Or perhaps it is because she was touching the semen, and if so she has not thereby negated her count, just as a zav does not negate his count if he touches semen.

Rava says: Commensurate with the sharpness of Rami bar Ḥama is the extent of his error, as this is not a dilemma at all, since even if one could suggest that a zava who discharges semen has indeed negated her count, one must ask: How much should she negate? If one suggests she should negate all seven days of her counting, this is untenable, as it is enough for her that she should negate her count like the man who engages in intercourse with her, i.e., like a zav who discharges semen, who negates only one day.

And if one suggests that she should negate one day alone, this too is untenable, as the Merciful One states: “But if she is purified from her ziva then she shall count to herself seven days, and after that she shall be pure” (Leviticus 15:28). The word “after” indicates that she shall be pure only after all of them, i.e., after seven consecutive clean days, such that there should be no impurity separating between them. If so, there cannot be a situation where a zava negates a single day, and consequently it cannot be that a zava who discharges semen negates any part of her count.

The Gemara rejects Rava’s response: And according to your reasoning, how does a zav himself negate only one day from his count due to a seminal emission? After all, the Merciful One states: “And when the zav is purified of his ziva, then he shall count for himself seven days for his purification, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be pure” (Leviticus 15:13). The phrase: “Seven days for his purification,” indicates that there should be no impurity separating between them.

Rather, what have you to say? The verse means only that there should not be an impurity of ziva separating between them. Here too, with regard to a zava, the verse means only that there should not be an impurity of ziva separating between them; a discharge of semen is not included in this restriction. It is therefore possible that a discharge of semen from a zava negates only one day from her count. Accordingly, the dilemma raised by Rami bar Ḥama remains in place.

§ The mishna teaches: But one who enters the Temple while wearing those garments upon which a Samaritan had lain is not liable to bring an offering for entering the Temple, nor does one burn teruma that came into contact with those garments, because their impurity is uncertain. In connection to these halakhot, the Gemara relates that Rav Pappa happened to come to the city of Tavakh. He said: If there is a Torah scholar here I will go and greet him. A certain elderly woman said to him: There is a Torah scholar here and Rav Shmuel is his name, and he teaches mishnayot; may it be God’s will that you should be like him.

Rav Pappa said to himself: From the fact that they bless me through this Rav Shmuel that I should be like him, I may conclude from it that he is a God-fearing individual. Rav Pappa went to visit him, and Rav Shmuel raised a bull for him, i.e., he slaughtered a bull in honor of Rav Pappa, and he also raised a difficulty between two mishnayot that apparently contradict one another: We learn in the mishna: One who enters the Temple while wearing those garments upon which a Samaritan had lain is not liable to bring an offering for entering the Temple, nor does one burn teruma that came into contact with those garments, because their impurity is uncertain. Evidently, we do not burn teruma due to uncertain impurity.

And one can raise a contradiction from another mishna (Teharot 4:5): For six cases of uncertain impurity one burns the teruma if it came into contact with them, or if a person came into contact with them and subsequently touched the teruma. One of these is for the uncertain case of the garments of one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [am ha’aretz]. Such garments impart impurity through contact and through carrying, due to a concern that the wife of the am ha’aretz might have sat on them while she was menstruating. Evidently, one burns teruma due to uncertain impurity.

Rav Pappa began his response with a supplication and said: May it be God’s will that this bull shall be eaten peacefully, i.e., that I will provide a satisfactory resolution of this contradiction. Since the bull was slaughtered in my honor, failing to resolve the contradiction might spoil the meal. Rav Pappa continued: Here we are dealing with a Samaritan who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes [ḥaver]. There is therefore less concern with regard to his ritual purity than that of an am ha’aretz. Consequently, the mishna here states that teruma is not burned on account of him.

Rav Shmuel rejected this response: Since the mishna is referring to men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, are you equating a Samaritan ḥaver with a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman?

Rav Pappa left Rav Shmuel in embarrassment and came before Rav Shimi bar Ashi, to whom he related this incident. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: What is the reason that you did not respond to him that the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a Samaritan who immersed in a ritual bath and arose from his impure status, and subsequently trod on the garments of a ḥaver, which means they are now considered the bedding of the Samaritan, and then those garments of the ḥaver went and touched teruma? In such a case one does not burn the teruma.

As, if one would say to burn it due to the impurity of an am ha’aretz, he has immersed in a ritual bath. And if one were to suggest that it should be burned because the Samaritan is one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman, this too is an unsatisfactory reason. This is because it is uncertain whether he recently engaged in intercourse with his wife, in which case his immersion does not remove his impurity; and it is uncertain whether he did not recently engage in intercourse with his wife, in which case he is in fact pure.

And even if you say that he recently engaged in intercourse with his wife, another uncertainty remains: It is uncertain whether his wife began counting seven days from an emission of green blood and ignored any subsequent emission of red blood and completed her count for the green blood, which would mean that she was in fact a menstruating woman when she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband; and it is uncertain whether she did not complete a count of seven days from the emission of the green blood, rather from the emission of red blood, in which case she was not a menstruating woman when her husband engaged in intercourse with her. And therefore this is a compound uncertainty, and there is a principle that one does not burn teruma on account of a compound uncertainty.

Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rav Shimi bar Ashi: And let one derive that the garments of the ḥaver are impure because they came into contact with the garments of an am ha’aretz. As the Master said: The garments of an am ha’aretz are considered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, which means they impart impurity to people and to garments, for individuals who are scrupulous with regard to impurity [perushin]. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: The mishna is referring to a naked Samaritan. Consequently, none of his garments came into contact with the garments of the ḥaver.

MISHNA: With regard to Sadducee girls, when they were accustomed to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors their status is like that of Samaritan women, whose halakha was discussed in the previous mishna. If the Sadducee women abandoned the customs of their ancestors in order to follow in the ways of the Jewish people their status is like that of a Jewish woman. Rabbi Yosei says: Their status is always like that of a Jewish woman, until they will abandon the ways of the Jewish people in order to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors.

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha in an unspecified case, i.e., when the custom of a Sadducee woman is unknown? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear evidence from the mishna: With regard to Sadducee girls, when they are accustomed to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors their status is like that of Samaritan women. It can be inferred from the mishna that in an unspecified case their status is like that of a Jewish woman. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Say the latter clause: If the Sadducee women abandoned the customs of their ancestors in order to follow in the ways of the Jewish people their status is like that of a Jewish woman. One may infer from this that in an unspecified case their status is like that of Samaritan women. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the last clause of the mishna, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: Their status is always like that of a Jewish woman, until they will abandon the ways of the Jewish people in order to follow in the ways of their Sadducee ancestors. By inference, one may conclude that the first tanna holds that in an unspecified case their status is like that of Samaritan women. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is the case.

§ The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who was conversing with the High Priest in the marketplace, and as he was speaking, saliva [tzinora] sprayed from his mouth and fell onto the garments of the High Priest. And the face of the High Priest turned green, as he feared that his garments had been rendered ritually impure. And he rushed to the Sadducee’s wife to inquire whether she properly observed the halakhot of menstruation, in which case his garments were not rendered impure by the saliva of her husband, as he is not considered one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman.

She said to him: Even though women such as myself are the wives of Sadducees, who do not follow in the ways of the perushim, they are scared of the perushim and they show their blood to the Sages when an uncertainty arises. The garments of the High Priest are therefore pure, as the Sadducee wives properly observe the halakhot of menstruation.

Rabbi Yosei says: We are familiar with the wives of Sadducees more so than everyone else, as they are our neighbors, and I can testify that they all show their blood to the Sages, except for a certain woman who was living in our neighborhood who did not show her blood to the Sages, and she died, as a punishment for her behavior.

The Gemara objects: And let the High Priest derive that his garments are impure due to the saliva of an am ha’aretz, which imparts impurity. Abaye said: That case involved a Sadducee ḥaver, who was particular with regard to the halakhot of ritual purity. Rava said: Are you equating a Sadducee ḥaver with a man who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman? After all, the High Priest was initially concerned that the Sadducee might engage in intercourse with his wife while she is still menstruating. Rather, Rava said: