Menachot 24b — the Talmud in English

And was it not taught: a sheet

that is

impure ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

a midras,

which became impure through the zav lying upon it, and became a primary source of impurity that imparts impurity to a person,

and

afterward

he made it

into a sheet that would serve as a

curtain—

pure

is the sheet

from

the impurity of

the midras!

Since it is no longer designated for lying upon, and anything that is not designated for a midras is not impure with the impurity of a midras,

but it is impure

with a lesser impurity, which imparts impurity not to a person but to food or drink, according to the law of

“contact with a midras,”

for the law of the sheet is like that of a vessel that touched a midras, which imparts impurity only to food and drink 108 .

Rabbi Yosei said: And with what midras did it touch

the sheet

this?

And if so, why should the impurity of contact with a midras remain upon it? And it is not possible to say that after he makes a curtain from the sheet, it has the impurity of contact,

but rather

only in the case

where the zav touched it

the sheet while lying upon it [the lying of the zav, which renders impure with midras, can occur even without contact with the sheet, for example, where something intervenes between them], and the sheet became impure with two impurities, with the midras of the zav and with the contact of the zav; and after it became a curtain and the designation of midras was removed from it, it became pure from the impurity of midras, but it still remained

impure

with a lesser impurity because of

contact with the zav,

for this impurity applies not specifically to an object designated for lying upon, and it is not nullified when the sheet becomes a curtain.

And Abaye concludes his question to Rava:

For when the zav touched it, at any rate—

it is impure

because of contact with a zav,

even

if the contact was

at the end,

after he had lain upon it and it had already become impure because of midras!

And why

does the impurity of contact take effect upon the sheet?

Let us say

that it may be said:

it has had its fill of

the sheet

impurity

of midras, and it no longer receives an additional impurity!? Rather, certainly we do not say, “it has had its fill of impurity,” and if so there is no room for Rava’s uncertainty?

He said to him

Rava:

And from where do you know that this “where the zav touched it

and it is impure because of contact,” which Rabbi Yosei said, refers to his touching

after

it had already become impure with the impurity of

a midras

?

Perhaps

it may be

before

it became impure with the impurity of

a midras

that the contact occurred, and afterward he trod upon it; therefore we do not say, “it has had its fill of impurity,” because

it was

the impurity of midras

a severe impurity

that can take effect

upon a lesser impurity

of contact with a zav.

But here,

in the case of the half-issaron, it is speaking of a case where it had already become impure, and afterward one who had immersed that day touched it,

for both this and that

the two impurities

are lesser impurities;

therefore there is room for uncertainty and to say that

the

second impurity will not take effect after it has had its fill from the first impurity.