## Niddah Daf 6b

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

בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי ״לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר״? אִילֵּימָא לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר דְּאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא כְּרַבָּנַן, בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק הֵיכִי עָבֵיד כְּוָתֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**in exigent circumstances [*bishe’at hadeḥak*]. And we discussed it** and asked: **What is** the meaning of: **After he remembered? If we say** that this means **after he remembered that the *halakha* is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer but in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** if so, **how could** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **act in accordance with** Rabbi Eliezer even **in exigent circumstances,** since the *halakha* has been decided against him?


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

אֶלָּא (לָאו) דְּלָא אִיתְּמַר הִלְכְתָא, לָא כְּמָר וְלָא כְּמָר, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּזְכַּר דְּלָאו יָחִיד פְּלִיג עֲלֵיהּ, אֶלָּא רַבִּים פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ, אָמַר: ״כְּדַי הוּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לִסְמוֹךְ עָלָיו בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** correct that the ***halakha*** had **not been stated** on this matter, **neither in accordance with** the opinion of this **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **nor in accordance with** the opinion of **that Sage,** i.e., the Rabbis. **And once** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **remembered that it was not a single** authority who **disagrees with** Rabbi Eliezer, **but** it was several Sages who **disagreed with him,** and there is a principle that the *halakha* follows the opinion of the many over that of an individual, **he** nevertheless **said: Rabbi Eliezer is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances.**


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

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לִתְרוּמָה, הַיְינוּ דַּהֲוַאי תְּרוּמָה בִּימֵי רַבִּי, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְקֹדֶשׁ — קֹדֶשׁ בִּימֵי רַבִּי מִי הֲוַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof from the *baraita*: **Granted, if you say** that it was a case **of** a menstruating woman who had touched ***teruma*** during the previous twenty-four hours, **this is** fine, **as *teruma*** still **existed in the days of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **But** if you say that it was a case **of** a woman who touched **sacrificial** food, **was there** still **sacrificial** food **in days of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, after the destruction of the Temple? Clearly, the case involved *teruma*, and according to the Rabbis, whose opinion is accepted as *halakha*, this woman who had skipped three menstrual cycles nevertheless renders *teruma* impure retroactively. This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna.


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

כִּדְעוּלָּא, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: חַבְרַיָּא מְדַכַּן בְּגָלִילָא. הָכָא נָמֵי בִּימֵי רַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This can be answered **in accordance with** the testimony **of Ulla, as Ulla said: *Ḥaverim* purify** their wine and oil **in the Galilee,** i.e., they produce their wine and oil by the standards of purity used for sacrificial food, in the hope that the Temple will be rebuilt in their lifetime. **Here, too, in the days of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi there were those who kept the standards of purity observed for sacrificial food.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁפְחָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיְתָה אוֹפָה כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וּבֵין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מְדִיחָה יָדָהּ בְּמַיִם וּבוֹדֶקֶת, בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טְמֵאָה, וּבָאת וְשָׁאֲלָה אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְאָמַר לָהּ: כּוּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, וַהֲלֹא בְּדִיקָה הָיְתָה לִי בֵּין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת! אָמַר לָהּ: אִם כֵּן, הִיא טְמֵאָה וְכוּלָּן טְהוֹרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: There was **an incident involving the maidservant of Rabban Gamliel, who was baking loaves of *teruma*** bread. **And in between each and every one she** would **wash her hand in water and examine** herself. **After** the **last** one she **examined** herself **and found** that she was **impure** due to menstrual blood, **and she came and asked Rabban Gamliel** about the status of the loaves. **And he said to her: They are all impure,** due to her retroactive impurity for the previous twenty-four hours. **She said to him: My teacher, didn’t I perform an examination in between each and every one?** Rabban Gamliel **said to her: If so,** then **this** last one is **impure and** the rest are **all pure,** as your retroactive impurity is reduced until the time of the most recent examination.


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

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. מַאי תְּרוּמָה? תְּרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה. תְּרוּמַת לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה בַּאֲפִיָּה מַאי בָּעֲיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty: **In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches** that the case involved **loaves of *teruma*** bread. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rabban Gamliel applied retroactive impurity in a case of *teruma*. The Gemara answers: What is meant by: *Teruma*? It means ***teruma* of the loaves of the thanks offering,** i.e., the four loaves of the thanks offering that were separated from the total of forty and eaten by the priests. These are sacrificial foods, not *teruma*. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this interpretation: **What** was she **doing baking the *teruma* of the loaves of the thanks offering** alone? All forty loaves of the thanks offering are baked together, and only afterward are four set aside as *teruma* to be eaten by priests.


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

דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּלֵישַׁיְיהוּ, וְכִי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב טוֹבִי בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא: לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה שֶׁאֲפָאָן אַרְבַּע חַלּוֹת — יָצָא, וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: וְהָא בָּעֵינַן אַרְבָּעִים! לְמִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case **where** dough for the *teruma* loaves **was separated** and designated for the priests **during its kneading. And** this *halakha* is **in accordance with that which Rav Tovi bar Rav Ketina said:** If **one baked the loaves of the thanks offering as four loaves,** rather than the requisite forty loaves, **he has fulfilled** his obligation. **And we discussed it** and asked: **Isn’t one required** to bring **forty** loaves with the thanks offering, ten loaves of each of the four different types? The Gemara answers: One must bake forty loaves in order **to** fulfill the **mitzva** in the optimal fashion, but he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation with four loaves, one of each type.


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

וְהָא בָּעֵינַן אַפְרוֹשֵׁי תְּרוּמָה מִינַּיְיהוּ! וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּמַפְרֵישׁ פְּרוּסָה מִכׇּל חַד וְחַד, ״אֶחָד״ אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא, שֶׁלֹּא יִטּוֹל פְּרוּסָה, וְאָמְרִינַן דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּלֵישַׁיְיהוּ, הָכָא נָמֵי דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּלֵישַׁיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its answer by further elucidating the statement of Rav Tovi bar Rav Ketina. And we asked with regard to this opinion: **But he is required to separate *teruma* from it,** i.e., to designate one loaf from each type that is given to the priests. **And if you would say that he separates a slice from each one** of the four loaves and gives them to the priest, this cannot be the case, as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: “And of it he shall present **one** out of each offering for a gift to the Lord; it shall be the priest’s” (Leviticus 7:14). The word “one” indicates **that he may not take a slice,** but rather he takes a complete loaf. The Gemara answers: Rather, **we** must **say** that he **separated** dough for the *teruma* loaves **during its kneading. Here too, in** the incident involving Rabban Gamliel’s maidservant, she **separated** the dough **during its kneading.**


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: שׁוּב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁפְחָה שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שֶׁהָיְתָה גָּפָה חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן, וּבֵין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מְדִיחָה יָדֶיהָ בְּמַיִם וּבוֹדֶקֶת, וּבָאַחֲרוֹנָה בָּדְקָה וּמָצְאָה טְמֵאָה, וּבָאת וְשָׁאֲלָה לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְאָמַר לָהּ: כּוּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. אָמְרָה לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא בְּדִיקָה הָיְתָה לִי בֵּין כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת! אֲמַר לַהּ: אִם כֵּן, הִיא טְמֵאָה וְכוּלָּן טְהוֹרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: There was **another incident involving the maidservant of Rabban Gamliel who was sealing barrels of wine. And in between each and every one she** would **wash her hands in water and examine** herself. **And after the last** one **she examined** herself **and found** that she was ritually **impure, and she came and asked Rabban Gamliel** about the wine. **And he said to her: They are all impure. She said to him:** My teacher, **didn’t I perform an examination in between each and every one?** Rabban Gamliel **said to her: If so, this** last one is **impure and** the rest are **all pure.**


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

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא חֲדָא דְּקֹדֶשׁ, וַחֲדָא דִּתְרוּמָה הִיא, הַיְינוּ דְּהָדְרָה וְשָׁיְילָה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּקֹדֶשׁ, לְמָה לַהּ לְמֶהְדַּר וּלְשַׁיּוֹלֵיהּ? מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה — בִּשְׁתֵּי שְׁפָחוֹת הָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the difficulty with regard to Rav Huna’s opinion: **Granted, if you say** that **one** incident involved a case **of sacrificial** food **and one** incident involved a case **of *teruma*, this is** the reason **that she returned and** again **asked** Rabban Gamliel what to do. **But if you say** that both **this** incident **and that** incident **involved sacrificial** food, **why** did **she** need **to return and ask him** the same question a second time? The Gemara answers: Each **incident that occurred was** with sacrificial food and they happened **with two** different **maidservants.**


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

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁבְּנִדָּה מְטַמְּאָה בֵּין לַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין לַתְּרוּמָה. מִמַּאי? מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ גַּבֵּי מַעֲלוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: וְהָא תָּנֵי תַּנָּא לַקֹּדֶשׁ אֲבָל לֹא לַתְּרוּמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say another version** of Rav Huna’s statement. **Rav Huna says:** During the twenty-four-hour **period of** retroactive impurity of **a menstruating woman,** she **renders impure** both **sacrificial** food and ***teruma*.** The Gemara asks: **From where** is this derived? The Gemara answers: It can be inferred **from** the fact **that** the mishna in *Ḥagiga* (20b) **does not teach** this matter **among** the other matters where higher **levels** of purity are required only for sacrificial foods but not for *teruma*. **Rav Naḥman said to** Rav Huna: **But doesn’t** the ***tanna*** explicitly **teach** in a *baraita*: The retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman applies only **with regard to sacrificial** food but **not with regard to *teruma*?**


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

קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קֹדֶשׁ, וְלֹא בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak received** the following explanation **from** Rav Naḥman: The *baraita* means that this retroactive impurity applies **to non-sacred** food **that was prepared according to** the standards of **purity of sacrificial** food, **but not to non-sacred** food **that was prepared** according to the standards of **purity of *teruma*.** It does apply to *teruma* itself.


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

תְּנַן הָתָם: נוֹלַד לָהּ סְפֵק טוּמְאָה, עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּלְגְּלָה — תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטוּמְאָה, מִשֶּׁגִּלְגְּלָה — תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטׇהֳרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to a non-sacred food prepared according to the standards of purity of *teruma*, **we learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Ḥalla* 3:2): In a case of dough where **uncertainty developed** as to whether it was **ritually impure,** if the uncertainty developed **before it was kneaded, it may be prepared** even **in** definite **impurity,** i.e., with impure vessels. If it developed **after it was kneaded, it** must **be prepared in purity.**


###### Niddah 6b:14
[Niddah 6b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6b:14)

עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּלְגְּלָהּ — תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטוּמְאָה, חוּלִּין נִינְהוּ, וּמוּתָּר לִגְרוֹם טוּמְאָה לְחוּלִּין שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל; מִשֶּׁגִּלְגְּלָה — תֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטׇהֳרָה, חוּלִּין הַטְּבוּלִין לְחַלָּה כְּחָלָה דָּמוּ, וְאָסוּר לִגְרוֹם טוּמְאָה לְחַלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* elaborates: **Before it was kneaded it may be prepared** even **in** definite **impurity** because **it is non-sacred** food, **and** the *halakha* is that it is **permitted to cause impurity to non-sacred food in Eretz Yisrael. After it was kneaded it** must **be prepared in purity,** since **non-sacred** food **that is untithed with regard to** the obligation to separate ***ḥalla*,** i.e., its *ḥalla* has not yet been separated, **is considered like *ḥalla*, and** it is **prohibited to cause impurity to *ḥalla*.**


###### Niddah 6b:15
[Niddah 6b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/6b:15)

תָּנָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **taught** in a *baraita*: