## Niddah Daf 71b

###### Niddah 71b:1
[Niddah 71b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:1)

שֶׁרִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן נִפְסָק. שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה! רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
each **first** drop and every other **first** drop is **separated** from the other drops of blood, i.e., it did not flow in a steady stream. Since the blood initially emerged while he was alive and is pure, every drop of blood which emerged after his death is nullified when it falls into that blood, and therefore the entire puddle of blood is ritually pure. The Gemara asks: **The Rabbis are saying well to Rabbi Yehuda;** how does he respond to their claim? The Gemara answers that **Rabbi Yehuda** conforms **to his** line of **reasoning, as he said: Blood does not nullify blood.**


###### Niddah 71b:2
[Niddah 71b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:2)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: צָלוּב עַל הָעֵץ, שֶׁדָּמוֹ שׁוֹתֵת לָאָרֶץ, וְנִמְצָא תַּחְתָּיו רְבִיעִית דָּם — טָמֵא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַהֵר, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: טִפָּה שֶׁל מִיתָה עוֹמֶדֶת לוֹ עַל גַּב הָעֵץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says:** In the case of one who is **crucified on wood, whose blood** does not drip but **runs** down the wood **to the earth, and a quarter***-log* **of blood is found underneath him,** the blood is **ritually impure. Rabbi Yehuda deems** the blood **ritually pure.** He explains his reasoning: **As I say** that the quarter-*log* of blood found underneath the body came out while he was still alive, and **the drop of** blood that came out after his **death remains on the wood.**


###### Niddah 71b:3
[Niddah 71b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:3)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, נֵימָא אִיהוּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ: שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר ״טִפָּה שֶׁל מִיתָה עוֹמֶדֶת עַל גַּב הַמִּטָּה״! שָׁאנֵי מִטָּה, דִּמְחַלְחֲלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. **And Rabbi Yehuda, let him say to himself** with regard to one who was killed on a bed and his blood is dripping into a hole in the ground: **As I say** that all the blood found underneath the body emerged while he was still alive and **the drop of** blood that came out after his **death remains on the bed.** Why does Rabbi Yehuda deem the blood ritually impure in such a case? The Gemara answers: The case **of the bed is different, as** the blood **seeps** through the bed onto the floor, whereas in the case of one who is crucified some of the blood may remain on the tree.


###### Niddah 71b:4
[Niddah 71b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:4)

**מַתְנִי'** בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַיּוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל דַּם טוֹהַר הָיְתָה מְעָרָה מַיִם לְפֶסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Initially** the Sages **would say,** with regard to a woman who gave birth and observed the seven or fourteen days of impurity for a male or female child, respectively, and then immersed in a ritual bath and **who is observing** the period **of the blood of purity,** that **she would pour water** from a vessel in her hands **to** rinse **the Paschal offering.** Although it is permitted for such a woman to engage in intercourse with her husband, her halakhic status is like that of one who immersed that day and the sun has not yet set. She therefore assumes second-degree ritual impurity and confers third-degree ritual impurity upon *teruma* with which she comes into contact. Consequently, she may touch the vessel, as second-degree ritual impurity does not render a vessel impure. She may not touch the water, as it is designated for rinsing the Paschal offering and therefore it is treated with the sanctity of sacrificial food, which is rendered impure by second-degree ritual impurity.


###### Niddah 71b:5
[Niddah 71b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:5)

חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַגַּע טְמֵא מֵת לְקָדָשִׁים, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַף כִּטְמֵא מֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **then said:** Her status **is like** that of one who came into **contact with one impure** with impurity imparted by **a corpse,** i.e., one with first-degree ritual impurity, who renders **consecrated** items impure. But with regard to all non-sacred items, even non-sacred items treated with the sanctity of sacrificial food, such as the water used to rinse the Paschal offering, she has second-degree ritual impurity. Consequently, it is permitted for her to touch not only the vessel, but the water inside it as well, **in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say:** The status of the woman is **even like** that of one who is **impure** due to contact with **a corpse,** who is a primary source of ritual impurity and renders even a non-sacred vessel impure.


###### Niddah 71b:6
[Niddah 71b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:6)

**גְּמָ'** מְעָרָה — אִין, נוֹגַעַת — לָא. אַלְמָא: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ — כְּקֹדֶשׁ דָּמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches: A woman who gave birth, observed the days of impurity, immersed in a ritual bath, and who is now observing the period of the blood of purity **would pour** water from a vessel in her hands to rinse the Paschal offering. The Gemara infers: Pouring from a vessel, **yes,** this is permitted, but she may **not touch** the water itself. **Apparently, non-sacred** produce, e.g., even liquid such as the water for rinsing the Paschal offering, **that was prepared according to** the level of **ritual purity** required **for sacrificial** food, i.e., with the same stringencies as required for sacrificial food, **is considered like sacrificial** food.


###### Niddah 71b:7
[Niddah 71b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:7)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַגַּע טְמֵא מֵת לְקָדָשִׁים — לְקָדָשִׁים אִין, לְחוּלִּין לָא, אַלְמָא: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ לָאו כְּקֹדֶשׁ דָּמוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But now **say the latter clause** of the mishna: The Sages **then said:** Her status **is like** that of one who came into **contact with one impure** with impurity imparted by **a corpse,** i.e., one with first-degree ritual impurity, who renders **consecrated** items impure. This indicates that **with regard to consecrated** items, **yes,** she renders them impure, but **with regard to non-sacred** items, e.g., the water used to rinse the Paschal offering, she does **not** render them impure. **Apparently, non-sacred** produce **that was prepared according to** the level of **ritual purity** required **for sacrificial** food **is not considered like sacrificial** food.


###### Niddah 71b:8
[Niddah 71b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:8)

מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? אַבָּא שָׁאוּל הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: טְבוּל יוֹם תְּחִילָּה לַקֹּדֶשׁ, לְטַמֵּא שְׁנַיִם וְלִפְסוֹל אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Whose** opinion is expressed in the latter clause of **the mishna? It is** the opinion of **Abba Shaul, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Abba Shaul says:** With regard to **one** who was ritually impure **who immersed that day** and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, he has the status of one who is impure with **first-**degree impurity **with regard to sacrificial** food, in **that** he **renders two** items of sacrificial food **impure, and disqualifies one** additional item. In other words, the first item of sacrificial food that he touches assumes the status of second-degree impurity. A second item that comes into contact with the first item assumes third-degree impurity. A third item that comes into contact with the second assumes fourth-degree impurity and is therefore disqualified from being eaten, but it does not impart impurity to other items.


###### Niddah 71b:9
[Niddah 71b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:9)

**מַתְנִי'** וּמוֹדִים שֶׁהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְקוֹצָה לָהּ חַלָּה, וּמַקֶּפֶת וְקוֹרָא לָהּ שֵׁם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And** Beit Shammai **concede** to Beit Hillel that a woman observing the days of purity **partakes of** second-**tithe** produce, as it is permitted for one who immersed that day to eat second-tithe produce. **And she separates** part of **her** dough as ***ḥalla*, and she draws** the vessel with the part of the dough that she separated **near** the rest of the dough, **and she designates it** with the **name** of *ḥalla*.


###### Niddah 71b:10
[Niddah 71b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:10)

וְאִם נָפַל מֵרוּקָּהּ וּמִדַּם טׇהֳרָהּ עַל כִּכָּר שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה — שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Beit Shammai further concede to Beit Hillel **that if** a drop **from her saliva or from the blood of purity fell onto a loaf of *teruma*,** the loaf **is ritually pure,** as any liquid discharged from the body of one who immersed that day is ritually pure.


###### Niddah 71b:11
[Niddah 71b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:11)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: צְרִיכָה טְבִילָה בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה טְבִילָה בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is another dispute between the *tanna’im* with regard to a woman who completed her days of purity. **Beit Shammai say:** Her immersion at the end of the days of impurity does not render it permitted for her to enter the Temple or to partake of *teruma*; rather, **she requires immersion** even **at the conclusion** of the days of purity. **And Beit Hillel say: She does not require immersion at the conclusion** of the days of purity to render it permitted for her to partake of *teruma*, as the immersion at the end of the days of impurity is sufficient.


###### Niddah 71b:12
[Niddah 71b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:12)

**גְּמָ'** דְּאָמַר מָר: טָבַל וְעָלָה — אוֹכֵל בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that the woman observing the days of purity partakes of second-tithe produce. The Gemara explains that the reason is **as the Master said:** When the period of ritual impurity of a *zav* or leper has been completed, and he **immersed** during the day **and ascended** from the ritual bath, he **may partake of** second **tithe** immediately.


###### Niddah 71b:13
[Niddah 71b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:13)

וְקוֹצָה לָהּ חַלָּה. חוּלִּין הַטְּבוּלִין לְחַלָּה — לָאו כְּחַלָּה דָּמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And she separates** part of **her** dough as ***ḥalla*.** The Gemara explains that **non-consecrated** food that is **untithed produce with regard to *ḥalla*,** as it has not had *ḥalla* separated from it, e.g., this dough from which a piece has been set aside for the future separation of *ḥalla*, **is not considered like *ḥalla*,** and therefore is not rendered impure by the contact of a woman observing the days of purity.


###### Niddah 71b:14
[Niddah 71b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:14)

וּמַקֶּפֶת. דְּאָמַר מָר: מִצְוָה לִתְרוֹם מִן הַמּוּקָּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna also teaches that she **draws** the vessel with the part of the dough that she separated **near** the rest of the dough. The Gemara explains that this is **as the Master said:** It is **a mitzva to separate** *teruma* **from** produce that is situated **nearby** the produce it comes to exempt, *ab initio*.


###### Niddah 71b:15
[Niddah 71b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:15)

וְקוֹרָא לָהּ שֵׁם. סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: נִגְזוֹר, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְמִנְּגַּע בַּהּ מֵאַבָּרַאי? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states: **And she designates it** with the **name** of *ḥalla*. The Gemara explains that it is necessary for the *tanna* to teach this *halakha*, as it might **enter your mind to say: Let us decree lest she comes to touch** the *ḥalla* **from the outside.** Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that there is no such decree.


###### Niddah 71b:16
[Niddah 71b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:16)

וְאִם נָפַל מֵרוּקָּהּ. דִּתְנַן: מַשְׁקֵה טְבוּל יוֹם מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ (כְּמַשְׁקִין) [כְּמַשְׁקֶה] הַנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶם, וְאֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין, חוּץ מִמַּשְׁקֵה הַזָּב שֶׁהוּא אַב הַטּוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And** Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that **if** a drop **from her saliva** or from the blood of purity fell onto a loaf of *teruma*, that the loaf is ritually pure, as any liquid discharged from the body of one who immersed that day is ritually pure. The Gemara explains that the reason is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Tevul Yom* 2:1): The *halakha* with regard to **liquids** that emerge **from one who immersed himself that day** from his state of ritual impurity **is like** that of **liquids that he touches. And** both **these and those,** the liquids that emanated from him and the liquids that he touched, **do not transmit ritual impurity.** This is the *halakha* **except for liquids** that come **from a *zav*, who is a primary source of ritual impurity.**


###### Niddah 71b:17
[Niddah 71b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:17)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא: טְבוּל יוֹם אָרוֹךְ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that **Beit Shammai** say: Her immersion at the end of the days of impurity does not render her permitted; rather, she requires immersion even at the end of the days of purity. And Beit Hillel say: The immersion at the end of the days of impurity is sufficient. The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between them,** i.e., what is the basis of their dispute? **Rav Ketina said:** The difference **between them** is with regard to the status of **one who immersed that day,** i.e., at the end of his time of impurity, and **a long** time has passed since the immersion. Beit Shammai hold that as a long time has passed, i.e., thirty-three days after the birth of a boy or sixty-six days after the birth of a girl, she may not rely on that immersion. Beit Hillel maintain that she may still rely on that initial immersion.


###### Niddah 71b:18
[Niddah 71b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:18)

**מַתְנִי'** הָרוֹאָה יוֹם אַחַד עָשָׂר, וְטָבְלָה לָעֶרֶב, וְשִׁמְּשָׁה —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** There is a dispute with regard to a woman **who sees** blood on the **eleventh day,** which is the final day of the period fit for the flow of a *zava*. It is permitted for her to engage in intercourse with her husband after observing one clean day corresponding to the one day that she saw blood, but in this case, she failed to observe one clean day. Rather, **she immersed** in a ritual bath that **evening,** the eve of the twelfth day, **and** then **engaged in intercourse** with her husband.


###### Niddah 71b:19
[Niddah 71b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/71b:19)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: מְטַמְּאִין מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּקׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Beit Shammai say:** Since she did not observe that corresponding clean day, she retains the status of a *zava*. Therefore both she, the *zava*, and her husband, who engaged in intercourse with a *zava*, **transmit impurity** to items designated for **lying or sitting,** to the extent that these transmit impurity to food and drink that came in contact with them, and in her case, to people as well. **And** each of them is **liable** to bring a sin offering for participating in intercourse involving a *zava*.