Niddah 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

After he remembered

that Rabbi had not issued the ruling properly,

Rabbi said

Rabbi:

Sufficient

ly worthy

is Rabbi Eliezer to rely upon him

and to rule that her status is established only from the time of her discovery

in a pressing circumstance,

since that was a year of famine, and he did not wish to cause the taharot to be lost .

And we raise a question concerning it: What is the meaning of “after he remembered”

Rabbi?

If we say that it means after Rabbi remembered that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, but in accordance with the Rabbis,

who render her impure retroactively—

how could he act in accordance with him in a pressing circumstance?

After all, a “pressing circumstance” does not override the law!?

Rather, it was that it had not been explicitly stated

in accordance with whom

the halakha was established—not in accordance with this one,

Rabbi Eliezer,

and not in accordance with that one,

the one who disagreed with him; therefore, Rabbi initially issued a ruling in accordance with the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And once Rabbi remembered

Rabbi

that it was not an individual who disagreed with him,

Rabbi Eliezer,

but many who disagreed with him,

he began to regret his ruling. For although it had not been explicitly decided that the halakha was not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi should have determined the halakha in accordance with those who disagreed with him, since they were many and he was an individual.

Nevertheless, Rabbi retained his ruling,

and said:

Rabbi Eliezer is sufficiently worthy to rely upon in a pressing circumstance,

even where the majority disagrees with him, since the halakha had not been explicitly decided in accordance with them.

And now we analyze:

It works out well if you say

that the Sages decreed a twenty-four-hour period with regard to teruma;

this is why there was teruma in Rabbi’s time.

But if you say

that the entire decree applied only

to sacred food—

then

was there sacred food in Rabbi’s time?

After all, Rabbi lived at the end of the period of the tannaim, many years after the Destruction!?

And we answer:

As Ulla said. Ulla said: The ḥaverim purify in the Galilee

The ḥaverim in the Galilee practiced purity with regard to their wine and oil according to all the stringencies of the purity of sacred food, because they anticipated and yearned for the rebuilding of the Temple in their days, when they would be able to bring their wine for libations and their oil for meal-offerings—and it follows that these products were considered sacred.

Here too, in Rabbi’s time,

they practiced the stringency of sacred-food purity even with ordinary food, and treated it as subject to the impurity of a twenty-four-hour period, as though it were sacred food. With regard to them Rabbi ruled that a woman who had not seen blood for three periods need establish her status only from the time of her discovery, and he did so because of the pressing circumstance: he did not wish to cause them to lose their ordinary food that had been prepared in a state of purity fit for sacred food during a year of famine.

Come and hear: There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel’s maidservant, who was baking loaves of teruma, and between each one and the next she would wash her hand in water and examine herself

to see whether she had become impure through seeing menstrual blood.

With the last one,

the last loaf,

she examined herself and found

herself

impure, and she came and asked Rabban Gamliel

what was the status of the other loaves.

And he said to her: They are all impure!

She said to him: My master, did I not examine myself between each one and the next!?

He said to her: If so,

since you examined yourself between them, only the last one

is impure, and all the others are pure.

In any event, it teaches: “Loaves of teruma,”

which proves that had she not examined herself between them, all the teruma loaves would have been retroactively impure. And this proves that the decree applied not only to sacred food but also to teruma!?

And we reject this:

What is the meaning of “teruma”?

The teruma of the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering.

One who brings a thanksgiving-offering brings with it forty loaves of four types, and from each type he separates one loaf as teruma and gives it to the kohen. Together there are four loaves; these are sacred food, not ordinary teruma.

And we raise a difficulty:

The teruma of the thanksgiving-offering loaves at the time of

baking—

what is it doing there!?

What need is there for it!?

After all, initially forty loaves are baked, and only after they have been baked are four loaves separated from them. How, then, can one say that Rabban Gamliel’s maidservant was kneading loaves of teruma from the thanksgiving-offering loaves?

And we answer: For example,

they separated them during their kneading!

It is possible to separate the teruma of the loaves before baking, at the time of kneading.

And the proof that it is possible to separate it at the time of kneading, even before baking, is—

As in what Rav Tovi bar Rav Katina said: If one baked thanksgiving-offering loaves as four

loaves instead of forty loaves—

he has fulfilled

his obligation!

And we raise a question concerning it: But we require forty!?

And the answer to this was that the requirement of forty is only

for the mitzva,

but it is not indispensable.

And we raise a difficulty:

But we require separating teruma from them!?

For four loaves must be separated as teruma. Here, however, he has only four large loaves; how can he separate teruma from them?

And if you would say that he separates a piece

as teruma

from each one

of the four large loaves—

But it is impossible to separate a piece as teruma, because

“one”

the Torah said,

teaching us:

He may not take a piece

as teruma, but only an entire loaf!?

And we say,

to resolve how it is possible to separate four teruma loaves from four loaves:

They separated them during their kneading;

from the four large doughs they separated four small doughs as teruma, and baked the four large doughs separately and the four small doughs separately. It follows that the four teruma loaves are not pieces but entire loaves! And the Gemara concludes that it is proven that it is possible to separate the teruma of thanksgiving-offering loaves even from the dough—

And if so,

here too,

the case of Rabban Gamliel’s maidservant involves her baking loaves of the teruma of thanksgiving-offering loaves,

as they had been separated during their kneading!

Therefore, there is no proof from here that the impurity of a twenty-four-hour period was decreed with regard to ordinary teruma.

Come and hear: Again

there

was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel’s maidservant, who was sealing

closing

barrels of wine. And between each one and the next

she

would wash her hands in water

in order to remove the mud,

and examine

herself to see whether she had become impure with the impurity of menstruation.

And with the last one, she examined

herself

and found herself impure, and she came and asked Rabban Gamliel, and he said to her: They are all impure!

She said to him: Did I not examine myself between each one and the next?

He said to her: If so—

it,

the last one,

is impure, and all those

before it

are pure!

And we infer:

It works out well if you say that one

incident involving Rabban Gamliel’s maidservant concerned

sacred food, and one

the other incident

concerned teruma; this is why she returned

the maidservant

and asked

in both cases what the law was.

But if you say

in accordance with Rav Huna, that the impurity of a twenty-four-hour period does not apply to teruma, then

both this and that,

the two incidents, occurred with taharot

of sacred food—

why did she need

Rabban Gamliel’s maidservant

to return and ask him!?

And we answer:

The incident that occurred involved two maidservants

separate

ones;

the second maidservant did not know Rabban Gamliel’s answer to her fellow.

Others state this version—

Rav Huna said: The twenty-four-hour period of a menstruant woman—

renders impure both sacred food and teruma!

From where?

Because the tanna did not teach it

among the stringencies

of sacred food over teruma.

Rav Naḥman said to him: But a tanna taught:

the impurity of a twenty-four-hour period applies only

to sacred food, but not to teruma!?

And we say:

He received it from him,

from Rav Naḥman,

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak

accepted this refutation from the words of the tanna, but explained the beraita in a manner that did not refute Rav Huna’s statement.

For the tanna was not referring in his words to a distinction between actual sacred food and actual teruma, since the Sages decreed the impurity of a twenty-four-hour period with regard to both. Rather, the tanna intended to distinguish and say that the decree of a twenty-four-hour period applies only

to ordinary food prepared according to the “purity of sacred food,”

but

not to ordinary food prepared according to the “purity of teruma,”

since the entire decree concerning a twenty-four-hour period is only a safeguard. Therefore, they did not impose this stringency on ordinary food prepared according to the purity of teruma; but with regard to actual teruma, they practiced the impurity of a twenty-four-hour period, as with sacred food .

We learned there

in tractate Ḥalla: If one kneads dough, and it happens that

a doubt of impurity arises concerning it.

Thus, if the doubt of impurity arose concerning the dough

before it was kneaded [“kneading” means mixing flour with water until dough is formed], and the dough had not yet become obligated in the separation of ḥalla, he need not henceforth guard it in purity; rather,

“Kneading into a single mass” means mixing flour with water until dough is formed—and the dough was not yet obligated in the separation of hallah, it need not be guarded in purity from that point onward. Rather,

it may be made

even

in impurity.

For once the dough is possibly impure at the beginning of its kneading, its ḥalla will no longer be eaten; therefore, there is no need to refrain from rendering the dough impure by hand while it has not yet become obligated in the separation of ḥalla.

But if the doubt of impurity arose in it

after it had been kneaded,

and it became obligated in the separation of ḥalla—

the dough must be made

from that point onward

in purity,

even though the ḥalla separated from it will not be eaten because of the doubt of impurity, as will be explained below.

And we explain: If

before it was kneaded

a doubt arose concerning the dough—

it may be made in impurity,

because

it is ordinary food, and it is permitted to cause impurity to ordinary food in Eretz Yisrael,

even though ḥalla will eventually be separated from it.

But

after it was kneaded

and became obligated in ḥalla—

it must be made in purity.

Because

ordinary food that is destined for ḥalla

is considered like ḥalla

with regard to safeguarding its purity,

and it is forbidden to cause impurity to ḥalla!