📜 Nidda — 6b

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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. § 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. 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. It is taught in a baraita: