Niddah 6a — the Talmud in English

As though it had touched her herself

as though he had touched the menstruant woman herself.

Therefore,

what

touching a menstruant woman

herself—

renders a person impure, to render the garments

that he is wearing impure,

so too her lying-place and sitting-place render a person impure, to render the garments

that he is wearing impure! [And not as we explained in the hava amina, that “her lying-place and sitting-place are like her touch.” The intention is to a vessel that she touched, which does not render a person impure].

A beraita was taught in accordance with [the opinion of] Rava

that the impurity of retroactive time in a menstruant woman is stringent, for her lying-place and sitting-place render a person impure, to render the garments that he is wearing impure.

A woman

who sees blood—

a.

renders

pure things impure

retroactively.

And what does she render impure?—

lying-places and sitting-places, foods and liquids, and earthenware vessels

even a vessel

sealed with a tightly fitting cover!

b. But the decree of retroactive impurity for retroactive time—

does not

cause her to be

disordered in her count!

For they did not decree that one must be concerned lest the blood had emerged earlier, and since she does not know when the blood emerged, she loses her “opening of her menstruation,” which is the day beginning the fixed eighteen-day cycle [seven days of menstruation and eleven days of flux. See the introduction] that every woman has.

c.

And she does not render the man who had intercourse with her impure retroactively

with the seven-day impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruant woman. Rather, only with one-day impurity, as is the law of one who touches a menstruant woman. [See below, 15a]]

Rabbi Akiva says—

she renders the man who had intercourse with her impure

retroactively, with doubtful seven-day impurity, as is the law of one who has intercourse with a menstruant woman .

d.

And she does not count

the seven days of her menstruation

except from the time that she saw,

and not retroactively from retroactive time.

A woman

who sees a stain—

a.

renders impure retroactively 87 .

And what

does she render impure retroactively?

Foods and liquids, lying-places and sitting-places, and an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly fitting cover 88 .

b.

And disordered in her count,

since she does not know when the blood of the stain emerged, the Sages decreed that her fixed cycle of seven days of menstruation and eleven days of flux becomes disordered! c.

And she renders the man who had intercourse with her impure

because of one who has intercourse with a menstruant woman.

d.

And she does not count

the seven days of menstruation

except from the time that she saw 90 .

And both this and that,

both one who sees blood and one who sees a stain, concerning whom we decreed that she retroactively render impure for retroactive time the pure things that she touched—the impurity is not certain. Rather,

they suspend judgment—

neither eat nor burn!

And we object:

But Rava,

who earlier learned through a kal va-chomer that she renders a lying-place and sitting-place impure, and whose words are proven by the beraita—in either event:

If he had heard the Mishna, let him say—

it is a Mishna

itself.

And if he had not heard the Mishna

which teaches us that she renders a lying-place and sitting-place and an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly fitting cover impure—

from where would he derive the kal va-chomer?

For from where would he know that an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly fitting cover is not protected from the impurity of retroactive time, and through this learn a kal va-chomer from a tent over a corpse? And we answer:

Actually, he had heard the Mishna.

But

if [he relied] on the Mishna—

I might have thought

that the impurity of the lying-place renders impure

either a person or garments

that touch the lying-place themselves.

But a person

who touches the lying-place, that he should render

garments

that he is wearing impure, I might have thought

not. For that reason Rava said

Rava

a kal va-chomer,

to teach us that the impurity of the lying-place during retroactive time is so severe that it even renders impure the garments worn by the person who touches the lying-place, even though the garments themselves did not touch the lying-place.

Rav Huna said:

The decree that the Sages decreed concerning the impurity of

retroactive time in a menstruant woman

applies only

to sacred things, but not to teruma!

And we inquire concerning this:

If so,

that they decreed only with regard to sacred things,

let him teach

this decree, which is a stringency of sacred things,

among the levels

that the Sages enumerated in tractate Hagiga concerning “the stringency of sacred things over teruma”!

And we answer:

When he teaches

there levels in which sacred things are more stringent than teruma,

where there is a basis [

a side of doubt

of impurity],

and they were more stringent with sacred things than with teruma .

But where there is no basis of impurity,

such as the decree of retroactive time, which is merely an arbitrary decree, since she did not see earlier, such a stringency

he does not teach

among the stringencies of sacred things over teruma.

He raised an objection:

We learned in the previous beraita:

What does she render impure

during retroactive time?—

foods and liquids!

And we infer:

Is it not [speaking] both of

foods and liquids

of sacred things, and both of

foods and liquids

of teruma!

And we answer:

No!

The tannay’s intention is only to liquids and foods

of sacred things,

such as oil of meal-offerings and wine of libations .

And the Gemara brings proof from the Mishna below that they decreed the impurity of retroactive time also concerning teruma—

come and hear

to prove that the decree of retroactive time applied also to teruma, unlike Rav Huna, for we learned in the Mishna below:

Rabbi Judah says:

The women are obligated to examine themselves, in addition to the examinations of morning and evening,

even at the time of their passing [

when they finish

eating teruma.]]

And we inquired

concerning the reason for Rabbi Judah’s enactment: What need is there for an examination after she has already eaten? For

what was

at the time of eating teruma

was!

And what concern is it to us after the eating, to know whether she is pure or impure!?

And to resolve the perplexity—

Rav Hisda said: It was necessary only

for the examination after eating teruma

to repair its remnants

of the teruma that remained

before her [

before her], which she did not eat. For if she examines herself after eating and finds herself pure, and afterward examines herself again in the evening [or in the morning] and finds herself impure, the remnants of the teruma remaining from her eating are not rendered impure retroactively, since she examined herself after eating and found herself pure. And it is proven that were it not for this examination, she would render the teruma impure retroactively for retroactive time or from examination to examination, for if she did not render it impure retroactively, there would be no reason for the examination. And this is unlike Rav Huna, who said that the retroactive decree applies only to sacred things and not to teruma!?

This proves that without this examination she would render the teruma impure retroactively, either for the previous twenty-four hours or from one examination to the next. For if she did not render it impure retroactively, there would be no reason for the examination. This is contrary to Rav Huna, who said that the retroactive decree applies only to sacred items and not to teruma!?

And we resolve:

Rav Huna,

who holds that they did not decree with regard to teruma,

teaches

[in the language of the Mishna below] that the obligation to examine herself after eating the teruma is not in order to purify the remnants of the teruma, for as long as the woman has not become impure, she does not retroactively impart impurity to the teruma. Rather, the obligation to examine herself is in order

to burn the remnants

of teruma

that

remained after the eating

in her hands

[and now are not in her hands].

If

she

examined herself

immediately after she touched the teruma, within the extremely short measure of time called

“the measure of a menstrual flow”

[see Rashi], and found herself impure, then it is certainly known to us that she was also impure at the time when she touched the teruma, and she is obligated to burn what remained of the teruma, as the law of teruma that is certainly impure [by Torah law].

And the reason for this examination is in order to prevent her from eating the remnants of the teruma in the event that she is impure, [and not in order to leave the teruma in its state of purity in the event that she is found impure in the evening examination. For, as stated, according to Rav Huna, even if she does not examine herself after touching the teruma and finds herself impure in the evening examination, she does not impart impurity to the teruma retroactively from one period to the next].

And the Gemara brings another proof that the decree of from one period to the next applies also to teruma, and not only to kodesh:

Ta shma:

We learned in the Mishna [below, 7b] a dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer concerning a young woman [who is not old] upon whom three seasons [ninety days] passed during which she did not see blood, and afterward she again saw blood: is her law like that of a woman who has never yet seen [blood], so that her time suffices, or has her law returned to that of an ordinary woman, so that she imparts impurity retroactively from one period to the next?

And in a beraita [on page 9b] we learned concerning this dispute:

An incident

occurred involving a young woman upon whom three seasons [ninety days] passed during which she did not see blood, and afterward she saw it,

and

[ruled]

Rabbi, like Rabbi Eliezer,

that her time suffices.