Niddah 13

וחלתה תלויה לא אוכלין ולא שורפין

Its dough-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it was prepared in cleanness. ');">¹</span>

באיזה ספק אמרו

is in a suspended condition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the doubt that had arisen earlier before the offering had been set aside. ');">²</span>

בספק חלה

and it may neither be eaten nor burned. In respect of what doubt did they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis. ');">³</span>

מאי ספק חלה

give this ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the dough-offering is in a suspended state of uncleanness. ');">⁴</span>

אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו

In respect of a doubt applicable to the dough-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not to common food, hullin (v. Glos.). This is explained presently. ');">⁵</span>

שלא תאמר בהוכחות שנינו כמו שני שבילין דהתם חולין גרידא נמי מטמו אלא בנשען

What is meant by 'a doubt applicable to the dough-offering'? — Both Abaye and Raba explained: That one should not assume that the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning the uncleanness of the dough. ');">⁶</span>

דתנן

applies only to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we learnt'. ');">⁷</span>

זב וטהור שהיו פורקין מן החמור או טוענין

a case of likely uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'evidences'. ');">⁸</span>

בזמן שמשאן כבד טמא משאן קל טהור וכולן טהורין לבני הכנסת וטמאין לתרומה

such as that of the two paths,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of which was clean and the other unclean, and a person walked through one of them and it is unknown which one it was (Rashi). For a different interpretation cf. Tosaf. ');">⁹</span>

וחולין הטבולין לחלה כחלה דמו

for in that case even mere common food contracts uncleanness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is applicable to common food which is prepared under conditions of levitical purity. Much more then would this uncleanness apply to the common food from which dough-offering must be, set aside, and the ruling would he superfluous. ');">¹⁰</span>

והתניא

but that it applies also in the case

אשה שהיא טבולת יום לשה את העיסה וקוצה הימנה חלתה ומניחתה בכפישה או באנחותא ומקפת וקורא לה שם מפני שהוא שלישי ושלישי טהור בחולין

actual <i>terumah</i> which is subject to the same restrictions as hallowed things where only 'leaning' might be assumed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. (cf. next n. but one) where the likelihood of uncleanness is rather remote and not applicable to common food prepared under conditions of levitical purity. ');">¹¹</span>

ואי אמרת חולין הטבולין לחלה כחלה דמו הא טמיתנהו

for we learnt: If a <i>zab</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹²</span>

אמר אביי

and a clean person were unloading an ass or loading it, if the load was heavy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is possible that on account of its heavy weight one of the men leaned on the other and was thus shaken by him, 'shaking' (hesset) being a means of conveying the uncleanness of a zab (cf. Rashi and Tosaf. Asheri). ');">¹³</span>

כל שודאי מטמא חולין גזרו על ספקו משום חולין הטבולין לחלה

[the latter] is unclean; if it was light<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. ');">¹⁴</span>

והאי טבול יום כיון דלא מטמא ודאי חולין לא גזרו עליו משום חולין הטבולין לחלה

he is clean and in either case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and all of them', i.e., even in the case of a heavy load (Rashi); a light load (Tosaf.). ');">¹⁵</span>

והא מעת לעת שבנדה דודאי מטמא חולין ולא גזרו על ספקה משום חולין הטבולין לחלה

he is regarded as clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since (a) there might have been no shaking at all and (b) if there was it could not obviously have been a proper shaking. ');">¹⁶</span>

דאמר מר

[even if he is] of the members of the Synagogue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who observe levitical cleanness in common food also. ');">¹⁷</span>

קבלה מיניה רב שמואל בר רב יצחק בחולין שנעשו על טהרת קדש ולא בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה

but as unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbinically. ');">¹⁸</span>

התם לא פתיכא בהו תרומה הכא פתיכא בהו תרומה

in respect of <i>terumah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zabin III, 2. Similarly in the case of the dough-offering under discussion the expression 'a doubt applicable to the dough-offering' means a doubtful uncleanness that does not apply to members of the Synagogue in respect of common food but applies to common food from which the dough-offering has to be taken. ');">¹⁹</span>

ואיבעית אימא

and 'unconsecrated food that is in a condition of <i>tebel</i> in respect of the dough-offering' is regarded as dough-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is in the same category as terumah and consequently subject to uncleanness arising from doubtful leaning. ');">²⁰</span>

הנח מעת לעת דרבנן

But have we not learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M and marg. n. Cur. edd., 'it was taught'. ');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> רבי אליעזר אומר ארבע נשים דיין שעתן

A woman who is a tebulath yom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Fem. of tebul yom (v. Glos.). ');">²²</span>

בתולה מעוברת מניקה וזקינה

may<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though she, as cleanness could not be completely attained before sunset, is still subject to an uncleanness of the second grade. ');">²³</span>

אמר רבי יהושע

knead her dough and cut off from it its dough-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without designating it as such, so that it still retains its status of common food. ');">²⁴</span>

אני לא שמעתי אלא בתולה

and put it on an inverted basket of palm-twigs or on a board,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. on an object that is not susceptible to ritual uncleanness. Neither the board, nor the basket in its inverted position, has a receptacle, and it is only 'vessels' with proper receptacles that are susceptible to uncleanness. ');">²⁵</span> and then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the dough-offering when being set aside must be close to the dough for which it is offered. ');">²⁶</span> bring it close [to the major portion of the dough] and designate it [as dough-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By that time the uncleanness of the woman can no longer be imparted to it since the object on which it rests (cf. prev. n. but one) intervenes. ');">²⁷</span> this procedure being permitted] because the uncleanness of the dough<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it'; that had been touched by the woman who (v. supra) is of the second grade of uncleanness. ');">²⁸</span> is only of the third grade,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A clean object touched by an unclean one being always (with some exceptions) subject to a grade of uncleanness that is by one grade lower than the latter. ');">²⁹</span> and the third grade is regarded as clean in common food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' T.Y. IV, 2; such as the dough is presumably before the dough-offering had been taken from it. ');">³⁰</span> Now if you were to maintain that 'common food that is in a condition of <i>tebel</i> in respect of the dough-offering is regarded as dough-offering' [the objection would arise:] Did she not in fact convey uncleanness to it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When she first touched it. What then was the use of the entire procedure and precaution after that? ');">³¹</span> — Said Abaye: In regard to any object,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such, e.g., as the load carried by a zab. ');">³²</span> that conveys certain uncleanness to common food, uncleanness has been imposed as a preventive measure, even in a doubtful case, where common food that is in a condition of <i>tebel</i> in respect of the dough-offering is concerned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of'. ');">³³</span> but in regard to the woman who is a tebulath yom, since she does not convey certain uncleanness to common food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A third grade of uncleanness, as stated supra, being regarded as clean. ');">³⁴</span> no uncleanness has been imposed as a preventive measure in a doubtful case where common food that is in a condition of <i>tebel</i> in respect of the dough-offering is concerned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of'. ');">³³</span> But is there not the case of the retrospective uncleanness of the twenty-four hours [preceding the observation] of a menstrual flow which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the actual period of the flow. ');">³⁵</span> conveys certain uncleanness to common food and in connection with which, nevertheless, no uncleanness has been imposed as a preventive measure in a case of doubt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., during the twenty-four hours preceding the observation of the flow when the uncleanness is only doubtful. ');">³⁶</span> where common food that is in a condition of <i>tebel</i> in respect of the dough-offering is concerned;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of'. ');">³³</span> for has not the Master said, 'R. Samuel son of R. Isaac accepted from him this [teaching, and explained it] as applying to common food that was prepared under conditions of hallowed things and not to common food that was prepared in conditions of terumah'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 6b ad fin. 'Common food that was prepared in conditions of terumah' being presumably in an analogous position to 'common food that is in a condition of tebel in respect of the dough-offering' both should be subject to the same restrictions. Why then was the former exempted from the restriction while the latter was subjected to it? ');">³⁷</span> — In the former case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. Lit., 'there'. ');">³⁸</span> no <i>terumah</i> is kneaded up with the common food<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in them'. ');">³⁹</span> but in the latter case <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the dough-offering. ');">⁴⁰</span> is kneaded up with the dough.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter must consequently be subject to greater restrictions. ');">⁴¹</span> And if you prefer I might reply: Leave out of the question the retrospective uncleanness of the twenty-four hours, since it is merely a Rabbinical measure. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. R. ELIEZER RULED: IN THE CASE OF FOUR CLASSES OF WOMEN IT SUFFICES [FOR THEM TO RECKON] THEIR [PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME [OF THEIR DISCOVERING OF THE FLOW]: A VIRGIN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');">⁴²</span> A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');">⁴²</span> A NURSING WOMAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');">⁴²</span> AND AN OLD WOMAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');">⁴²</span> R. JOSHUA SAID: I HAVE ONLY HEARD [THE RULING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Eliezer that IT SUFFICES etc. ');">⁴³</span> APPLIED TO] A VIRGIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not to the other three classes. ');">⁴⁴</span>