Niddah 33b (לג:) — the Talmud in English

Or perhaps

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

she had been touching it:

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

and

therefore, 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 free of the sighting of impurity issuing from her body.

Rava said: In accordance with the sharpness

of Rami bar Ḥama—that is, in accordance with the acumen he displayed—

it is an error!

For

even if

we assume that her impurity is according to the status of one who sees impurity and not one who touches it, and that her law should be

that she invalidate the count,

nevertheless, she cannot invalidate it,

for how many

days

could she invalidate—

If we say that

she invalidates seven

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

her status is no more severe than that of the man who had intercourse with her,

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

But if we say that

she invalidates one day,

the day on which she emits the semen, and continues her count on the following day, the verse teaches us that this cannot be done, for “she shall count for herself seven days

and afterward she shall become pure,” the Merciful One said;

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

“after

she shall become pure” is:

after

the seven clean days

in their entirety—

so that no impurity may interrupt between them!

The Gemara challenges Rava's statement:

But according to your reasoning,

that she must count seven consecutive days,

a zav himself,

who sees a seminal emission—

how can he invalidate his purification

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

for his purification,” the Merciful One said;

and its meaning is “one purification

so that no impurity may interrupt between them

and how can he continue counting nonconsecutively?

Rather, what can you say?

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

that impurity of ziva may 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, even though her impurity is according to the status of one who sees impurity and not one who touches it, because this impurity does not invalidate the consecutiveness of the seven clean days. For the meaning of the verse “and afterward she shall become pure” is only to say—

that impurity of ziva may not interrupt between them!

We learned in the Mishna:

And one is not liable on account of entering the Temple while carrying them.

The Gemara relates:

Rav Pappa happened to come to Toakh,

a place-name.

Rav Pappa

said:

If there is a Torah scholar here—

I will go and greet him!

A certain old woman said to him: There is a Torah scholar here, and his name is Rav Shmuel, and he teaches Mishnayot. May it be the will [of Heaven] that you,

Rav Pappa,

be like him!

Rav Pappa

said to himself:

Since they bless me through him—

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

Rav Pappa

to him,

to Rav Shmuel.

He slaughtered for him [שחט רב שמואל לכבודו של רב פפא]a bull in Rav Pappa's honor

a

a bull,

and likewise

he presented to him

Rav Shmuel presented Rav Pappa with a contradiction between two

Mishnayot

that follow:

With regard to one who touches the garments of the Samaritans, which are considered their bedding,

we learned: One is not liable on account of entering the Temple while carrying them [על כניסה בטומאה למקדש]for entering the Temple in a state of impurity,

[for entering the Temple while impure],

and one does not burn teruma because of them,

which came into contact with the bedding of the Samaritans—

because its impurity,

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

doubtful,

because they are considered men who have intercourse with menstruating women only as a matter of doubt.

Apparently, we do not burn teruma on account of a doubt!

And we raise a contradiction: For six doubtful cases one burns the teruma [ואחד מהספקות שהתרומה נשרפת בגללם הוא]one of the doubts for which teruma is burned is

[and one of the uncertainties for which teruma is burned is]

for the doubtful garments of an am ha'aretz,

for if the garments of an am ha'aretz touched teruma, it is impure as a matter of doubt, lest the wife of the am ha'aretz sat on his garments while she was menstruating. The Samaritans, however, are considered amei ha'aretz; if so, why does one not burn teruma that touched their bedding on account of its having touched the garments of an am ha'aretz?

Rav Pappa said

to Rav Shmuel:

First, concerning the slaughtering of the bull in his honor:

May it be the will [of Heaven] that this bull be eaten in peace!

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

What are we dealing with here?

The case in which one does not burn teruma because of contact with the garments of Samaritans is

a Samaritan who is a ḥaver!

He is not subject to the impurity of an am ha'aretz.

Rav Shmuel challenged him: If so, why is its impurity “doubtful” because of the concern that he had intercourse with a menstruating woman? Is a

Samaritan

ḥaver—

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

For he knows that they sit only on account of red blood, and he will not err by counting for green blood. It follows that his wife is pure and he is not a man 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 to the contradiction between the Mishnayot and Rav Shmuel's challenge.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi

said to Rav Pappa:

Why did you not answer him

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

with a Samaritan who immersed

to purify himself from his impurity,

and emerged and stepped on the garments of a ḥaver, and the garments of the ḥaver then came into contact with teruma 57 ,

and therefore one does not burn the teruma:

for if it is because

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

the impurity of an am ha'aretz,

which renders things impure through contact—

he has immersed

for it!

And if it is because

the Samaritan is

a man who has intercourse with a menstruating woman,

and his impurity lasts seven days, nevertheless there remains—

A.

a doubt whether he had intercourse with a

menstruating woman

recently [בפחות משבוע לפני טבילתו, ולא נטהר]less than a week before his immersion, and was not purified,

[less than a week before his immersion, so he did not become pure],

or a doubt whether he had not had intercourse recently [שעברו כבר שבעה ימים לפני טבילתו, ועלתה לו טבילה]more than seven days having elapsed before his immersion, so that 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.

there is a doubt whether she completed her count with green blood, or a doubt whether she did not complete it,

for Samaritan women immerse for their menstruation, and the entire concern is that 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 the sighting of the red blood with the sighting of the green blood and completed the count from the sighting of the green blood.

Since this is merely a concern based on doubt and not certainty, there is also the possibility that she did not see green blood at all and immersed for purification from her menstruation in accordance with the law,

and it is a double doubt.

And with regard to a double doubt—

we do not burn teruma!

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

But let it emerge

that it renders the teruma impure

because of

the teruma that came into contact with

“the garments of an am ha'aretz”

61, for the Master said: “The garments of an am ha'aretz—

are considered a midras for those who observe the laws of purity!”,

that is, those who eat non-sacred food in purity must treat the garments of an am ha'aretz as though they were the midras of a zav, which renders people and vessels impure. The Samaritans are amei ha'aretz, and consequently 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 mentioned only the reason that they are like those who have intercourse with menstruants because it is dealing

with a naked Samaritan,

who has no garments. Once he immersed and his touch no longer renders impure, it follows that he renders impure only the garments upon which he sits, by virtue of the status of the seat of one who has intercourse with a menstruant.

Mishna:

Samaritan women

63 , when they practice following the ways of their ancestors—

they are like Samaritan women!

And if

they separated

from the way of their ancestors and began

to follow the ways of Israel—

they are like Israelite women!

Rabbi Yosei says: The Samaritan women are always

presumed,

to be like Israelite women, until they separate

from the way of Israel and begin

to follow the ways of their ancestors!

Gemara:

It was raised before them:

With regard to the First Tanna, who says that if it is clear to us that they follow the ways of their ancestors, they are like Samaritan women, and if it is clear that they follow the ways of Israel, they are like Israelite women:

Samaritan women

without qualification,

when we do not know their practice—

what is their status?

Come and hear:

We learned at the beginning of the statement of the First Tanna:

“Samaritan women, when they practice following the way of their ancestors—

they are like Samaritan women!”

And it implies:

If without qualification—

they are

like Israelite women!

The Gemara rejects this:

Say that the words of the First Tanna are stated in the

latter clause:

“They separated to follow the ways of Israel—

they are like Israelite women!”

And it implies:

If without qualification—

they are

like Samaritan women!

Rather, from this,

from the statement of the First Tanna himself,

nothing can be inferred.

Come and hear, as we learned: “Rabbi Yosei says: They are always like Israelite women—

until they separate to follow the ways of their ancestors!”

By inference, the First Tanna holds

that

without qualification

they are

like Samaritan women.

And we conclude:

Learn from this that this is so!

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a Sadducee who was speaking with the High Priest in the marketplace, and a stream of saliva [

spittle]

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

because he was distressed by the possibility 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 sighting of red blood with a sighting of green blood, or not, in order to determine whether her husband was one who had intercourse with a menstruant.

She said to him: Although we are Sadducee women,

nevertheless,

they,

the wives of the Sadducees,

are wary of the Perushim and show blood to the Sages!

There is therefore no concern that we classified it as green blood.

Rabbi Yosei said: We are more familiar with them,

with the wives of the Sadducees,

than anyone else,

because we are their neighbors, and we know that indeed

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

and she died!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: What benefit did the wife of the Sadducee’s response provide 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 the Sages decreed impurity.

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

The incident took place

with a Sadducee haver.

Rava said:

But can you

make the Sadducee a haver who has intercourse with a menstruant?

If the incident had involved a Sadducee haver, 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 haver, but with a Sadducee am ha-aretz. Nevertheless, he was not concerned about the impurity of an am ha-aretz.