Niddah 33b — the Talmud in English

Or perhaps

that the impurity of the woman who emits semen is because we say

“she had been touching,”

for until it emerged from her body, it was in a concealed place and did not impart impurity, and only now did she touch the emission of the seminal fluid

and

if so, in our case she

did not invalidate.

For touching an impure object does not invalidate the count of seven clean days, since throughout all the days she was clean of seeing impurity that emerges from her body.

Rava said: In accordance with the sharpness

of Rami bar Hama—

a mistake!

For

even if

we suppose that her impurity is according to the law of one who sees, and not according to the law of one who touches, and her law ought to be

that she invalidated the count,

nevertheless she does not have the power to invalidate it,

for how many

days

would she invalidate it—

If we say that she

invalidates seven

days, certainly the emission of seminal fluid does not cause this, for

her law is like that of the one who had intercourse with her,

and a zav who sees a seminal emission invalidates only one day!

And if we say that she

invalidates one day,

the day on which she emits, and continues her count on the following day, behold, the verse teaches us that it is impossible to do so, for “and she shall count for herself seven days

and afterward she shall become clean,” the Merciful One said,

meaning that the seven days must be consecutive, without interruption. For the intention of the verse when it says

“afterward

she shall become clean” is

after

all the seven clean days

entirely —

so that no impurity shall interrupt between them!

The Gemara objects to Rava’s words:

“But according to your reasoning,”

that she must count seven consecutive days,

the zav himself

who sees a seminal emission—

how does he invalidate his purification

for only one day and continue counting on the following day? For “and he shall count for himself seven days

for his purification,” the Merciful One said,

and its meaning is “one purification

so that no impurity shall interrupt between them”;

so how does he continue counting non-consecutively?

Rather, what can you say

that the verse did not come to exclude interruption by every impurity during the days of ziva, but only

so that impurity of ziva shall not interrupt between them .

Here too,

in the case of a zava who emitted seminal fluid during her clean days, it is possible that she invalidates one day, and nevertheless the seven days are considered consecutive days, despite the fact that her impurity is according to the law of “one who sees” and not according to the law of contact, because this impurity does not invalidate the consecutiveness of the seven clean days. For the intention of the verse, “and afterward she shall become clean,” is only to say—

so that impurity of ziva shall not interrupt between them!

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one is not liable on their account for entering the Temple.”

The Gemara relates:

Rav Pappa arrived at Tuakh,

a place-name.

He said,

Rav Pappa:

If there is a Torah scholar here—

I shall go and receive his greeting!

A certain old woman said to him: There is a Torah scholar here, and his name is Rav Shmuel, and he teaches Mishnayot. And may it be the will [

you, Rav Pappa]—

that you be like him!

Rav Pappa said

to himself:

Since they bless me within it—

learn from this that he is God-fearing! He went

Rav Pappa

to him,

to Rav Shmuel.

He cast before him [

Rav Shmuel slaughtered in his honor

an ox,

and likewise

he cast before him

Rav Shmuel posed to Rav Pappa a contradiction between two

Mishnayot

below:

Concerning one who touches the garments of the Samaritans, which are their bedding,

we learned: One is not liable on their account for entering the Temple [

for entering the Temple while impure],

and one does not burn teruma on their account

that touched the bedding of the Samaritans—

because its impurity

the impurity of teruma that touched the bedding of the Samaritans is

uncertain,

for they are considered men who have intercourse with menstruating women only as an uncertainty.

Apparently, because of uncertainty we do not burn teruma!

And we raise a contradiction: For six uncertainties one burns teruma [

and one of the uncertainties because of which teruma is burned is]—

for an uncertainty concerning the garments of an am ha-aretz,

for if the garments of an am ha-aretz touched teruma, it is impure as an uncertainty, lest the wife of the am ha-aretz sat on his garments during her menstruation. And the Samaritans are like ammei ha-aretz; if so, why does one not burn teruma that touched their bedding because of contact with the garments of an am ha-aretz?

Rav Pappa said

to Rav Shmuel:

First, concerning the slaughter of the ox in his honor:

“May it be the will that this ox be eaten for peace!”

And concerning the contradiction that he posed to him between the Mishnayot, he answered him:

“With what are we dealing here,”

that one does not burn [teruma] for contact with the garments of Samaritans—

with a Samaritan haber!

For he does not have the impurity of an am ha-aretz.

And Rav Shmuel wondered at him: If so, why is its “impurity uncertain” because of the concern that he has intercourse with a menstruating woman? Is a

Samaritan

a haber—

do you make him one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman!?

For he knows that they sit only on red blood, and he will not err by counting green blood; it follows that his wife is pure and he is not one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman .

Rav Pappa left

Rav Shmuel, his host, because he was embarrassed by his question,

and came before Rav Shimi bar Ashi

and told him his answer concerning the contradiction between the Mishnayot and Rav Shmuel’s objection.

He said to him,

Rav Shimi bar Ashi to Rav Pappa:

“Why did you not answer him

that our Mishna, concerning one who touches the garments of Samaritans, is discussing

a Samaritan who immersed

for his impurity and became pure,

and came up and trod on the garments of a haber, and the garments of the haber went and touched teruma 57 ,

and therefore the teruma need not be burned:

for if because

he is an am ha-aretz and they decreed upon him

the impurity of an am ha-aretz

which he imparts through contact—

he immersed

for it!

And if because

the Samaritan is

one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman

and his impurity continues for seven days, there is still—

a.

Uncertainty whether he had intercourse with a menstruating woman

recently [

within less than a week before his immersion, and he did not become pure],

uncertainty whether he did not have intercourse recently [

seven days had already passed before his immersion, and his immersion was effective].

[the seven days had already passed before his immersion, so the immersion was effective].

And if you should say that he had intercourse recently

and his immersion was not effective, then—b.

uncertainty whether she completed it with green blood, uncertainty whether she did not complete it with green blood,

for Samaritan women immerse for their menstruation, and the entire concern is perhaps she initially saw green blood and began counting seven clean days, and afterward saw red blood and did not begin counting anew, but combined and completed the sighting of the red blood with the sighting of the green blood.

And since this is only a concern due to uncertainty and not certainty, there is also the possibility that she did not see green blood at all and immersed for the purification of her menstruation according to law,

and it is a double uncertainty.

And for a double uncertainty—

we do not burn teruma!

Rav Pappa asked Rav Shimi bar Ashi, who had mentioned in his words only the concern of the impurity of an am ha-aretz and the concern of the impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman,

and let it emerge

that it imparts impurity

because of

the teruma that touched

“the garments of an am ha-aretz”

61 , for the master said: “The garments of an am ha-aretz”—

“bedding for those who observe separation!”

That is, those who eat non-sacred food in purity must treat the garments of an am ha-aretz as though they were the bedding of a zav, which imparts impurity to people and vessels; and the Samaritans are ammei ha-aretz, so automatically their garments are impure according to the law of “the garments of an am ha-aretz”!?

He said to him

Rav Shimi bar Ashi:

The Mishna stated only the reason that they are like those who have relations with menstruants because it dealt with

a naked Cuthean,

who has no garments, and when he immersed and his touch does not impart impurity, it follows that he imparts impurity to the garments upon which he sits only by virtue of the law of the seat of one who has relations with a menstruant .

Mishna:

The daughters of Sadducees

63, when they were accustomed to walk in the ways of their fathers—

they are like Cuthean women!

And if they

separated

from the way of their fathers and began

to walk in the ways of Israel—

they are like Israelite women!

Rabbi Yosei says: Forever

the daughters of Sadducees, without specification,

are like Israelite women, until they separate

from the way of Israel and begin

to walk in the ways of their fathers!

Gemara:

It was raised before them:

For the first tanna, who says that if it is clear to us that they follow the ways of their fathers, they are like Cuthean women, and if it is clear that they follow the ways of Israel, they are like Israelite women:

The daughters of Sadducees

without specification,

when we do not know their practice—

what is their status?

Come and hear:

We learned at the beginning of the words of the first tanna:

“The daughters of Sadducees, when they are accustomed to walk in the way of their fathers—

they are like Cuthean women!”

And it implies:

but without specification—

they are

like Israelite women!

The Gemara rejects this:

Say that the words of the first tanna are in the

final clause: “

They separated to walk in the ways of Israel—

they are like Israelite women!”

And it implies:

but without specification—

they are

like Cuthean women!

Rather, from this,

from the words of the first tanna himself—

there is nothing to infer from it.

Come and hear, for we learned: “Rabbi Yosei says: Forever they are like Israelite women—

until they separate to walk in the ways of their fathers!”

By implication, the first tanna holds

that

without specification

they are

like Cuthean women.

And we conclude:

Infer from it!

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who spoke with the High Priest in the marketplace, and a drop of spittle

[spittle]

sprayed from his mouth and fell upon the High Priest’s garments. And the High Priest’s face turned pale,

because he was distressed that it was possible that his garments had become impure!

And the High Priest hurried

to the

wife

of the Sadducee, and asked her whether she had completed the seeing of red blood with the seeing of green blood, or not, in order to know whether her husband was one who had relations with a menstruant .

She said to him: Even though we are Sadducee women,

nevertheless,

they,

the wives of the Sadducees,

purify themselves from the Pharisees and show blood to the Sages!

And there is no concern that we counted it as green blood.

Rabbi Yosei said: We are more familiar with them,

with the wives of the Sadducees,

more than everyone,

because we are their neighbors, and we know that indeed

they show blood to the Sages. Except for one woman who was in our neighborhood who did not show blood to the Sages—

and she died!

The Gemara objects: What did the answer of the Sadducee’s wife accomplish for the High Priest?

And let it emerge

that he is impure

because of the spittle of an am ha-aretz

[the spittle of an am ha-aretz, concerning which they decreed impurity] .

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

The incident was

with a Sadducee who was an associate.

Rava said:

But is

a Sadducee who is an associate one who has relations with a menstruant?

Had the incident been with a Sadducee who was an associate, the High Priest would not have been concerned that his wife was a menstruant .

Rather, Rava said:

The incident involving the High Priest did not occur with a Sadducee who was an associate, but with a Sadducee who was an am ha-aretz. Nevertheless, he was not concerned about the impurity of an am ha-aretz,