. If the reason that Beit Shammai maintain that all women who die have the status of menstruating women is due to fear of the Angel of Death, presumably they also should consider all men who die to have the status of a zav for the same reason.

אִקְּרִי כָּאן ״מִבְּשָׂרוֹ״, וְלֹא מֵחֲמַת אוֹנְסוֹ!

But this is difficult, as I will apply here the principle stated with regard to a zav: “An issue out of his flesh” (Leviticus 15:2) renders a man impure, but not an issue due to circumstances beyond his control. If a man has a discharge of ziva due to an illness or some accident, he does not become impure. Consequently, if he has a discharge due to fear after seeing the Angel of Death, he would not become ritually impure.

אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, כִּדְתַנְיָא: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ מַטְבִּילִין כֵּלִים עַל גַּבֵּי נִדּוֹת מֵתוֹת, וְהָיוּ נִדּוֹת חַיּוֹת מִתְבַּיְּישׁוֹת — הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַטְבִּילִין עַל גַּבֵּי כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים, מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹדָן שֶׁל נִדּוֹת חַיּוֹת.

Rather, the reason for the opinion of Beit Shammai is as it is taught in a baraita: At first they would ritually immerse all the utensils that had been used by women who died while menstruating, which had thereby contracted ritual impurity even if the utensils did not touch the women after their death. And as a result, the living menstruating women were embarrassed, as they saw that the status of a menstruating woman is so severe that it remains even after death. The Sages therefore instituted that one must immerse the utensils which had been used by all dying women, due to the honor of living menstruating women.

בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ מַטְבִּילִין עַל גַּבֵּי זָבִין מֵתִין, וְהָיוּ זָבִין חַיִּין מִתְבַּיְּישִׁין — הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַטְבִּילִין עַל גַּבֵּי כׇּל הָאֲנָשִׁים, מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹדָן שֶׁל זָבִין חַיִּים.

Similarly, at first they would immerse all the utensils that had been used by zavin, men suffering from gonorrhea, who died, as the utensils had thereby contracted ritual impurity even if the utensils did not touch the men after their death. And as a result, the living zavin were embarrassed. Therefore, the Sages instituted that one must immerse the utensils that had been used by all dying men, due to the honor of the living zavin.

מַתְנִי’ הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמֵּתָה, וְיָצְאָה מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית דָּם — מְטַמְּאָה מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם, וּמְטַמְּאָה בְּאֹהֶל.

MISHNA: With regard to a woman who died, and after her death a quarter–log of blood emerged from her body, although the blood emerged after death, it transmits ritual impurity by touching and carrying, due to the impurity of the spot of blood of a menstruating woman. This impurity as blood of menstruation applies to any amount of blood she emits, despite the halakha that generally, the blood of a corpse transmits impurity only if it is at least a quarter-log in volume. And as it is a quarter-log of blood, it transmits impurity in a tent, as it is the blood of a corpse.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִשֶּׁמֵּתָה. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּיוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל מַשְׁבֵּר וָמֵתָה, וְיָצְאָה מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית דָּם שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לְפִיכָךְ אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּאֹהֶל.

Rabbi Yehuda says: That quarter-log of blood does not transmit impurity due to the impurity of the spot of blood of a menstruating woman, because that blood was displaced after she died. And Rabbi Yehuda concedes in the case of a woman who is sitting in childbirth on the travailing chair [mashber] and she died, and a quarter-log of blood emerged from her body, that this blood transmits ritual impurity due to the impurity of the spot of blood of a menstruating woman. In that case, the blood was displaced while she was still alive. Rabbi Yosei said: For that reason, that quarter-log of blood does not transmit impurity in a tent, as it did not come from a corpse.

גְּמָ’ מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר, אַף עַל גַּב דְּנֶעֱקַר דָּם מִשֶּׁמֵּתָה, מְטַמְּאָה מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם?

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yehuda a quarter-log of blood that emerges from a woman after death does not transmit impurity due to the impurity of a spot of blood of a menstruating woman, despite the fact that it came from the uterus. The Gemara raises a difficulty: By inference one might think that the first tanna holds that even though the blood was displaced after she died, it renders one ritually impure due to the impurity of a blood spot. This is not reasonable, as a dead woman cannot attain the status of a menstruating woman.

אָמַר רַבִּי זְעֵירִי: מָקוֹר מְקוֹמוֹ טָמֵא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

Rabbi Ze’eiri said: Even the first tanna agrees that blood from the uterus which leaves the body after death does not impart impurity as a spot. Rather, the difference between the opinions of the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda is whether the place of a woman’s source, i.e., her uterus, is impure, and therefore any blood that passes through there is impure, even if it left her body after death. The first tanna maintains that even blood that appears after her death transmits impurity like the blood of menstruation, as it passed through the uterus when she was still alive, whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that this blood does not transmit impurity as blood of menstruation, despite the fact that it passed through her uterus.

וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

§ The mishna teaches: And Rabbi Yehuda concedes in the case of a woman who was sitting in childbirth when she died, that the quarter-log of blood which emerged from her body transmits the ritual impurity of the spot of the blood of a menstruating woman. And Rabbi Yosei said: For that reason, that quarter-log of blood does not transmit impurity in a tent.

מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר בְּאֹהֶל נָמֵי מְטַמֵּא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: דַּם תְּבוּסָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

The Gemara asks: By inference, one might conclude that the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the blood which emerges from a woman who died during childbirth also transmits impurity in a tent. This cannot be correct, as the blood left her while she was still alive. Rav Yehuda said: The difference between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei is with regard to blood of submission discharged from a body at the time of death, which contains a mixture of blood that leaves a person when he is still alive and blood that emerges after his death. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the blood which emerges from a woman who dies during childbirth is blood of submission, which transmits impurity in a tent by rabbinic law. Rabbi Yosei maintains that it is clear that this blood emerged from her body before she died, and therefore it is not blood of submission.

דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ דַּם תְּבוּסָה? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הָרוּג שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנּוּ דָּם בֵּין בְּחַיָּיו בֵּין בְּמוֹתוֹ, סָפֵק בְּחַיָּיו יָצָא, סָפֵק בְּמוֹתוֹ יָצָא, סָפֵק בְּחַיָּיו וּבְמוֹתוֹ — זֶהוּ דַּם תְּבוּסָה.

As it is taught in a baraita: What is blood of submission, which imparts ritual impurity (see 62b)? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yehuda, explained: The case is one of a person who was killed, from whom a quarter-log of blood emerged, a flow which began while he was alive and continued after his death, and it is uncertain whether a full quarter-log emerged while he was alive and therefore does not transmit ritual impurity, and it is uncertain whether it emerged out after his death, in which case it imparts ritual impurity by Torah law, and it is uncertain whether the quarter-log emerged partly while he was alive and partly after his death. That is blood of submission.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר.

And the Rabbis say that this is not blood of submission, but a case of uncertain ritual impurity by Torah law, as it might all have emerged after death. Therefore, one applies the principle that in a private domain a case of uncertainty is considered to be ritually impure, whereas in a public domain a case of uncertainty is considered to be ritually pure.

אֶלָּא אֵיזֶהוּ דַּם תְּבוּסָה? הָרוּג שֶׁיָּצָא הֵימֶנּוּ רְבִיעִית דָּם בְּחַיָּיו וּבְמוֹתוֹ, וַעֲדַיִין לֹא פָּסַק, סָפֵק רוּבּוֹ בְּחַיָּיו וּמִיעוּטוֹ בְּמוֹתוֹ, סְפֵק מִיעוּטוֹ בְּחַיָּיו וְרוּבּוֹ בְּמוֹתוֹ — זֶהוּ דַּם תְּבוּסָה.

Rather, what is blood of submission? The case is one of a person who has been killed from whom a quarter–log of blood emerged while he was alive and continued emerging after his death and has still not stopped coming out. It is clear that a full quarter-log did not emerge after his death, but it is uncertain whether the majority emerged while he was alive and the minority after his death, and equally uncertain whether the minority emerged while he was alive and the majority after his death. That is blood of submission.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָרוּג שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנּוּ רְבִיעִית דָּם, וְהָיָה מוּטָּל בַּמִּטָּה וְדָמוֹ מְטַפְטֵף לְגוּמָּא — טָמֵא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַטִּפָּה שֶׁל מִיתָה מְעוֹרֶבֶת בּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין, מִפְּנֵי

Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of one who has been killed from whom a quarter-log of blood emerged, and he was lying in a bed and his blood was dripping into a hole in the ground, the blood in the ground is ritually impure, because the drop of death is mixed with it. And the Rabbis deem it ritually pure, because

שֶׁרִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן נִפְסָק. שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה! רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.

each first drop and every other first drop is separated from the other drops of blood, i.e., it did not flow in a steady stream. Since the blood initially emerged while he was alive and is pure, every drop of blood which emerged after his death is nullified when it falls into that blood, and therefore the entire puddle of blood is ritually pure. The Gemara asks: The Rabbis are saying well to Rabbi Yehuda; how does he respond to their claim? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning, as he said: Blood does not nullify blood.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: צָלוּב עַל הָעֵץ, שֶׁדָּמוֹ שׁוֹתֵת לָאָרֶץ, וְנִמְצָא תַּחְתָּיו רְבִיעִית דָּם — טָמֵא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַהֵר, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: טִפָּה שֶׁל מִיתָה עוֹמֶדֶת לוֹ עַל גַּב הָעֵץ.

Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of one who is crucified on wood, whose blood does not drip but runs down the wood to the earth, and a quarter-log of blood is found underneath him, the blood is ritually impure. Rabbi Yehuda deems the blood ritually pure. He explains his reasoning: As I say that the quarter-log of blood found underneath the body came out while he was still alive, and the drop of blood that came out after his death remains on the wood.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, נֵימָא אִיהוּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ: שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר ״טִפָּה שֶׁל מִיתָה עוֹמֶדֶת עַל גַּב הַמִּטָּה״! שָׁאנֵי מִטָּה, דִּמְחַלְחֲלָה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yehuda, let him say to himself with regard to one who was killed on a bed and his blood is dripping into a hole in the ground: As I say that all the blood found underneath the body emerged while he was still alive and the drop of blood that came out after his death remains on the bed. Why does Rabbi Yehuda deem the blood ritually impure in such a case? The Gemara answers: The case of the bed is different, as the blood seeps through the bed onto the floor, whereas in the case of one who is crucified some of the blood may remain on the tree.

מַתְנִי’ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַיּוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל דַּם טוֹהַר הָיְתָה מְעָרָה מַיִם לְפֶסַח.

MISHNA: Initially the Sages would say, with regard to a woman who gave birth and observed the seven or fourteen days of impurity for a male or female child, respectively, and then immersed in a ritual bath and who is observing the period of the blood of purity, that she would pour water from a vessel in her hands to rinse the Paschal offering. Although it is permitted for such a woman to engage in intercourse with her husband, her halakhic status is like that of one who immersed that day and the sun has not yet set. She therefore assumes second-degree ritual impurity and confers third-degree ritual impurity upon teruma with which she comes into contact. Consequently, she may touch the vessel, as second-degree ritual impurity does not render a vessel impure. She may not touch the water, as it is designated for rinsing the Paschal offering and therefore it is treated with the sanctity of sacrificial food, which is rendered impure by second-degree ritual impurity.

חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַגַּע טְמֵא מֵת לְקָדָשִׁים, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַף כִּטְמֵא מֵת.

The Sages then said: Her status is like that of one who came into contact with one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, i.e., one with first-degree ritual impurity, who renders consecrated items impure. But with regard to all non-sacred items, even non-sacred items treated with the sanctity of sacrificial food, such as the water used to rinse the Paschal offering, she has second-degree ritual impurity. Consequently, it is permitted for her to touch not only the vessel, but the water inside it as well, in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: The status of the woman is even like that of one who is impure due to contact with a corpse, who is a primary source of ritual impurity and renders even a non-sacred vessel impure.

גְּמָ’ מְעָרָה — אִין, נוֹגַעַת — לָא. אַלְמָא: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ — כְּקֹדֶשׁ דָּמוּ.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: A woman who gave birth, observed the days of impurity, immersed in a ritual bath, and who is now observing the period of the blood of purity would pour water from a vessel in her hands to rinse the Paschal offering. The Gemara infers: Pouring from a vessel, yes, this is permitted, but she may not touch the water itself. Apparently, non-sacred produce, e.g., even liquid such as the water for rinsing the Paschal offering, that was prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food, i.e., with the same stringencies as required for sacrificial food, is considered like sacrificial food.

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַגַּע טְמֵא מֵת לְקָדָשִׁים — לְקָדָשִׁים אִין, לְחוּלִּין לָא, אַלְמָא: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ לָאו כְּקֹדֶשׁ דָּמוּ!

But now say the latter clause of the mishna: The Sages then said: Her status is like that of one who came into contact with one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, i.e., one with first-degree ritual impurity, who renders consecrated items impure. This indicates that with regard to consecrated items, yes, she renders them impure, but with regard to non-sacred items, e.g., the water used to rinse the Paschal offering, she does not render them impure. Apparently, non-sacred produce that was prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food is not considered like sacrificial food.

מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? אַבָּא שָׁאוּל הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: טְבוּל יוֹם תְּחִילָּה לַקֹּדֶשׁ, לְטַמֵּא שְׁנַיִם וְלִפְסוֹל אֶחָד.

The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is expressed in the latter clause of the mishna? It is the opinion of Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: With regard to one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, he has the status of one who is impure with first-degree impurity with regard to sacrificial food, in that he renders two items of sacrificial food impure, and disqualifies one additional item. In other words, the first item of sacrificial food that he touches assumes the status of second-degree impurity. A second item that comes into contact with the first item assumes third-degree impurity. A third item that comes into contact with the second assumes fourth-degree impurity and is therefore disqualified from being eaten, but it does not impart impurity to other items.

מַתְנִי’ וּמוֹדִים שֶׁהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְקוֹצָה לָהּ חַלָּה, וּמַקֶּפֶת וְקוֹרָא לָהּ שֵׁם,

MISHNA: And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that a woman observing the days of purity partakes of second-tithe produce, as it is permitted for one who immersed that day to eat second-tithe produce. And she separates part of her dough as ḥalla, and she draws the vessel with the part of the dough that she separated near the rest of the dough, and she designates it with the name of ḥalla.

וְאִם נָפַל מֵרוּקָּהּ וּמִדַּם טׇהֳרָהּ עַל כִּכָּר שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה — שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר.

And Beit Shammai further concede to Beit Hillel that if a drop from her saliva or from the blood of purity fell onto a loaf of teruma, the loaf is ritually pure, as any liquid discharged from the body of one who immersed that day is ritually pure.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: צְרִיכָה טְבִילָה בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה טְבִילָה בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה.

There is another dispute between the tanna’im with regard to a woman who completed her days of purity. Beit Shammai say: Her immersion at the end of the days of impurity does not render it permitted for her to enter the Temple or to partake of teruma; rather, she requires immersion even at the conclusion of the days of purity. And Beit Hillel say: She does not require immersion at the conclusion of the days of purity to render it permitted for her to partake of teruma, as the immersion at the end of the days of impurity is sufficient.

גְּמָ’ דְּאָמַר מָר: טָבַל וְעָלָה — אוֹכֵל בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that the woman observing the days of purity partakes of second-tithe produce. The Gemara explains that the reason is as the Master said: When the period of ritual impurity of a zav or leper has been completed, and he immersed during the day and ascended from the ritual bath, he may partake of second tithe immediately.

וְקוֹצָה לָהּ חַלָּה. חוּלִּין הַטְּבוּלִין לְחַלָּה — לָאו כְּחַלָּה דָּמוּ.

The mishna teaches: And she separates part of her dough as ḥalla. The Gemara explains that non-consecrated food that is untithed produce with regard to ḥalla, as it has not had ḥalla separated from it, e.g., this dough from which a piece has been set aside for the future separation of ḥalla, is not considered like ḥalla, and therefore is not rendered impure by the contact of a woman observing the days of purity.

וּמַקֶּפֶת. דְּאָמַר מָר: מִצְוָה לִתְרוֹם מִן הַמּוּקָּף.

The mishna also teaches that she draws the vessel with the part of the dough that she separated near the rest of the dough. The Gemara explains that this is as the Master said: It is a mitzva to separate teruma from produce that is situated nearby the produce it comes to exempt, ab initio.

וְקוֹרָא לָהּ שֵׁם. סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: נִגְזוֹר, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְמִנְּגַּע בַּהּ מֵאַבָּרַאי? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The mishna states: And she designates it with the name of ḥalla. The Gemara explains that it is necessary for the tanna to teach this halakha, as it might enter your mind to say: Let us decree lest she comes to touch the ḥalla from the outside. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that there is no such decree.

וְאִם נָפַל מֵרוּקָּהּ. דִּתְנַן: מַשְׁקֵה טְבוּל יוֹם מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ (כְּמַשְׁקִין) [כְּמַשְׁקֶה] הַנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶם, וְאֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין, חוּץ מִמַּשְׁקֵה הַזָּב שֶׁהוּא אַב הַטּוּמְאָה.

The mishna teaches: And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that if a drop from her saliva or from the blood of purity fell onto a loaf of teruma, that the loaf is ritually pure, as any liquid discharged from the body of one who immersed that day is ritually pure. The Gemara explains that the reason is as we learned in a mishna (Tevul Yom 2:1): The halakha with regard to liquids that emerge from one who immersed himself that day from his state of ritual impurity is like that of liquids that he touches. And both these and those, the liquids that emanated from him and the liquids that he touched, do not transmit ritual impurity. This is the halakha except for liquids that come from a zav, who is a primary source of ritual impurity.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא: טְבוּל יוֹם אָרוֹךְ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai say: Her immersion at the end of the days of impurity does not render her permitted; rather, she requires immersion even at the end of the days of purity. And Beit Hillel say: The immersion at the end of the days of impurity is sufficient. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between them, i.e., what is the basis of their dispute? Rav Ketina said: The difference between them is with regard to the status of one who immersed that day, i.e., at the end of his time of impurity, and a long time has passed since the immersion. Beit Shammai hold that as a long time has passed, i.e., thirty-three days after the birth of a boy or sixty-six days after the birth of a girl, she may not rely on that immersion. Beit Hillel maintain that she may still rely on that initial immersion.

מַתְנִי’ הָרוֹאָה יוֹם אַחַד עָשָׂר, וְטָבְלָה לָעֶרֶב, וְשִׁמְּשָׁה —

MISHNA: There is a dispute with regard to a woman who sees blood on the eleventh day, which is the final day of the period fit for the flow of a zava. It is permitted for her to engage in intercourse with her husband after observing one clean day corresponding to the one day that she saw blood, but in this case, she failed to observe one clean day. Rather, she immersed in a ritual bath that evening, the eve of the twelfth day, and then engaged in intercourse with her husband.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: מְטַמְּאִין מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּקׇרְבָּן.

Beit Shammai say: Since she did not observe that corresponding clean day, she retains the status of a zava. Therefore both she, the zava, and her husband, who engaged in intercourse with a zava, transmit impurity to items designated for lying or sitting, to the extent that these transmit impurity to food and drink that came in contact with them, and in her case, to people as well. And each of them is liable to bring a sin offering for participating in intercourse involving a zava.