Niddah 62b (סב:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi:

But

does the matter depend

on the owners’

being particular?

But once the taharot after the first washing are pure, it has been demonstrated that this stain is not blood but dye; why, then, should the taharot after the second washing become impure on account of his being particular?

He said to him: Yes.

And the proof is from that

which was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Ḥiyya says: Definite menstrual blood

found on a garment—

one passes seven substances over it, and nullifies it;

and one may immerse the garment even though traces of the blood are still discernible on it, because the blood’s appearance has disappeared, and people are no longer particular about the appearance that remains.

And why

may one immerse it and render it pure when it is still discernible that there had been blood on it?

But it is menstrual blood

certainly

[that is present]!

Apparently,

it is demonstrated that

the matter depends

on a person’s

being particular,

and anything about which one is not particular loses the designation of blood as soon as he is no longer particular about it.

Here too,

when he again passes the seven substances over it a second time, the taharot from that point onward are impure, because he has revealed through his intention that he is particular about the appearance of the stain; and

the matter depends on being particular!

We learned there: Earthenware vessels

such as an earthenware vessel made to contain urine,

that a zav used, which absorbed

the liquids discharged by the zav and became impure,

and they fell

into the

airspace of the oven, and the oven was heated—

the oven is impure, since the liquid will eventually emerge

through the firing of the earthenware, and the oven became impure through the zav’s liquids that emerged from the earthenware into the oven.

Reish Lakish said: They taught

that the oven becomes impure only when it is heated and the liquids emerge

but

when they were

light liquids,

whose impurity is of a less severe category, as they are not a primary source of impurity. For it is established that liquids render a vessel impure only when the liquids themselves are a primary source of impurity. Therefore, even if these liquids emerge from the earthenware, they render the oven impure only by rabbinic law, and consequently the Sages did not decree that they render it impure while they are still absorbed in the earthenware.

But severe liquids,

which are a primary source of impurity, such as the urine of a zav—the oven is

impure even though the oven was not heated.

Since they can emerge through heating, they are not considered absorbed impurity, and the oven becomes impure while they are still inside the earthenware.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whether light liquids or severe liquids, if the oven was heated—

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish: A garment on which a stain was found, one immersed it, and prepared pure foods upon it, and passed seven substances over it, but it did not pass— it is dye, and its pure foods are pure.

yes; if not—

no.

For even impurity by Torah law does not render things impure when it is absorbed.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish: A garment on which a stain was found,

he immersed it, and prepared taharot on it, and passed seven substances over it, but it did not disappear—

it is dye, and its taharot are pure.

And it is not necessary to immerse it!

Even though one can pass tzafon over it, which removes blood, the impurity is considered absorbed impurity, and one may be lenient and assume that this is not blood but dye.

And granted, according to your view, that we were lenient and purified the taharot as long as the stain remained absorbed, because impurity that can emerge only under pressure is considered absorbed; but according to you, who holds that it renders things impure even while absorbed, why did we not suspect here that blood might be absorbed in it? He said to him,

Reish Lakish:

Set aside stains—

their prohibition is

by

rabbinic law,

and the Sages were lenient with regard to them.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan returned and challenged him:

But Rabbi Ḥiyya taught:

Even

definite menstrual blood—

one passes seven substances over it, and nullifies it,

and we do not concern ourselves with known menstrual blood that is absorbed in the garment; rather, we treat the blood as absorbed impurity, even though it can be removed with tzafon.

He said to him: If Rabbi did not teach

this law in his Mishna,

from where did Rabbi Ḥiyya derive it?

Certainly, this is a corrupt version of the text!

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish: A quarter-log of blood

from a corpse

that was absorbed in a house—

the house is impure,

because of the tent of the corpse.

And some say: The house is pure.

And the Gemara explains:

They do not disagree: This

statement that the house is impure applies

to vessels that were there initially,

which were in the house when the blood was present, before it was absorbed into it.

This

statement that it is pure applies

to vessels that were there subsequently,

which were brought into the house after the blood had been absorbed in it.

If it was absorbed in a garment, and if it can be laundered and a quarter-log of blood emerges from it—

it is impure

93; but if not—

it is pure!

From the fact that blood that does not emerge through laundering does not render things impure, it is demonstrated that absorbed impurity does not render things impure even when it can be extracted under pressure.

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Kahana said: They taught here the leniencies of quarter-logs

of blood from a corpse;

this is what they taught.

For this does not involve blood from a corpse with certainty. Rather,

this is the case of blood of a dying person,

as it is possible that most of the quarter-log emerged while he was alive, in which case it does not render things impure. Therefore, its entire impurity is only

rabbinic,

and with regard to a rabbinic prohibition, Reish Lakish agrees that the Sages were lenient and purified absorbed impurity.

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Anything absorbed that cannot emerge—

is pure.

If it can emerge—

it is impure, even though it has not emerged!

This demonstrates that if there is even a possibility that the impurity can emerge, albeit only under pressure, it is not considered “absorbed impurity.”

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: Wherever it cannot emerge and one is not particular about it —

everyone agrees that it is pure.

If it can emerge and one is particular about it,

the owner of the garment intending to remove it—

everyone agrees that it is impure.

They disagree—

when it can emerge but one is not particular about it.

One

Reish Lakish

held: Since it can emerge—

even though one is not particular about it.

Therefore, the earthenware renders the oven impure.