Niddah 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

as though she touched it itself

as though he touched the menstruant herself.

Therefore,

what

one who touches a menstruant

herself—

renders a person impure, rendering the garments

that he is wearing—

so too, her lying-place and seat render a person impure, rendering the garments

that he is wearing! [And not as we explained in the hava amina, that “her lying-place and seat 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 a menstruant extending retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period is stringent, as her lying-place and seat render a person impure, rendering the garments that he is wearing.

A woman

who sees blood—

a.

renders

pure items impure

retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period.

And what does she render impure?—

lying-places and seats, food and drink, and earthenware vessels

and even a vessel

sealed with a tightly fitting cover!

b. However, the retroactive decree of impurity for a twenty-four-hour period

does not

cause her to be

disqualified with regard to her cycle!

For the Sages did not decree that we must be concerned that the blood emerged earlier; and since she does not know when the blood emerged, she would lose the “opening of her menstruation,” which is the day on which her fixed eighteen-day cycle begins [seven days of menstruation and eleven days of ziva. See the introduction], a cycle possessed by every woman.

c.

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

with the seven-day impurity of one who has intercourse with a menstruant. Rather, he contracts only one day of impurity, like one who touches a menstruant. [See below, 15a] .

Rabbi Akiva says—

she renders the man who has intercourse with her impure

retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, with doubt concerning seven-day impurity, as is the law regarding one who has intercourse with a menstruant .

d.

And she does not count

the seven days of her menstruation

except from the time she saw the blood,

and not retroactively from the twenty-four-hour period.

A woman

who finds a bloodstain—

a.

renders items impure retroactively 87 .

And what

does she render impure retroactively?

Food and drink, lying-places and seats, and an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly fitting cover 88 .

b.

And she is disqualified with regard to her cycle,

for 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 ziva is disrupted! c.

And she renders the man who has intercourse with her impure

as one who has intercourse with a menstruant.

d.

And she does not count

the seven days of menstruation

except from the time she saw the blood 90 .

And both this one and that one,

whether the woman who sees blood or the woman who finds a bloodstain, whom we decreed to be retroactively impure for a twenty-four-hour period with regard to the pure items that she touched—her impurity is not certain. Rather,

we suspend judgment—

we neither eat nor burn!

And we challenge this:

But Rava,

who earlier derived through a kal va-chomer that she renders a lying-place and seat impure, and whose words are proven correct by the beraita—whichever way one looks at it:

If he had heard the Mishna, he should have said—

it is a Mishna

that teaches this.

And if he had not heard the Mishna

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

from where could he have derived the kal va-chomer?

For how could he know that an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly fitting cover is not protected from the impurity of the twenty-four-hour period, and thereby derive a kal va-chomer from the tent of a corpse? The Gemara answers:

Actually, he had heard the Mishna.

However,

if it were only from the Mishna—

I might have thought

that the impurity of the lying-place renders

either a person or garments

that directly touch the lying-place impure.

But a person

who touches the lying-place, rendering

the garments

that he is wearing impure, I might have said

no. That is why Rava said

the kal va-chomer,

to teach us that the impurity of the lying-place during the twenty-four-hour period is so severe that it even renders impure the garments worn by a person who touches the lying-place, although the garments themselves did not touch it.

to teach us that the impurity of the lying place in the case of the retroactive twenty-four-hour period is so severe that it even renders impure the garments worn by a person who touches the lying place, although the garments themselves did not touch the lying place.

Rav Huna said:

The decree that the Sages issued concerning the impurity of

the twenty-four-hour period of a menstruant

applies only

to sacred items, but not to teruma!

And we inquire:

If so,

that they issued the decree only with regard to sacred items,

let him teach

this decree concerning the greater stringency of sacred items

among the stringencies

that the Sages enumerated in tractate Ḥagiga concerning “the greater stringency of sacred items than of teruma”!

The Gemara answers:

When he teaches

there that sacred items possess greater stringencies than teruma, it is

where there is an inherent basis [

an aspect of uncertainty]

of impurity,

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

But where there is no inherent basis of impurity,

such as the decree of the twenty-four-hour period, which is merely a decree, since she had not seen blood earlier, such a stringency

is not taught

among the greater stringencies of sacred items over teruma.

The objection is raised:

We learned in the preceding beraita:

What does she render impure

during the twenty-four-hour period?—

Food and drink!

And we infer:

Is it not the case that

food and drink

of sacred items, and

food and drink

of teruma!

The Gemara answers:

No!

The tanna’s intention is to food and drink

of sacred items

alone, such as the oil of meal-offerings and the wine of libations .

The Gemara brings a proof from the Mishna below that the Sages decreed the impurity of the twenty-four-hour period even with regard to teruma—

come and hear,

to prove that the decree of the twenty-four-hour period also applied to teruma, contrary to Rav Huna, for we learned in the Mishna below:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Women are obligated to examine themselves, in addition to the morning and evening examinations,

even at the time of their passing [

when they finish]

from eating teruma.

And we inquire

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

What was

the situation at the time she ate the teruma

was!

What difference does it make after the meal to know whether she is pure or impure!?

To resolve this difficulty,

Rav Ḥisda said: It was necessary

to conduct the examination after eating the teruma

only in order to render fit its remnants

that remained

before her [

in front of her], which she had not eaten. 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 meal are not rendered retroactively impure, since she examined herself after eating and found herself pure. It follows that without this examination she would render the teruma impure retroactively for a twenty-four-hour period, or from examination to examination, 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!?

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 answer:

Rav Huna,

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

teaches

[in the wording of the Mishna below] that the obligation to examine herself after eating teruma is not in order to render the remnants of the teruma pure, because as long as the woman has not become impure, she does not retroactively render teruma impure. Rather, the obligation to examine herself is in order to

burn the remnants

of teruma

that

remained after eating

in her possession

[and now are no longer in her possession].

If

she

examined herself

immediately after touching the teruma, within the extremely brief period of time called

“the measure of a menstrual flow”

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

And the reason for this examination is to prevent her from eating the remnants of the teruma if she is impure, [and not in order to preserve the teruma in its state of purity in the event that she finds herself 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, she does not render the teruma impure retroactively for the entire intervening period].

The Gemara brings an additional proof that the decree of retroactive impurity for the entire intervening period applies to teruma as well, 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 elderly] who went through three periods [ninety days] during which she did not see blood, and afterward saw blood: Is her status that of a woman who has never yet seen blood, so that her examination at the time she discovers the blood is sufficient, or does she regain the status of an ordinary woman, and render things impure retroactively for the entire intervening period?

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

An incident

occurred involving a young woman who went through three periods [ninety days] during which she did not see blood, and afterward saw blood,

and

[he ruled]

Rabbi followed the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer,

so that her examination at the time she discovered the blood was sufficient.