## Niddah Daf 33b

###### Niddah 33b:1
[Niddah 33b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:1)

אוֹ דִילְמָא נוֹגַעַת הָיְתָה וְלָא סָתְרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** it is because **she was touching** the semen, **and** if so **she has not** thereby **negated** her count, just as a *zav* does not negate his count if he touches semen.


###### Niddah 33b:2
[Niddah 33b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: לְפוּם חוּרְפָּא שַׁבֶּשְׁתָּא! נְהִי נָמֵי דְּסָתְרָה, כְּמָה תִּסְתּוֹר? תִּסְתּוֹר שִׁבְעָה? דַּיָּה כְּבוֹעֲלָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Commensurate with the sharpness** of Rami bar Ḥama is the extent of his **error,** as this is not a dilemma at all, since **even** if one could suggest **that** a *zava* who discharges semen has **indeed negated** her count, one must ask: **How much should she negate?** If one suggests **she should negate** all **seven** days of her counting, this is untenable, as **it is enough for her** that she should negate her count **like** the man who **engages in intercourse with her,** i.e., like a *zav* who discharges semen, who negates only one day.


###### Niddah 33b:3
[Niddah 33b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:3)

תִּסְתּוֹר יוֹם אֶחָד ״וְאַחַר תִּטְהָר״? אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״אַחַר״ — אַחַר לְכוּלָּן, שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא טוּמְאָה מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And if one suggests that **she should negate one day** alone, this too is untenable, as **the Merciful One states:** “But if she is purified from her *ziva* then she shall count to herself seven days, **and after that she shall be pure”** (Leviticus 15:28). The word **“after”** indicates that she shall be pure only **after all of them,** i.e., after seven consecutive clean days, such **that there should be no impurity separating between them.** If so, there cannot be a situation where a *zava* negates a single day, and consequently it cannot be that a *zava* who discharges semen negates any part of her count.


###### Niddah 33b:4
[Niddah 33b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:4)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, זָב גּוּפֵיהּ הֵיכִי סָתַר? ״לְטׇהֳרָתוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא טוּמְאָה מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects Rava’s response: **And according to your reasoning, how does a *zav* himself negate** only one day from his count due to a seminal emission? After all, **the Merciful One states:** “And when the *zav* is purified of his *ziva*, then he shall count for himself seven days for his purification, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be pure” (Leviticus 15:13). The phrase: “Seven days **for his purification,”** indicates **that there should be no impurity separating between them.**


###### Niddah 33b:5
[Niddah 33b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:5)

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר? שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא טוּמְאַת זִיבָה מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן, הָכָא נָמֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא טוּמְאַת זִיבָה מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what have you to say?** The verse means only **that there should not be an impurity of *ziva* separating between them. Here too,** with regard to a *zava*, the verse means only **that there should not be an impurity of *ziva* separating between them;** a discharge of semen is not included in this restriction. It is therefore possible that a discharge of semen from a *zava* negates only one day from her count. Accordingly, the dilemma raised by Rami bar Ḥama remains in place.


###### Niddah 33b:6
[Niddah 33b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:6)

וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְכוּ׳. רַב פָּפָּא אִיקְּלַע לִתְוָאךְ, אֲמַר: אִי אִיכָּא צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן הָכָא, אֵיזִיל אֲקַבֵּל אַפֵּיהּ. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ הָהִיא סַבְתָּא: אִיכָּא הָכָא צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן, וְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל שְׁמֵיהּ, וְתָנֵי מַתְנְיָתָא. יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּתֶהְוֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **But** one who enters the Temple while wearing **those** garments upon which a Samaritan had lain **is not liable** to bring an offering **for entering the Temple,** nor does one burn *teruma* that came into contact with those garments, because their impurity is uncertain. In connection to these *halakhot*, the Gemara relates that **Rav Pappa happened** to come **to** the city of **Tavakh. He said: If there is a Torah scholar here I will go and greet him. A certain elderly woman said to him: There is a Torah scholar here and Rav Shmuel is his name, and he teaches *mishnayot*; may it be** God’s **will that you should be like him.**


###### Niddah 33b:7
[Niddah 33b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:7)

אֲמַר: מִדְּקָמְבָרְכִי לִי בְּגַוֵּויהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם הוּא. אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ, רְמָא לֵיהּ תּוֹרָא, רְמָא לֵיהּ מַתְנְיָתָא אַהֲדָדֵי: תְּנַן ״אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ, וְאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁטּוּמְאָתָהּ סָפֵק״ — אַלְמָא מִסְּפֵיקָא לָא שָׂרְפִינַן תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa **said** to himself: **From** the fact **that they bless me through** this Rav Shmuel that I should be like him, I may **conclude from it** that **he is a God-fearing** individual. Rav Pappa **went to** visit **him,** and Rav Shmuel **raised a bull for him,** i.e., he slaughtered a bull in honor of Rav Pappa, and he also **raised** a difficulty between two ***mishnayot*** that apparently contradict **one another: We learn** in the mishna: One who enters the Temple while wearing **those** garments upon which a Samaritan had lain is **not liable** to bring an offering **for entering the Temple, nor does one burn *teruma*** that came into contact with **those** garments, **because their impurity is uncertain. Evidently, we do not burn *teruma* due to uncertain** impurity.


###### Niddah 33b:8
[Niddah 33b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:8)

וּרְמִינְהִי: עַל שִׁשָּׁה סְפֵקוֹת שׂוֹרְפִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, עַל סְפֵק בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** one can **raise a contradiction** from another mishna (*Teharot* 4:5): **For six** cases of **uncertain** impurity **one burns the *teruma*** if it came into contact with them, or if a person came into contact with them and subsequently touched the *teruma*. One of these is **for the uncertain** case **of the garments of one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [*am ha’aretz*].** Such garments impart impurity through contact and through carrying, due to a concern that the wife of the *am ha’aretz* might have sat on them while she was menstruating. Evidently, one burns *teruma* due to uncertain impurity.


###### Niddah 33b:9
[Niddah 33b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:9)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּלִתְאֲכִיל הַאי תּוֹרָא לִשְׁלָמָא, הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּכוּתִי חָבֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa** began his response with a supplication and **said: May it be** God’s **will that this bull shall be eaten peacefully,** i.e., that I will provide a satisfactory resolution of this contradiction. Since the bull was slaughtered in my honor, failing to resolve the contradiction might spoil the meal. Rav Pappa continued: **Here we are dealing with a Samaritan** who is **devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially *halakhot* of ritual purity, *teruma*, and tithes [*ḥaver*].** There is therefore less concern with regard to his ritual purity than that of an *am ha’aretz*. Consequently, the mishna here states that *teruma* is not burned on account of him.


###### Niddah 33b:10
[Niddah 33b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:10)

כּוּתִי חָבֵר — בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה מְשַׁוֵּית לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Shmuel rejected this response: Since the mishna is referring to men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, **are you equating a Samaritan *ḥaver*** with a man who **engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman?**


###### Niddah 33b:11
[Niddah 33b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:11)

שַׁבְקֵיהּ, וַאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מְשַׁנֵּית לֵיהּ בְּכוּתִי שֶׁטָּבַל וְעָלָה, וְדָרַס עַל בִּגְדֵי חָבֵר, וַאֲזוּל בִּגְדֵי חָבֵר וּנְגַעוּ בִּתְרוּמָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa **left** Rav Shmuel in embarrassment **and came before Rav Shimi bar Ashi,** to whom he related this incident. Rav Shimi bar Ashi **said to him: What is the reason** that **you did not respond to him** that the ruling of the mishna is stated **with regard to a Samaritan who immersed** in a ritual bath **and arose** from his impure status, **and** subsequently **trod on the garments of a *ḥaver*,** which means they are now considered the bedding of the Samaritan, **and** then those **garments of** the ***ḥaver* went and touched *teruma*?** In such a case one does not burn the *teruma*.


###### Niddah 33b:12
[Niddah 33b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:12)

דְּאִי מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאַת עַם הָאָרֶץ — הָא טְבֵיל לֵיהּ, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה — סָפֵק בָּעַל בְּקָרוֹב, סָפֵק לֹא בָּעַל בְּקָרוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As, if** one would say to burn it **due to the impurity of an *am ha’aretz*, he** has **immersed** in a ritual bath. **And if** one were to suggest that it should be burned **because** the Samaritan is one who **engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman,** this too is an unsatisfactory reason. This is because it is **uncertain** whether **he recently engaged in intercourse** with his wife, in which case his immersion does not remove his impurity; and it is **uncertain** whether **he did not recently engage in intercourse** with his wife, in which case he is in fact pure.


###### Niddah 33b:13
[Niddah 33b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:13)

וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר בָּעַל בְּקָרוֹב, סָפֵק הִשְׁלִימַתּוּ יָרוֹק, סָפֵק לֹא הִשְׁלִימַתּוּ, וְהָוֵי סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא, וְאַסְּפֵק סְפֵיקָא לָא שָׂרְפִינַן תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** even **if you say** that **he recently engaged in intercourse** with his wife, another uncertainty remains: It is **uncertain** whether his wife began counting seven days from an emission of green blood and ignored any subsequent emission of red blood and **completed** her count for the **green** blood, which would mean that she was in fact a menstruating woman when she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband; and it is **uncertain** whether **she did not complete** a count of seven days from the emission of the green blood, rather from the emission of red blood, in which case she was not a menstruating woman when her husband engaged in intercourse with her. **And** therefore **this is a compound uncertainty, and** there is a principle that **one does not burn *teruma* on** account of **a compound uncertainty.**


###### Niddah 33b:14
[Niddah 33b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:14)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ, דְּאָמַר מָר: בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ מִדְרָס לַפְּרוּשִׁין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּכוּתִי עָרוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rav Shimi bar Ashi: **And let** one **derive** that the garments of the *ḥaver* are impure **because** they came into contact with the **garments of an *am ha’aretz*. As the Master said:** The **garments of an *am ha’aretz*** are considered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by the **treading** of a *zav*, which means they impart impurity to people and to garments, **for individuals who are scrupulous with regard to impurity [*perushin*].** Rav Shimi bar Ashi **said to** Rav Pappa: The mishna is referring **to a naked Samaritan.** Consequently, none of his garments came into contact with the garments of the *ḥaver*.


###### Niddah 33b:15
[Niddah 33b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:15)

**מַתְנִי'** בְּנוֹת צַדּוּקִין, בִּזְמַן שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכוּתִיּוֹת. פָּרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִיּוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם הֵן כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִיּוֹת, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **Sadducee girls, when they were accustomed to follow in the ways of their** Sadducee **ancestors their** status **is like** that of **Samaritan women,** whose *halakha* was discussed in the previous mishna. If the Sadducee women **abandoned** the customs of their ancestors in order **to follow in the ways of the Jewish people** their status **is like** that of **a Jewish woman. Rabbi Yosei says: Their** status **is always like** that of **a Jewish woman, until they will abandon** the ways of the Jewish people in order **to follow in the ways of their** Sadducee **ancestors.**


###### Niddah 33b:16
[Niddah 33b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:16)

**גְּמָ'** אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: סְתָמָא מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּנוֹת צַדּוּקִין, בִּזְמַן שֶׁנּוֹהֲגוֹת לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכוּתִיּוֹת. הָא סְתָמָא — כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִיּוֹת! אֵימָא סֵיפָא: פֵּרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִיּוֹת. הָא סְתָמָא — כְּכוּתִיּוֹת! אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **What** is the *halakha* in **an unspecified** case, i.e., when the custom of a Sadducee woman is unknown? The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** evidence from the mishna: With regard to **Sadducee girls, when they are accustomed to follow in the ways of their** Sadducee **ancestors their** status **is like** that of **Samaritan women.** It can be inferred from the mishna **that** in **an unspecified** case their status **is like** that of **a Jewish woman.** The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **Say the latter clause:** If the Sadducee women **abandoned** the customs of their ancestors in order **to follow in the ways of the Jewish people their** status **is like** that of **a Jewish woman.** One may infer from this **that** in **an unspecified** case their status **is like** that of **Samaritan women. Rather, no** inference is **to be learned from this** mishna.


###### Niddah 33b:17
[Niddah 33b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:17)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם הֵן כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִיּוֹת, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן. מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: סְתָמָא כְּכוּתִיּוֹת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** the last clause of the mishna, **as we learned** in the mishna that **Rabbi Yosei says: Their** status **is always like** that of **a Jewish woman, until they will abandon** the ways of the Jewish people in order **to follow in the ways of their** Sadducee **ancestors. By inference,** one may conclude **that the first *tanna* holds** that in **an unspecified** case their status **is like** that of **Samaritan women.** The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from it** that this is the case.


###### Niddah 33b:18
[Niddah 33b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:18)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּצַדּוּקִי אֶחָד שֶׁסִּפֵּר עִם כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בַּשּׁוּק, וְנִתְּזָה צִנּוֹרָא מִפִּיו וְנָפְלָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עַל בְּגָדָיו, וְהוֹרִיקוּ פָּנָיו שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְקָדַם אֵצֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** There was **an incident involving a certain Sadducee who was conversing with the High Priest in the marketplace, and** as he was speaking, **saliva [*tzinora*] sprayed from his mouth and fell onto the garments of the High Priest. And the face of the High Priest turned green,** as he feared that his garments had been rendered ritually impure. **And he rushed to** the Sadducee’s **wife** to inquire whether she properly observed the *halakhot* of menstruation, in which case his garments were not rendered impure by the saliva of her husband, as he is not considered one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman.


###### Niddah 33b:19
[Niddah 33b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:19)

אָמְרָה לוֹ: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנְּשֵׁי צַדּוּקִים הֵן, מִתְיָרְאוֹת מִן הַפְּרוּשִׁים, וּמַרְאוֹת דָּם לַחֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**She said to him: Even though** women such as myself **are the wives of Sadducees,** who do not follow in the ways of the *perushim*, **they are scared of the *perushim* and they show** their **blood to the Sages** when an uncertainty arises. The garments of the High Priest are therefore pure, as the Sadducee wives properly observe the *halakhot* of menstruation.


###### Niddah 33b:20
[Niddah 33b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:20)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בְּקִיאִין אָנוּ בָּהֶן יוֹתֵר מִן הַכֹּל, וְהֵן מַרְאוֹת דָּם לַחֲכָמִים, חוּץ מֵאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּשְׁכוּנָתֵינוּ, שֶׁלֹּא הֶרְאָת דָּם לַחֲכָמִים וּמֵתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says: We are familiar with the** wives of Sadducees **more so than everyone** else, as they are our neighbors, **and** I can testify that **they** all **show** their **blood to the Sages, except for a certain woman who was** living **in our neighborhood who did not show** her **blood to the Sages, and she died,** as a punishment for her behavior.


###### Niddah 33b:21
[Niddah 33b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/33b:21)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם צִנּוֹרָא דְּעַם הָאָרֶץ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּצַדּוּקִי חָבֵר. אָמַר רָבָא: צַדּוּקִי חָבֵר בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה מְשַׁוֵּית לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **And let** the High Priest **derive** that his garments are impure **due to the saliva of an *am ha’aretz*,** which imparts impurity. **Abaye said:** That case involved **a Sadducee *ḥaver*,** who was particular with regard to the *halakhot* of ritual purity. **Rava said: Are you equating a Sadducee *ḥaver*** with a man who **engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman?** After all, the High Priest was initially concerned that the Sadducee might engage in intercourse with his wife while she is still menstruating. **Rather, Rava said:**