## Niddah Daf 62b

###### Niddah 62b:1
[Niddah 62b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:1)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִידֵּי בִּקְפִידָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi,** with regard to his statement: **Does** the **matter** of purity or impurity **depend on** whether or not one is **particular** about the blood stain? If the items he handled on the garment between the first and second washings are ritually pure, then any items he handled after the second washing should likewise be pure.


###### Niddah 62b:2
[Niddah 62b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר: דַּם הַנִּדָּה וַדַּאי — מַעֲבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין, וּמְבַטְּלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to him: Yes,** the status of purity depends upon whether or not the owner of the garment is particular about the stain. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Ḥiyya says:** If one finds **blood** on a garment that is **certainly from a menstruating woman** and therefore renders the garment impure, one **may apply** the **seven substances** listed in the mishna **to it and** thereby **nullify it** from being considered a blood stain at all, even if the stain is not completely removed. And he may then immerse the garment in a ritual bath and it is ritually pure.


###### Niddah 62b:3
[Niddah 62b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:3)

וְאַמַּאי? הָא דַּם נִדָּה הוּא! אַלְמָא בִּקְפֵידָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, הָכִי נָמֵי בִּקְפֵידָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi analyzes this ruling: **But why** is the garment pure? After all, **it** has **blood from a menstruating woman** on it. **Evidently,** the **matter** of whether or not it is ritually pure **depends upon** whether or not the owner of the garment **is particular** about the blood stain. **So too** here, the **matter** of whether or not it is ritually pure **depends upon** whether or not the owner of the garment **is particular** about the blood stain.


###### Niddah 62b:4
[Niddah 62b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:4)

תְּנַן הָתָם: חֲרָסִין שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן זָב, שֶׁבָּלְעוּ מַשְׁקִין, וְנָפְלוּ לַאֲוִיר הַתַּנּוּר, וְהוּסַּק הַתַּנּוּר — הַתַּנּוּר טָמֵא, שֶׁסּוֹף מַשְׁקֶה לָצֵאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **there** (see *Kelim* 9:5): In a case of **pottery,** i.e., a chamber pot, **that a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [*zav*] has used** and **that has absorbed** impure **liquids** from the *zav*, **and** it then **fell into the air of an oven, and the oven was** subsequently **heated, the oven is impure, as** the impure **liquid will eventually emerge** from the chamber pot due to the heat of the oven.


###### Niddah 62b:5
[Niddah 62b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:5)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מַשְׁקִין קַלִּים, אֲבָל מַשְׁקִין חֲמוּרִין — טָמֵא, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הוּסַּק הַתַּנּוּר. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֶחָד מַשְׁקִין קַלִּין וְאֶחָד מַשְׁקִין חֲמוּרִין, אִם הוּסַּק הַתַּנּוּר — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *amora’im* disagree with regard to the correct interpretation of this mishna. **Reish Lakish says: They taught** that the oven is impure once it is heated **only** with regard to **liquids** of **lesser** ritual impurity, i.e., that are not primary sources of impurity, such as the tears or urine of one who was rendered impure by contact with a corpse. **But** with regard to **liquids** of **greater** ritual impurity, e.g., urine of a *zav* or *zava*, the oven is **impure even though the oven was not heated. Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **both liquids** of **lesser** ritual impurity **and liquids** of **greater** ritual impurity that fell into an oven, **if the oven was heated,** then **yes,** the oven is impure, but **if** the oven was **not** heated, it is **not** impure.


###### Niddah 62b:6
[Niddah 62b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:6)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הִטְבִּילוֹ, וְעָשָׂה עַל גַּבָּיו טְהָרוֹת, וְהֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין וְלֹא עָבַר — הֲרֵי זֶה צֶבַע, וְטׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְהוֹרוֹת, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַטְבִּיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish** from the mishna: If **one immersed** the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown, **and** then **handled ritually pure items with** the garment, and then **applied** these **seven substances to** the stain **and it did not disappear, that** stain **is** presumably from **a dye, and** therefore **the ritually pure items are ritually pure, and he need not immerse** the garment again, as there is no impurity. Rabbi Yoḥanan understands that the stain is not definitely from a dye; even if it is from blood, such blood that is absorbed into the garment to the degree that it does not come out after this process is performed, does not impart ritual impurity. The same should apply in the case of the oven, i.e., the liquids should impart impurity only when the oven is heated and they actually emerge.


###### Niddah 62b:7
[Niddah 62b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִכְתָמִים דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan in response: **Leave** aside blood **stains,** i.e., one cannot cite a proof from them, as they impart impurity **by rabbinic law,** and for this reason the Sages were lenient and ruled that they do not impart impurity until they actually emerge. But with regard to liquids that are impure by Torah law, the *halakha* is different.


###### Niddah 62b:8
[Niddah 62b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:8)

וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: דַּם הַנִּדָּה וַדַּאי — מַעֲבִיר עָלָיו שִׁבְעָה סַמָּנִין וּמְבַטְּלוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan raises another objection to Reish Lakish: **But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach:** If one finds **blood** on a garment that is **certainly from a menstruating woman** and therefore renders the garment impure, one **may apply** the **seven substances** listed in the mishna **to it and nullify** the stain from being considered a blood stain at all, even if the stain is not entirely removed; and he may then immerse the garment in a ritual bath and it is ritually pure?


###### Niddah 62b:9
[Niddah 62b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי לֹא שָׁנָה, רַבִּי חִיָּיא מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan in response: You cannot raise an objection to me from the *baraita* of Rabbi Ḥiyya, since if **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **did not teach** this *halakha* in the Mishna, **from where** did **Rabbi Ḥiyya** learn it? Rabbi Ḥiyya was a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and therefore he could not have included a *halakha* that contradicts the Mishna. Consequently, this statement in his name must be erroneous.


###### Niddah 62b:10
[Niddah 62b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:10)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רְבִיעִית דָּם שֶׁנִּבְלַע בַּבַּיִת — הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי — הָא בְּכֵלִים דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא, הָא בְּכֵלִים דְּבַסּוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish** from a mishna (*Oholot* 3:2): With regard to **a quarter**-*log* **of blood** from a corpse **that was absorbed in** the floor of **a house,** every vessel in **the house is ritually impure** by virtue of being under the same roof as the blood. The Gemara parenthetically notes: **And some say** that the mishna states that every vessel in **the house is ritually pure. And** these two statements **do not disagree,** as **this** first statement was issued **in** reference to **vessels that** were in the house **at the outset,** before the blood became absorbed; and **this** second statement was issued **in** reference to **vessels that** came into the house **at the end,** after the blood had already been absorbed.


###### Niddah 62b:11
[Niddah 62b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:11)

נִבְלְעָה בִּכְסוּת, אִם מִתְכַּבֶּסֶת וְיוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית דָּם — טְמֵאָה, וְאִם לָאו — טְהוֹרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: In a case where the blood **was absorbed in a garment,** it is examined. **If** the garment **is washed and a quarter**-*log* **of blood emerges from it, it is ritually impure** and it imparts impurity to the vessels in the house as well. **But if not,** then **it is pure,** and it does not impart impurity. Apparently, only blood that can be removed from a garment is considered blood, whereas blood absorbed in the garment is insignificant. This is in accordance with the opinion that an absorbed substance does not impart ritual impurity, even if it can be removed in some manner.


###### Niddah 62b:12
[Niddah 62b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:12)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִקּוּלֵּי רְבִיעִיּוֹת שָׁנוּ כָּאן, שָׁאנֵי דַּם תְּבוּסָה דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana said** in response: **They taught here** a *halakha* **from** among **the leniencies** that apply to the measurement **of a quarter-***log*. That is, this case **is different,** as the mishna is referring to **the blood of submission** discharged from a body at the time of death, and such blood is ritually impure **by rabbinic law.** But in general, a ritually impure liquid that is absorbed into an item does impart impurity.


###### Niddah 62b:13
[Niddah 62b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:13)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַבָּלוּעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לָצֵאת — טָהוֹר. הָא יָכוֹל לָצֵאת — טָמֵא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא נָפֵיק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan** from a mishna (*Oholot* 3:2): **Any** liquid **that is absorbed** but **that is unable to emerge is pure.** Reish Lakish infers from this mishna that if **it is able to emerge it is impure, and** that this is the *halakha* **even though it has not** yet **emerged.**


###### Niddah 62b:14
[Niddah 62b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:14)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאֵין יָכוֹל לָצֵאת, וְלֹא הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טָהוֹר; יָכוֹל לָצֵאת וְהִקְפִּיד עָלָיו — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** in defense of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: **Anywhere that** the liquid **is unable to emerge and** the owner of the garment **is not particular about it,** i.e., he is not bothered that this liquid is absorbed within the garment, **everyone,** i.e., both Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, **agrees** that the garment **is pure.** If the liquid **is able to emerge and** the owner of the garment **is particular about it** and does not want it in his garment, **everyone agrees** that the garment **is impure.**


###### Niddah 62b:15
[Niddah 62b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/62b:15)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי דְּיָכוֹל לָצֵאת וְלֹא הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו, מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּיָכוֹל לָצֵאת, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הִקְפִּיד עָלָיו, וּמָר סָבַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּיָכוֹל לָצֵאת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They disagree when** the liquid **is able to emerge and** the owner **is not particular about it.** One **Sage,** Reish Lakish, **holds** that **since** the liquid **is able to emerge, even though** the owner **is not particular about it,** the garment is impure. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, **holds** that **even though** the liquid **is able to emerge,**