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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.