## Niddah Daf 7a

###### Niddah 7a:1
[Niddah 7a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7a:1)

וְחַלָּתָהּ תְּלוּיָה, לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין. בְּאֵיזֶה סָפֵק אָמְרוּ? בִּסְפֵק חַלָּה. מַאי סְפֵק חַלָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as the ***ḥalla*** of this kneaded, untithed dough is in a state of uncertain purity, its status is **suspended:** It is **neither eaten** like ritually pure *ḥalla*, **nor** is it **burned** like impure *ḥalla*. **With regard to which** uncertainty did **they state** this *halakha*? **With regard to *ḥalla*** of **uncertain** status. The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the concept of ***ḥalla*** of **uncertain** status? This apparently indicates a scenario of possible ritual impurity that applies specifically to *ḥalla*, not to non-sacred food.


###### Niddah 7a:2
[Niddah 7a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7a:2)

אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאמַר בְּהוֹכָחוֹת שָׁנִינוּ כְּמוֹ שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין, דְּהָתָם חוּלִּין גְּרֵידָא נָמֵי מְטַמּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye and Rava both say: One should not say** that **we learned** this case of *ḥalla* of uncertain status among the cases of equal **proofs,** i.e., an unresolvable uncertainty, **such as** the case of **two paths,** where someone walked down one of two paths, one of which was ritually impure and the other ritually pure, and he does not remember which one he walked down. **As there,** even **regular non-sacred** food is **also rendered** ritually **impure** due to uncertainty.


###### Niddah 7a:3
[Niddah 7a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7a:3)

אֶלָּא בְּנִשְׁעָן, דִּתְנַן: זָב וְטָהוֹר שֶׁהָיוּ פּוֹרְקִין מִן הַחֲמוֹר אוֹ טוֹעֲנִין, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּשָּׂאָן כָּבֵד — טָמֵא, מַשָּׂאָן קַל — טָהוֹר, וְכוּלָּן טְהוֹרִין לִבְנֵי הַכְּנֶסֶת, וּטְמֵאִין לִתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the uncertainty referred to here is similar to the less likely case **of leaning, as we learned** in a mishna (*Zavim* 3:2): In a case of **a *zav* and a ritually pure** person **who were unloading** a package **from a donkey or** who were **loading** a package onto a donkey, **when their package** is **heavy** the pure person is rendered **impure,** as perhaps the *zav* leaned on him while they handled the package together. If **their package** is **light,** he remains **pure. And** in **all those** cases, he remains ritually **pure** even if he is one of the **members of a synagogue** whose congregants handle non-sacred food according to the standards of sacrificial food, as this is not a true case of a *zav* moving a pure person. **But** he is **impure with regard to** matters involving ***teruma*,** by rabbinic law.


###### Niddah 7a:4
[Niddah 7a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7a:4)

וְחוּלִּין הַטְּבוּלִין לְחַלָּה כְּחַלָּה דָּמוּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא טְבוּלַת יוֹם, לָשָׁה אֶת הָעִיסָּה, וְקוֹצָה הֵימֶנָּה חַלָּתָהּ, וּמַנִּיחָתָהּ בִּכְפִישָׁה אוֹ בְּאַנְחוּתָא, וּמַקֶּפֶת וְקוֹרָא לָהּ שֵׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is non-sacred** food **that is untithed with regard to** the obligation to separate ***ḥalla*** really **considered like *ḥalla*** to the extent that it is rendered impure even in a case of leaning? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a woman who immersed that day** and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, she may separate *ḥalla*: **She may knead the dough, and separate its *ḥalla* from it, and place** the separated dough **into a wicker basket or a wooden board [*be’anḥuta*], and** subsequently she may **bring** it **near** the rest of the dough, **and** she may then **designate it** *ḥalla* **by name.**


###### Niddah 7a:5
[Niddah 7a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7a:5)

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שְׁלִישִׁי, וּשְׁלִישִׁי טָהוֹר בְּחוּלִּין, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ ״חוּלִּין הַטְּבוּלִין לְחַלָּה כְּחַלָּה דָּמוּ״, הָא טַמֵּיתִנְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: The reason that this is allowed, despite her impurity, is **because** the dough **is** impure by **third**-degree ritual impurity, **and** an item that has **third**-degree impurity is considered **pure with regard to non-sacred** food. The Gemara concludes its question: **And if you say** that **non-sacred** food **that is untithed with regard to** the obligation to separate ***ḥalla*** is **considered like *ḥalla*,** then she should **render it impure** with her touch, just as she would render actual *ḥalla* impure.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל שֶׁוַּדַּאי מְטַמֵּא חוּלִּין — גָּזְרוּ עַל סְפֵקוֹ מִשּׁוּם חוּלִּין הַטְּבוּלִין לְחַלָּה, וְהַאי טְבוּל יוֹם, כֵּיוָן דְּלֹא מְטַמֵּא וַדַּאי חוּלִּין — לֹא גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם חוּלִּין הַטְּבוּלִין לְחַלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says:** With regard to **any** item **that** when it is **definitely** impure **renders non-sacred** food **impure,** as in the case of the *zav*, the Sages **issued a decree** that **its uncertain** impurity should also render non-sacred food items impure, **due to** its status as **non-sacred** food **that is untithed with regard to *ḥalla*. But** with regard to **this** case of **one who immersed that day, since** even when she is **definitely** impure she **does not render non-sacred food impure, they did not issue a decree** that she should render that dough impure **due to** its status as **non-sacred** food **that is untithed with regard to *ḥalla*.**


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

וְהָא מֵעֵת לְעֵת שֶׁבְּנִדָּה, דְּוַדַּאי מְטַמֵּא חוּלִּין — וְלֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל סְפֵקָהּ מִשּׁוּם חוּלִּין הַטְּבוּלִין לְחַלָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** what about the twenty-four-hour **period** of retroactive impurity **of a menstruating woman? As a definitely** impure menstruating woman **renders non-sacred** food **impure and** nevertheless with regard to untithed dough the Sages **did not issue a decree** to treat **her uncertain** impurity as definite impurity **due to** the dough’s status as **non-sacred** food **that is untithed with regard to *ḥalla*.**


###### Niddah 7a:8
[Niddah 7a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7a:8)

דְּאָמַר מָר: קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק, בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת קֹדֶשׁ, וְלֹא בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites its source for this claim: **As the Master said: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak received** from Rav Naḥman: The retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman transmits impurity **to non-sacred** food items **that were prepared according to** the standards of **purity of sacrificial** food, **but not to non-sacred** food items **that were prepared** according to the standards of **purity of *teruma*.** It is assumed that the level of purity required for non-sacred food items prepared according to the standards required of *teruma* is the same as that of dough from which *ḥalla* has not been separated, i.e., it is not treated as real *ḥalla*, which is rendered impure by her retroactive twenty-four-hour period of impurity.


###### Niddah 7a:9
[Niddah 7a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7a:9)

הָתָם לָא פְּתִיכָא בְּהוּ תְּרוּמָה, הָכָא פְּתִיכָא בְּהוּ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The level of purity required for non-sacred food items that were prepared according to the standards of purity of *teruma* is actually lower than the level required for dough from which *ḥalla* has not been separated. The reason is that **there,** in the case of non-sacred food items, there is **no** actual ***teruma* mixed in it.** By contrast, **here,** in the case of untithed dough, there is ***teruma*,** i.e., *ḥalla*, **mixed in it,** which will eventually be separated from this dough.


###### Niddah 7a:10
[Niddah 7a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7a:10)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הַנַּח מֵעֵת לְעֵת — דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** instead: **Leave** aside the twenty-four-hour **period** of retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman, as it applies **by rabbinic law.** One cannot raise a difficulty against the principle that untithed dough is treated with the same level of purity as *ḥalla* from the case of the retroactive impurity of a menstruating woman, since that retroactive impurity is a rabbinic decree, and therefore there is more room for leniency.


###### Niddah 7a:11
[Niddah 7a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/7a:11)

**מַתְנִי'** רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַרְבַּע נָשִׁים דַּיָּין שְׁעָתָן — בְּתוּלָה, מְעוּבֶּרֶת, מְנִיקָה, וּזְקֵינָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אֲנִי לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּתוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Rabbi Eliezer says:** Unlike the women with regard to whom it was taught that they transmit impurity retroactively, there are **four women** who discern menstrual blood and **their time is sufficient,** i.e., they transmit impurity only from the moment that they saw the blood: **A virgin, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, and an elderly woman. Rabbi Yehoshua says: I heard** this *halakha* from my teachers **only** with regard to **a virgin,**