Niddah 71b (עא:) — the Talmud in English

And the Sages deem it pure, because

each drop is nullified by the drops that preceded it.

This means that since the blood does not emerge in a stream, but emerges one drop at a time into a depression, the blood that emerges after death becomes mixed little by little with the blood that emerged during life and is nullified by it.

Therefore, even if ultimately the blood that emerges after death is greater in quantity than the blood that emerged during life, it is nevertheless pure.

And they decreed the impurity of dam tefusa only when the bloods do not become mixed.

The Gemara raises an objection:

The Sages have argued well to Rabbi Yehuda!

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda follows his own reasoning

108, as he says: Blood does not nullify blood.

Rabbi Shimon says:

A person who was

crucified upon a tree, with his blood dripping abundantly onto the ground

all at once, rather than dripping drop by drop,

and a revi'it of blood was found beneath him—

it is impure.

Rabbi Yehuda deems it pure, as I say that a drop of blood from the moment of death remains upon the tree,

and there is not a revi'it of blood on the ground that emerged after death.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And should Rabbi Yehuda not say for himself

here:

I say that a drop of blood from the moment of death remains upon the bed!

And we answer:

The case of the bed is different—

because it is perforated.

Mishna:

At first they would say: A woman who observes pure blood—

after immersing, she is one who immersed for an extended period, who renders only food and liquids impure, like a second-degree source, but not vessels —

would pour water

from one vessel

for

washing the meat of the

Paschal offering,

but she would not touch the water itself.

They subsequently said: She is like one who touches a person impure through contact with a corpse with regard to sacrificial food,

but not with regard to non-sacred food; and the water with which the sacrificial meat is washed is non-sacred water. A second-degree source does not produce a third degree with regard to non-sacred food. Therefore, even if she touches the water itself, she will not render the offering impure —

in accordance with the words of Beit Hillel.

Beit Shammai say:

They decreed that she should also render non-sacred food impure. However, they

also

made her

like one impure through contact with a corpse.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the words of the Mishna .

“She pours”

from the vessel—

yes; “she touches”

the water—

no. (Apparently,)

The reason is that

non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food is

considered like sacrificial food 116.

And it is not like ordinary non-sacred food, since one who immersed that day, who is a second-degree source of impurity, does not produce a third degree with regard to non-sacred food.

The Gemara explains the latter clause of the Mishna:

“They subsequently said: She is like one who touches a person impure through contact with a corpse with regard to sacrificial food.”

With regard to sacrificial food—

yes; with regard to non-sacred food—

no.

(Apparently,)

That is, they subsequently said that

non-sacred food prepared with the purity of sacrificial food

is not considered like sacrificial food!

The Gemara explains:

The Mishna,

which was stringent and made one who immersed that day like one who touched a person impure through contact with a corpse,

is whose opinion?

It is the opinion of Abba Shaul.

As it was taught in a beraita: Abba Shaul says: One who immersed that day

has the status of

a primary source with regard to sacrificial food: to render two impure and to render one unfit.

That is, he is considered a first-degree source of impurity [like one who touches a person impure through contact with a corpse], and therefore he renders two levels impure with regard to sacrificial food. The third-degree food that touches a fourth-degree source renders it merely “unfit” [that is, the fourth-degree food is not “impure” in a manner that would render others impure, but is itself merely “unfit”].

Mishna:

Beit Shammai concede

to Beit Hillel

that she may eat ma'aser

during her days of purity, like anyone who immersed that day, who may eat ma'aser.

And she may designate ḥalla,

and she is permitted to separate dough from the mixture for the purpose of separating ḥalla and place it in a vessel .

And she brings it close,

bringing the vessel near the dough,

and assigns it a name,

thereby imposing upon the dough she separated the status of “ḥalla.”

And if some of her saliva or pure blood fell upon a loaf of teruma—

it remains pure.

Beit Shammai say:

A woman who gives birth and observes pure blood

requires immersion at the end,

when her days of purity conclude—forty full days for a male birth and eighty for a female birth.

If she is a kohenet, she requires immersion in order to eat teruma; and if she is an Israelite woman, she requires immersion so that she will be fit to enter the Temple .

And Beit Hillel say: She does not require immersion at the end.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “And they concede that she may eat ma'aser”—and the Gemara explains:

For the Master said: One who immersed and ascended

may eat ma'aser,

immediately, without waiting for sunset.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And she may designate ḥalla.”

Because

non-sacred produce subject to the obligation of ḥalla,

which contains the prohibition of untithed produce because ḥalla has not yet been separated from it,

is not considered like ḥalla.

We do not say that since this dough will become ḥalla, the sanctity of ḥalla already applies to it; rather, it is completely non-sacred food .

We learned in the Mishna:

“And she brings it close. For the Master said: It is a mitzva to separate from that which is nearby,”

from that which is adjacent.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And she assigns it a name.”

The Gemara explains that the novel point is:

It might enter your mind to say that we should decree

and not permit her to assign the status of ḥalla,

lest

she might

come to touch it

the ḥalla

from the outside,

with the result that she would render the ḥalla impure;

it teaches us

that they did not issue such a decree.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And if some of her saliva fell”

upon a loaf of teruma, it remains pure.

The Gemara explains:

For we learned: The liquid

that emerges from a person who is

one who immersed that day is

like the liquids that he touches.

Both

the liquid that emerges from him

and both

the liquids that he touches

do not render impure

except for the liquid of a gonorrheic—

which is a primary source of impurity 121.

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai

say that she requires immersion at the end.

What is the difference between them?

What is the basis of their dispute?

Rav Ketina said: The matter of one who immersed for an extended period is the difference between them.

According to Beit Shammai, this immersion differs from that of every other person who immersed that day, who does not require an additional immersion at sunset, because her “day is extended,” and she diverted her attention from teruma and the Temple; therefore, she must immerse again. According to Beit Hillel, there is no distinction, and she need not immerse again.

Mishna:

A woman

who sees

blood

on

the

eleventh day,

which is the final day of her days of zivah, and she did not observe the twelfth day as a day observed in correspondence to the previous day, but

immersed toward evening

at the conclusion of the eleventh day,

and had marital relations [

and cohabited with her husband]:

Beit Shammai say: She and her partner render

the bed and seat

impure, and they are liable to bring an offering!

For Beit Shammai hold that the eleventh day too requires observation of a “day corresponding to a day” on the twelfth day, like the other days of zivah. This is so even though, if she sees blood on the twelfth day, that day is not combined with the preceding days to make her a major zavah, because the sighting on the twelfth day is a sighting of niddah. Nevertheless, Beit Shammai hold that she requires observation of a clean day in order to become pure from the impurity of a minor zavah, which she contracted by seeing blood on the eleventh day.