Niddah 62b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi:

but is

the matter dependent

on the owners’

insistence?

But since the pure foods after the first washing are pure, it has been proven that this stain is not blood but dye, so why should the pure foods after the second washing become impure because of his insistence?

He said to him: Yes.

And the proof is from this

as it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Hiyya says: Definite menstrual blood

that is 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 in it, because the appearance of the blood has disappeared and people are no longer particular about the appearance that remains.

And why

may one immerse it and purify it when it is still discernible that there was blood in it?

But it is menstrual blood

definitely

is it!

Evidently,

it is proven that

the matter is dependent on

a person’s

insistence,

and anything about which he is not particular loses the designation of blood as soon as he is not particular about it.

Here too,

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

the matter is dependent on insistence!

We learned there: Earthenware vessels

such as a chamber pot made of earthenware, made to receive urine in it,

which a zav used, which absorbed

the liquids issuing from the zav and became impure,

and they fell

the earthenware vessels

into the airspace of the oven, and the oven was fired—

the oven is impure, since the liquid will ultimately emerge,

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

Reish Lakish said: They taught

that only if the oven was fired and the liquids emerged does the oven become impure,

but

when they were

light liquids,

whose impurity is light, 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 they emerge from the earthenware vessels, they render the oven impure only by rabbinic law, and consequently the Sages did not decree that they should render it impure while they are still absorbed in the earthenware vessels.

But heavy 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 fired.

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

Rabbi Yohanan said: Whether light liquids or heavy liquids, if the oven was fired— yes; if not— no. Because even impurity by Torah law does not render anything impure when it is absorbed.

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.

And it is not necessary to immerse it!

For even though one can pass “tsofan” over it, which removes the blood, the impurity is considered absorbed impurity, with which one may be lenient and assume that it is not blood but dye.

And this is understandable according to the method that says that we were lenient to purify the pure foods as long as the stain was absorbed, since impurity that can emerge through pressure is considered absorbed; but according to you, who says that even while it is absorbed it renders things impure, why were we not concerned here that perhaps blood was absorbed in it?

He said to him,

Reish Lakish:

Leave stains alone— their prohibition is

by rabbinic law,

and the Sages were lenient with them.

And Rabbi Yohanan returned and raised a difficulty: But Rabbi Hiyya taught: even definite menstrual blood— one passes seven substances over it, and nullifies it, and we are not concerned about menstrual blood known to be absorbed in the garment, but we treat the blood as absorbed impurity even though it can be removed by means of tsofan. He said to him: Rabbi did not teach this law in his Mishna—

by

rabbinic law,

and the Sages were lenient with regard to them.

from where did Rabbi Hiyya have it?

And certainly this is an erroneous version!

Rabbi Yohanan 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,

and they do not disagree: This

where it was said that the house is impure—

with regard to vessels that were there initially,

which were in the house while the blood was in it, before it was absorbed in it.

This

where they said that it is pure—

with regard to vessels at the end,

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

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

it is impure

93, and if not—

it is pure!

This

statement that it is pure applies

to vessels that were there subsequently,

And from the fact that blood that does not emerge through laundering does not render impure, it is proven that absorbed impurity does not render impure even if it can be removed through pressure.

And the Gemara answers:

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

of the blood of a corpse.

They taught here.

For this does not concern definite blood of a corpse, but rather, this is different: the blood of a dying person, which may have had most of the quarter-log emerge while he was alive and therefore does not render impure. Thus, its entire impurity is only by rabbinic law, and with regard to a prohibition by rabbinic law, Reish Lakish agrees that they were lenient and purified absorbed impurity.

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan: Everything absorbed that cannot emerge— is pure. If it can emerge— it is impure, even though it has not emerged! And it is proven from here that if there is a possibility, even through pressure, that the impurity will emerge outward, it is not considered “absorbed impurity.” And the Gemara answers, Rav Pappa said: Wherever it cannot emerge and he is not particular about it — according to everyone it is pure. If it can emerge and he is particular about it, the owner of the garment, intending to remove it— according to everyone it is impure. They disagree— where it can emerge but he is not particular about it.

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.

One

Reish Lakish

holds: Since it can emerge—

even though he is not particular about it.

Therefore, the earthenware vessels render the oven impure.

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.