## Niddah Daf 6a

###### Niddah 6a:1
[Niddah 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6a:1)

כְּמַגַּע עַצְמָהּ, מָה מַגַּע עַצְמָהּ מְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים, אַף מִשְׁכָּבָהּ וּמוֹשָׁבָהּ מְטַמֵּא אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
are **like** her **touch itself. Just as** her touch **transmits impurity to a person** who comes in contact with them **to** the extent that he **transmits impurity to the garments** he is wearing, **so too** her bed and her chair **transmit impurity to a person** who comes in contact with them **to** the extent that he **transmits impurity to the garments** he is wearing.


###### Niddah 6a:2
[Niddah 6a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6a:2)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָרוֹאָה דָּם — מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת, וּמָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה? מִשְׁכָּבוֹת וּמוֹשָׁבוֹת, אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין, וּכְלִי חֶרֶס הַמּוּקָּף צָמִיד פָּתִיל, וְאֵינָהּ מְקוּלְקֶלֶת לְמִנְיָנָהּ, וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ לְמַפְרֵעַ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מְטַמֵּא אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ, וְאֵינָהּ מוֹנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁרָאֲתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava:** If a woman **sees** menstrual **blood,** it **renders her impure** retroactively **for** a twenty-four-hour **period. And** what does **she render impure** during that period? **Beds and chairs, food and drink, and an earthenware vessel sealed** with **a tightly bound cover [*tzamid patil*],** if she moves it. **But she does not disrupt her count** of the periods of menstruation and *ziva*, i.e., she starts her cycle only from that day when she saw the blood, **and she does not render impure retroactively a man who engaged in intercourse with her. Rabbi Akiva says:** She does **render impure a man who engaged in intercourse with her. And she counts** her seven days of impurity **only from the time that she saw** her menstrual blood, not retroactively.


###### Niddah 6a:3
[Niddah 6a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6a:3)

הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם, מְטַמְּאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ, וּמָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה? אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין, מִשְׁכָּבוֹת וּמוֹשָׁבוֹת, וּכְלִי חֶרֶס הַמּוּקָּף צָמִיד פָּתִיל, וּמְקוּלְקֶלֶת לְמִנְיָנָהּ, וּמְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ, וְאֵינָהּ מוֹנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁרָאֲתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: With regard to a woman **who sees** a blood **stain,** it **renders her impure retroactive** to when the garment was last checked. **And** what does **she render impure** during that period? **Food and drink, beds and chairs, and an earthenware vessel sealed** with **a tightly bound cover,** if she moves it. **And** it also **disrupts her count** of eleven days during which emission of blood renders the woman a *zava*, as the time of the stain is unknown, **and she renders** ritually **impure a man who engaged in intercourse with her. And she counts** her seven days of impurity **only from the time that she saw** her menstrual blood, not retroactively.


###### Niddah 6a:4
[Niddah 6a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6a:4)

וְזֶה וָזֶה תּוֹלִין, לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* further teaches: With regard to both **this,** one who sees menstrual blood, **and that,** one who sees a blood stain, if they had touched *teruma*, its status is **suspended.** It is **not eaten,** as impure *teruma* is prohibited in consumption, **but** it is **not burned** either, since it is prohibited to burn pure *teruma*.


###### Niddah 6a:5
[Niddah 6a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6a:5)

וְרָבָא, אִי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתָא — לֵימָא מַתְנִיתָא, וְאִי לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתָא — קַל וָחוֹמֶר מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **And** as for **Rava,** why is the *halakha* **of** an earthenware vessel more obvious to him than the *halakha* of a bed and a chair? **If he** had **heard** this ***baraita*,** which states the *halakha* of an earthenware vessel, then **let him say** that the ***baraita*** itself is proof for his opinion with regard to a bed and a chair as well, as the *baraita* states both *halakhot*. **And if he** had **not heard** this ***baraita*, from where** did he learn his ***a fortiori*** inference, which is based on the *halakha* that an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly bound cover is not spared from impurity if a menstruating woman moved it during her twenty-four-hour period of retroactive impurity?


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

לְעוֹלָם שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתָא, וְאִי מִמַּתְנִיתָא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אוֹ אָדָם אוֹ בְּגָדִים, אֲבָל אָדָם וּבְגָדִים — לָא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָאָמַר קַל וָחוֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually, he** did **hear** the ***baraita*. But if** his proof had been merely **from the *baraita*, I would say** that a different *halakha* applies to a bed and chair than to the earthenware vessels, as the *baraita* means that the bed and chair render impure **a person or garments** that they touch, **but** they do **not** render **a person** impure to the extent that he then transmits impurity to his **garments.** It is **due to that** reason that Rava **says** the ***a fortiori*** inference.


###### Niddah 6a:7
[Niddah 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6a:7)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁבְּנִדָּה לַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא לַתְּרוּמָה. אִי הָכִי, לִיתְנֵי גַּבֵּי מַעֲלוֹת! כִּי קָתָנֵי הֵיכָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְּטוּמְאָה, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְּטוּמְאָה — לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Huna says:** The twenty-four-hour **period** of retroactive impurity **of** a **menstruating woman** applies only **to sacrificial** food **but not to *teruma*.** The Gemara asks: **If so, let** the mishna in *Ḥagiga* 20b **teach** this **among** the other higher **levels** of purity that apply to sacrificial foods but not to *teruma*. That mishna lists stringencies of ritual purity that are in effect with regard to sacrificial foods and not *teruma*. The Gemara answers: **When** that mishna **teaches** those higher levels of purity, it is referring only to types of impurity **that have a connection [*derara*] to impurity** as defined by Torah law. **But** it **does not teach** a case **where there is no connection to impurity** as defined by Torah law, and the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman is by rabbinic law.


###### Niddah 6a:8
[Niddah 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6a:8)

מֵיתִיבִי: מָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה? אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין. מַאי לָאו, בֵּין דְּקֹדֶשׁ בֵּין דִּתְרוּמָה? לָא, דְּקֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from the aforementioned *baraita* that deals with the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman: What does **she render impure** during that period? **Food and drink.** The Gemara asks: **What, is it not** correct to say that this is referring **both to sacrificial** food **and to *teruma*? The** Gemara answers: **No,** it is referring only **to sacrificial** food, not to *teruma*.


###### Niddah 6a:9
[Niddah 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6a:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף בִּשְׁעַת עֲבָרָתָן מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי דַהֲוָה הֲוָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a mishna (11a): With regard to women of priestly families who must examine themselves before partaking of *teruma*, **Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when they conclude partaking of *teruma*,** they still need to examine themselves. **And we discussed** this statement of Rabbi Yehuda and asked: Why do they need to examine themselves after they finish eating *teruma*? **What was, was;** i.e., if a woman was impure when she ate the *teruma*, what is achieved by an examination now?


###### Niddah 6a:10
[Niddah 6a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6a:10)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְתַקֵּן שִׁירַיִם שֶׁבְּפָנֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **Rav Ḥisda says** in explanation: **It was necessary only** in order **to amend the** situation of the **remaining** *teruma* that is left **before her,** i.e., to prevent it from being rendered ritually impure. In other words, if she later experiences a flow of menstrual blood, her retroactive impurity status will not render the remaining *teruma* impure. This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman affects only sacrificial foods, not *teruma*.


###### Niddah 6a:11
[Niddah 6a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6a:11)

רַב הוּנָא מַתְנֵי לִישְׂרוֹף שִׁירַיִם שֶׁבְּיָדֶיהָ, שֶׁבָּדְקָה עַצְמָהּ כְּשִׁיעוּר וֶסֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: According to **Rav Huna,** Rabbi Yehuda **teaches** that since impure *teruma* must be burned, she must examine herself in order to determine whether it is correct **to burn** the **remaining** *teruma* that was **in her hands.** If she **examined herself** immediately after eating the *teruma*, in the **period of time** needed for the onset of **menstruation** (see 14b), and she found that she was impure, it is assumed as a certainty that she was impure when she ate the *teruma*. Consequently, the remaining *teruma* must be burned, in accordance with the *halakha* of *teruma* that was definitely rendered impure. But in fact, Rav Huna maintains that she does not render that remaining *teruma* impure retroactively, in a case where she did not examine herself.


###### Niddah 6a:12
[Niddah 6a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6a:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מַעֲשֶׂה, וְעָשָׂה רַבִּי כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Come** and **hear** another difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rav Huna from a *baraita*: There was **an incident** in which **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **performed an action** by ruling that the *halakha* **is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.** Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating any longer, and therefore any menstrual blood that she emits later renders her ritually impure only from then onward, but not retroactively. By contrast, the Rabbis contend that this *halakha* applies only to an older woman, for whom it is natural to stop menstruating, but not to a young woman, even if three typical periods have passed without bleeding.


###### Niddah 6a:13
[Niddah 6a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6a:13)

לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר, אָמַר: כְּדַי הוּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לִסְמוֹךְ עָלָיו

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **After** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **remembered** that Rabbi Eliezer’s colleagues disagree with Rabbi Eliezer on this matter and that he had apparently ruled incorrectly, **he** nevertheless **said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy [*kedai*] to rely upon**