Niddah 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

The tanna

in a beraita concerning this Mishna states:

And its hallah,

the hallah separated from this dough [in which uncertainty regarding ritual impurity arose after kneading]; although he continued and prepared it as dough in a state of purity, it must be treated according to the law of

“suspended” hallah—

that

one may not eat

it,

nor burn

it, because it is uncertain whether the dough became impure before the hallah was separated.

And the beraita continues:

With regard to what uncertainty

of impurity that occurred in the dough

did they say this?

That is, with regard to what uncertainty did the Sages need to teach us that the hallah separated from the dough has the status of “suspended” hallah? For with regard to an ordinary uncertainty, there would have been no need to teach us this!?

With regard to an uncertainty

involving impurity that applies only to

hallah

and not to non-sacred produce! The Sages needed to teach us that although the uncertainty occurred in the dough before the hallah was separated, and the dough itself is non-sacred produce, nevertheless the dough becomes impure [by virtue of the uncertainty] with this impurity, since it is “tevel with regard to hallah”! Any non-sacred produce that has the status of tevel because of the obligation to separate teruma or hallah becomes susceptible to the impurity that applies to teruma and hallah.

And we raise a difficulty:

What

is the intention of the tanna of the beraita in teaching us by using the expression: “With regard to what uncertainty did they say”—

with regard to an uncertainty of ‘hallah’!?

And we answer: Abaye and Rava both say:

The intention of the tanna of the beraita is to teach us

lest you say

that only

with

regard to an uncertainty of impurity that has

“indications”

of impurity did we state the law of suspended hallah,

such as

the “well-established uncertainty of impurity” involving

two paths [one of which contains impurity and the other is pure, and a person walked along one of the paths without knowing whether it was the impure or the pure one], where the uncertainty is evenly balanced, and therefore the person’s impurity is a “well-established uncertainty of impurity”; rather, they stated this law even with regard to a remote uncertainty .

[one of which contains impurity and the other is pure, and a person walked on one of the paths and does not know whether on the impure or the pure one], where the doubt is evenly balanced, and therefore the person’s impurity is a “proven doubt of impurity”; rather, they also said this in a remote doubt.

For if you say that they stated this only with regard to a “well-established” [evenly balanced] uncertainty, it follows that the tanna of the beraita taught us nothing. Since

there,

in the case of an evenly balanced uncertainty, even

ordinary non-sacred produce,

which is not tevel with regard to hallah,

also becomes impure

with uncertain impurity [with the practical difference applying to a person who eats non-sacred produce in a state of purity, who would not eat it]. If so, what is the novelty in stating that one may not eat the hallah separated from this dough?

Rather,

the novelty is that even in a case where the dough became impure

with

an

“leaning”

uncertainty [as will be explained], which is a remote and not an evenly balanced uncertainty—and such a stringency of purity applies only to hallah and not to non-sacred produce, so that people who eat their non-sacred food in a state of purity need not be particular about it, since it is a remote uncertainty of impurity and not a “well-established” uncertainty of impurity—nevertheless, if non-sacred dough that is tevel with regard to hallah [from which the hallah has not yet been removed] became impure through a “leaning” uncertainty, it is considered impure [with regard to the hallah that will be separated from it, which will be suspended hallah, neither eaten nor burned].

And we explain what “leaning” impurity is:

As we learned: If a zav and a ritually pure person were unloading a load from a donkey, or loading

a burden together, then

when their load is heavy

and there is concern that, because of the weight of the burden, the zav may have leaned upon the pure person, or that the pure person may have leaned upon the zav—

the pure person is impure

!

The novelty of this type of impurity is twofold:

a. It is not a complete leaning.

b. It is uncertain whether the leaning occurred at all!

But if

their load was light,

so that there is no concern whatsoever that they leaned upon one another, he is

pure!

And all of them,

whether their load was light or heavy, are

pure with regard to those who eat non-sacred produce in purity!

For those who follow the practice of eating their non-sacred produce in a state of purity, since this is not a complete case of shifting impurity. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether he shifted the impurity at all; therefore, the Sages decreed this impurity only with regard to hallah, and not with regard to those who eat non-sacred produce in purity.

And similarly,

they are impure with regard to teruma!

For the Sages decreed “leaning impurity” with regard to it as they did with regard to hallah.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

if

non-sacred produce that is tevel with regard to hallah

is considered like hallah,

which is why they decreed impurity upon it even in the case of a leaning uncertainty,

but isn’t it taught in a beraita: A woman who immersed that day

is

kneading the dough

that is pure,

and cuts off her hallah from it,

but she does not yet designate it by the name hallah! For as long as the dough is non-sacred produce, one who immersed that day does not render it impure, since one who immersed that day, who is a secondary degree of impurity, does not render non-sacred produce impure; rather, she disqualifies teruma and hallah.

Therefore, when she designates the piece of dough she separated as hallah, she

places it in a kefisha or an anhuṭa,

which are flat vessels that have no receptacle and are not susceptible to impurity,

and brings it into proximity,

bringing the vessel containing the hallah close to the dough [because it is a mitzva to separate from that which is within the same enclosure—that is, nearby],

and

only then

does she call

it

by the name “hallah”; from that point onward, she does not touch it, so as not to render it impure!

And the fact that one who immersed that day can do this is

because it is a third degree of impurity!

For the dough is non-sacred produce, and even if we say that the woman who immersed that day renders the dough impure [she being a secondary degree of impurity], it will be no more than a “third degree of impurity,”

and a third degree

is pure with regard to non-sacred produce!

For a third degree of impurity does not take hold in non-sacred produce at all.

And now we challenge this:

But if you say that non-sacred produce that is tevel with regard to hallah is considered like hallah,

and therefore the dough becomes impure even through a “leaning uncertainty,” how is she permitted to cut off a piece of dough for hallah before designating it by the name hallah?

For she has rendered them impure

by being one who immersed that day, to non-sacred produce that is tevel with regard to hallah!?

Abaye said:

A “leaning uncertainty” is not comparable to one who immersed that day.

Every

place

where one certainly renders impure

even non-sacred produce—

they decreed with regard to its uncertainty

where it is appropriate to issue a decree

because of non-sacred produce that is tevel with regard to hallah [as in the case of a “leaning uncertainty”: had the leaning certainly occurred, the zav would have rendered even non-sacred produce impure, and therefore they were stringent with regard to non-sacred produce that is tevel with regard to hallah even when it is uncertain whether the leaning occurred].

For example, in the case of a “leaning” doubt: had the leaning certainly occurred, the person with the discharge would have rendered even ordinary non-sacred food impure; therefore, the Sages were stringent with ordinary non-sacred food prepared for the portion of dough even when it is uncertain whether the leaning occurred.

But

this one who immersed that day, since she does not render impure

even

certain non-sacred produce, they did not issue a decree with regard to her because of non-sacred produce that is tevel with regard to hallah!

And we challenge this:

But

the impurity of

the previous twenty-four hours

of a menstruating woman,

certainly

a menstruating woman

renders impure

[retroactively]

non-sacred produce,

and nevertheless

they did not decree with regard to its uncertainty

to render it impure retroactively for the previous twenty-four hours. And they did not even decree this

because of non-sacred produce that is tevel with regard to hallah!

For the Master said

above:

He received it from him

[from Rav Naḥman],

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak

accepted the refutation and established the beraita stating that the impurity of the previous twenty-four hours of a menstruating woman renders impure sacred food but not teruma, with the following interpretation:

with regard to non-sacred produce prepared according to the standards of purity of sacred food, but not with regard to non-sacred produce prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma!

And seemingly, non-sacred produce that is tevel with regard to hallah, which is prepared in purity because of the hallah that is destined to be separated from the dough, should be compared to non-sacred produce prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma as though it were teruma. And just as they did not decree the impurity of the previous twenty-four hours with regard to non-sacred produce prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma, so too they should not have decreed it with regard to non-sacred produce that is tevel with regard to hallah. This proves that they did not decree with regard to an uncertain case because of a certain case.

And the Gemara distinguishes:

There,

with regard to non-sacred produce prepared according to the standards of purity of teruma,

teruma is not intermingled

[mixed]

with it,

and therefore they did not issue a decree with regard to it.

Here,

with regard to non-sacred produce that is tevel with regard to hallah,

teruma is intermingled with it

[the hallah that is destined to be removed from the dough], and therefore they issued a decree with regard to it.

And if you wish, say: Set aside

the impurity of

the previous twenty-four hours,

which is only

rabbinic,

and for this reason they did not decree with regard to its uncertainty because of its certainty; they issued this decree only with regard to impurities of Torah law.

[Although the impurity of a leaning uncertainty is also rabbinic, its uncertainty is more stringent, since there is concern that the zav may have leaned upon the pure person while they were working together to lift a burden. This is not so with regard to retroactive impurity, since at the time she was occupied with the ritually pure foods there was no basis for uncertainty. Tosafot].

Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: There are four women for whom the time of discovery determines their status—

a virgin, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, and an old woman. 100 .