Niddah 7a — the Talmud in English

A tanna

in a beraita on this Mishna said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

and its hallah,

the hallah separated from this dough [in which a doubt of impurity arose after the kneading], behold, even though he continued and made it into dough in purity, it is to be treated according to the law of hallah

“suspended”—

that

one does not eat

it,

and one does not burn

it, because it is possible that the dough became impure before the separation of the hallah.

And the beraita continues:

In what doubt

of impurity that occurred in the dough

did they say this?

That is, in what doubt did the Sages need to teach us that the hallah separated from the dough has the status of “suspended,” for in an ordinary doubt they did not need to teach us this

?

In a doubt

of hallah

of an impurity that applies only to hallah and not to non-sacred produce! And the Sages needed to teach us that although the doubt occurred in the dough before the separation of the hallah, and the dough itself is non-sacred produce, nevertheless the dough became impure [through doubt] with this impurity, since it is “immersed for hallah”! For all non-sacred produce that has the status of tevel because of the obligation to separate teruma or hallah becomes impure with the impurity that applies to teruma and hallah.

And we inquire into it:

What

is the intention of the tanna of the beraita in teaching us when he used the wording: “In what doubt did they say this”—

in a doubt 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

in

a doubt of impurity that has

proofs

of the doubt of impurity did we state the law of suspended hallah,

such as

the “proven doubt of impurity” of

two paths

[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 said this specifically in a “proven” [evenly balanced] doubt, it follows that the tanna of the beraita taught us nothing. Since

there,

in an evenly balanced doubt, even

mere non-sacred produce,

which is not immersed for hallah,

also becomes impure

with impurity through doubt [and the practical consequence is for a person who eats non-sacred produce in purity, who would not eat it]. If so, what is the novelty 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

a doubt

“of leaning”

[as will be explained], which is a remote and not evenly balanced doubt, and such stringency of purity applies only to hallah and not to non-sacred produce, and people who eat their non-sacred foods in purity do not need to be strict about it, since it is a remote doubt of impurity and is not a “proven” doubt of impurity. Nevertheless, if non-sacred dough immersed for hallah [from which they have not yet lifted the hallah] became impure through a doubt “of leaning,” it is considered impure [with regard to the hallah that will be separated from it, so that the hallah separated from it will be suspended, and one does not eat it and does not burn it].

And we explain what is the impurity of “leaning”:

For we learned: A zav and a pure person who were unloading from a donkey, or loading

a burden together—

when their burden is heavy

and there is concern lest, because of the heaviness of the burden, the zav leaned on the pure person, or perhaps the pure person leaned on the zav—

impure

is the pure person!

And the novelty in such impurity is twofold: they render him impure despite—

a. this not being complete leaning.

b. It being doubtful whether the leaning occurred at all!

But if their burden was

light,

so that there is no concern at all for leaning, he is

pure!

And all of them,

whether their burden was light or whether it was heavy—

are pure for the members of the synagogue!

For those who practice eating their non-sacred produce in purity, since this is not complete shifting. Moreover, it is doubtful whether he shifted it at all, and therefore they decreed the impurity only for hallah and not for those who eat their non-sacred produce in purity.

And likewise—

they are impure for teruma!

For the Sages also decreed in its case the “impurity of leaning,” as in the case of hallah.

And we inquire into it:

And

if

non-sacred produce immersed for hallah

is comparable to hallah,

which is why they decreed upon it even in a doubt of leaning,

but it was taught: A woman who is immersed for the day

behold, she

kneads the dough

that is pure,

and cuts off its hallah,

but she still does not designate it with the name hallah! For as long as the dough is non-sacred produce, one immersed for the day does not render it impure, since one immersed for the day, who is a “second degree of impurity,” does not render non-sacred produce impure, but only disqualifies teruma and hallah.

And therefore, when she designates with the name “hallah” the dough that she separated, she

places it in a kefisha or in an anahuta,

which are flat vessels that have no receptacle and do not contract impurity,

and she surrounds,

brings the vessel with the hallah near the dough [for it is a mitzva to separate from that which is surrounded—that which is adjacent],

and

only then

does she call

it

by the name “hallah,” and from then onward she does not touch it, so that she should not render it impure!

And the fact that one immersed for the day can do this—

because it is a third degree!

For the dough is non-sacred produce, and even if we say that the dough becomes impure from the woman immersed for the day [who is a second degree of impurity], it will only be a “third degree of impurity,”

and a third degree—

is pure with regard to non-sacred produce!

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

And now we refute:

And if you say that non-sacred produce immersed for hallah is comparable to hallah,

and therefore the dough becomes impure even through a “doubt of leaning,” how is it permitted to cut off dough for hallah before she designates it with the name hallah? And

behold, you render them impure

the woman immersed for the day renders non-sacred produce immersed for hallah impure

!?

Abaye said:

It is not comparable, the “doubt of leaning” to a woman immersed for the day. For

every place

where he certainly renders impure

even non-sacred produce—

they decreed concerning its doubt

where it is appropriate to decree

because of non-sacred produce immersed for hallah [and, for example, in a “doubt of leaning,” for if he had certainly leaned, the zav would render even non-sacred produce impure, and therefore they were stringent with non-sacred produce immersed for hallah even when it is doubtful whether he leaned].

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,

as for this woman immersed for the day, since she does not render impure

even

certain non-sacred produce, they did not decree concerning her because of non-sacred produce immersed for hallah!

And we challenge:

But

the impurity of

from one time-period to the next

of a menstruating woman,

who certainly

is a menstruating woman,

renders impure

[it] retroactively

non-sacred produce,

and nevertheless

they did not decree concerning its doubt

to render it impure retroactively. And even not

because of non-sacred produce immersed for hallah!

For the master said

above:

He received it from him

[from Rav Nahman],

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak

received the refutation, and established the beraita that retroactive impurity in the case of a menstruating woman renders impure sacred food but not teruma, by an interpretation—

with non-sacred produce made in the purity of sacred food, and not with non-sacred produce made in the purity of teruma!

And seemingly one should compare non-sacred produce immersed for hallah, which is made in purity because of the hallah that is destined to be separated from the dough, to non-sacred produce made in the purity of teruma as though it were teruma. And just as they did not decree retroactive impurity upon non-sacred produce made in the purity of teruma, so they should not decree it upon non-sacred produce immersed for hallah. And it is proven that they did not decree concerning its doubt on account of its certainty.

And the Gemara distinguishes:

There,

in non-sacred produce made in the purity of teruma,

there is not mixed

[something mixed]

with it teruma,

and therefore they did not decree in its case.

Here,

in non-sacred produce immersed for hallah,

there is teruma mixed with it

[the hallah that is destined to be taken from the dough], and therefore they decreed in its case.

And if you wish, say: Leave aside

the impurity

from one time-period to the next,

which is only

rabbinic,

and for this reason they did not decree concerning its doubt on account of its certainty, for they made this decree only with regard to impurities from the Torah.

[And although the impurity of a doubt of leaning is also rabbinic, its doubt is more stringent, since there is concern lest the zav leaned while they were engaged together in lifting a burden. This is not so with retroactive impurity, for at the time when she engaged with the pure foods there was no place for doubt. Tosafot.]

Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Four women have only their time—

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