Niddah 6b — the Talmud in English

After he remembered

that Rabbi had not ruled properly,

Rabbi

said:

it is

[worthy]

to rely upon Rabbi Eliezer

and rule that her time is sufficient

in a time of distress,

for it was then a year of famine, and he did not wish to cause the pure foods to be lost.

Rashi explained that it was a year of famine. Tosafot raise the difficulty that, as stated below [9b], the Sages agree in years of famine. And Tosafot explain that the pressing circumstance was that a person had touched something during the twenty-four-hour period in which a menstruating woman is retroactively impure, and had prepared a small amount of ritually pure food before she saw blood. After Rabbi ruled for him in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, he prepared a large amount of ritually pure food, so the pressing circumstance resulted from the mistaken ruling. See Maharam, who explained that the reason Tosafot had to explain that he prepared a small amount of ritually pure food before she saw blood was that otherwise Rabbi would not initially have been lenient with him in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. Others explain that the pressing circumstance was that the person who had asked the question had left, and it would have been very difficult to pursue him. And we raise the question: What does “after he recalled”

Rabbi

And we raise an objection concerning it: What is meant by “after he remembered”

Rabbi?

If you say that it means after he remembered that the halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer, but according to the Rabbis,

who render impure retroactively—

in a time of distress, how did he act according to him?

For “a time of distress” does not nullify the law,

does it?

Rather, it was not stated

explicitly according to whom

the halakha was—not according to this one,

[Rabbi Eliezer],

and not according to this one,

[the one who disagrees with him]. Therefore Rabbi initially ruled according to the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And once Rabbi remembered

that Rabbi Eliezer was not opposed by a single individual

but was opposed by many, he began to regret his ruling, for although it had not been explicitly decided that the halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi should have determined the halakha according to those who disagreed with him, because they were many and he was an individual.

Nevertheless, Rabbi remained with his ruling,

and said:

Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in a time of distress,

even in a place where there are many, since the halakha had not been explicitly decided according to them.

And now we analyze:

Granted, if you say

that they decreed the twenty-four-hour period with regard to teruma,

this is why teruma existed in Rabbi’s days.

But if you say

that the entire decree was only

with regard to sacred food—

then

did sacred food exist in Rabbi’s days?

But Rabbi lived at the end of the days of the tannaim, many years after the Destruction!

And we answer:

As Ulla. For Ulla said: The haverim purify in the Galilee

[the haverim in the Galilee practiced purity with regard to their wine and oil with all the stringency of the purity of sacred things, because they anticipated and hoped that the Temple would be rebuilt in their days and that they would be able to bring their wine for libations and their oil for meal-offerings], and it follows that they were sacred.

Here too, in Rabbi’s days,

they practiced the stringency of the purity of sacred food even with ordinary food, and treated it as impure for the 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 is given only her time, and because of the time of distress, since he did not wish to cause them to lose their ordinary food that had been prepared in the purity of sacred food in a year of famine.

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

to see whether she had not 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 Gamaliel

what was the status of the other loaves.

And he said to her: They are all impure!

She said to him: Rabbi, did I not have an examination 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,”

and it is proved that had she not examined herself between them, all the loaves of teruma would have been retroactively impure. And it is proved that the decree was not only with regard to sacred food but also with regard to teruma,

is it not?

What is meant by “teruma”?

The teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering.

For 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 priest; together they are four loaves, which are sacred food and not teruma.

And we wonder:

Teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering at the time of

baking—

what is it doing there!?

At first they bake forty loaves, and only after their baking do they separate four loaves from them; so how can it be said that Rabban Gamaliel’s maidservant was kneading loaves of teruma of the thanksgiving-offering?

And we answer: Such as

that 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 this:

Is it not as Rav Tuvya bar Rav Ketina said: The loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, if he baked four

loaves instead of forty loaves—

he has fulfilled

his obligation!

And we raise an objection concerning it: But we require forty!?

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

for the mitzva,

and not indispensable.

And we wonder:

But we require separating teruma from them!?

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

And if you say that he separates a piece

as teruma

from each and every one

of the four large loaves—

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

“

one

did the Merciful One say,”

to teach us:

that 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 loaves of teruma from four loaves:

that they separated them during their kneading,

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

And if so,

here too,

it is speaking of Rabban Gamaliel’s maidservant, who baked loaves of the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,

that they had separated them during their kneading!

Therefore there is no proof from here that they decreed the impurity of the twenty-four-hour period with regard to teruma alone.

Come and hear: Again

there

was

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

[closing]

wine jars. And between each one and the next

she

washed her hands in water

in order to remove the mud,

and examined

herself to see whether she had not become impure with the impurity of a menstruant.

And with the last one, she examined

herself

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

She said to him: Did I not have an examination between each one and the next?

He said to her: If so—

it,

the last one,

is impure, and all

that preceded it

are pure!

And we analyze:

Granted, if you say that one

of the incidents involving Rabban Gamaliel’s maidservant was

concerning sacred food, and one

of the other incident

was concerning teruma, this is why she returned

the maidservant

and asked

in both cases what the law was.

But if you say

as Rav Huna, that the impurity of the twenty-four-hour period does not apply to teruma, then

both this and that,

the two incidents, occurred with pure food

concerning sacred food—

why did she need

Rabban Gamaliel’s maidservant

to return and ask him again!?

And we answer:

The incident that occurred was with two maidservants

separate from one another;

it was,

that the second maidservant did not know of Rabban Gamaliel’s answer to her fellow.

Others state it differently—

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

renders impure both sacred food and teruma!

From where? From the fact that he did not teach it

in the context of the greater stringency of sacred food over teruma,

with regard to the levels

of sacred food over teruma.

Rav Nahman said to him: But a tannai teaches:

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

to sacred food, but not to teruma!?

And we say:

He accepted it from him,

[from Rav Nahman],

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak

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

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

with regard to ordinary food prepared in the “purity of sacred food”

did they decree the impurity of the twenty-four-hour period,

but not with regard to ordinary food prepared in the “purity of teruma,”

for the entire decree of the twenty-four-hour period is only a safeguard. Therefore they were not stringent with regard to ordinary food prepared in the purity of teruma, but with actual teruma they practiced the impurity of the twenty-four-hour period, as with sacred food.

We learned there

in tractate Hallah: One who kneads dough, and it happened that

a doubt of impurity arose concerning it.

Thus, if the doubt of impurity arose in the dough

before it was rolled

[“rolling” means kneading the flour with water until dough is formed], and the dough had not yet become obligated in separating hallah, it need not be guarded in purity from this point onward; rather, it

shall be made

even

in impurity.

For since the dough is doubtfully impure at the beginning of its rolling, its hallah may no longer be eaten, and therefore there is no need to refrain from rendering the dough impure by hand while it has not yet become obligated in separating hallah.

But if the doubt of impurity arose in it

after it was rolled

and became obligated in separating hallah—

the dough shall be made

from this point onward

in purity,

even though the hallah that will be separated from it may not be eaten because of the doubt of impurity, as it proceeds to explain.

And we explain: If

before it was rolled

a doubt arose in the dough—

it shall be made in impurity,

because

they are ordinary food, and it is permitted to cause impurity to ordinary food in the Land of Israel,

even though hallah will eventually be separated from it.

But

after it was rolled

and became obligated in hallah—

it shall be made in purity.

Because

ordinary food destined for hallah

is considered like hallah

with regard to guarding its purity,

and it is forbidden to cause impurity to hallah!