menstruant

Rabbi Akiva said: From where do we know that an idol defiles by being carried like a menstruant? Because it is said, “You shall cast them [the idols] away as a menstruous woman. Out! You will say to them” (Isaiah 30:22): just as a menstruant defiles by being carried, so does an idol defile by being carried.

Rabbi Akiva said: From where do we know that an idol defiles by being carried like a menstruant? Because it is said, “You shall cast them [the idols] away as a menstruous woman. Out! You will say to them” (Isaiah 30:22): just as a menstruant defiles by being carried, so does an idol defile by being carried.

The pesah which comes in impurity: zavin and zavot, menstruant women and women after childbirth do not eat from it, yet if they did eat they are exempt from karet. Rabbi Eliezer exempts [them] even [of the karet normally incurred] for entering the sanctuary.

If two men betrothed two women, and as they were entering into the bridal chamber, they exchanged the one for the other, behold, they are guilty of having relations with a married woman. If they were brothers they are guilty of having relations with a brother’s wife. If they were sisters, they are guilty of having relations with a wife’s sister. If they were menstruants [they are guilty] of having relations with a menstruant. They must be kept apart for three months, lest they are pregnant. If they were minors incapable of bearing children, they may be returned [to their rightful husband] at once. If the women were of priestly families they are disqualified from eating terumah.

And these are liable to be flogged: One who had relations with his sister, or his father's sister, or his mother's sister, or his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, or his father's brother's wife, or a menstruant; A high priest who marries a widow, an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee or a halutzah; An Israelite who marries a mamzereth or natinah, or an Israelite woman who is married to a mamzer or a natin. In the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a widow [a high priest] is liable on two counts. But in the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a halutzah, an ordinary priest is liable only on one count.

And which is the positive precept concerning a menstruant for which they are liable? [This:] if one cohabited with a [ritually] pure woman, and she said to him: “I have become impure”, and he withdrew immediately, he is liable, because his withdrawal is as pleasant to him as his entry.

If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt. If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so? If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13), “some matter” but not the entire principle.

If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt. If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so? If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13), “some matter” but not the entire principle.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple; Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple. But they are liable for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the menstruant; And [individuals] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or negative commandment relating to the menstruant. Which is the positive commandment relating to the menstruant? Separate yourself from the menstruant. And the negative commandment? Do not have sexual relations with the menstruant.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple; Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple. But they are liable for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the menstruant; And [individuals] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or negative commandment relating to the menstruant. Which is the positive commandment relating to the menstruant? Separate yourself from the menstruant. And the negative commandment? Do not have sexual relations with the menstruant.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple; Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple. But they are liable for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the menstruant; And [individuals] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or negative commandment relating to the menstruant. Which is the positive commandment relating to the menstruant? Separate yourself from the menstruant. And the negative commandment? Do not have sexual relations with the menstruant.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple; Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple. But they are liable for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the menstruant; And [individuals] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or negative commandment relating to the menstruant. Which is the positive commandment relating to the menstruant? Separate yourself from the menstruant. And the negative commandment? Do not have sexual relations with the menstruant.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple; Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple. But they are liable for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the menstruant; And [individuals] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or negative commandment relating to the menstruant. Which is the positive commandment relating to the menstruant? Separate yourself from the menstruant. And the negative commandment? Do not have sexual relations with the menstruant.

By one act of intercourse one may become liable for six hatats: If one had intercourse with his daughter, he can be guilty of incest with her because she is his daughter, his sister, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, and [he can also be guilty] of intercourse with a married woman and a menstruant. If one had intercourse with his daughter’s daughter he can be guilty of incest with her because she is his daughter's daughter, his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, his wife's sister, a married woman, and a menstruant. Rabbi Yose said: if the grandfather transgressed and married her first, he may thereby become guilty for offending with his father's wife. So too, if one had intercourse with his wife's daughter or her daughter's daughter.

By one act of intercourse one may become liable for six hatats: If one had intercourse with his daughter, he can be guilty of incest with her because she is his daughter, his sister, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, and [he can also be guilty] of intercourse with a married woman and a menstruant. If one had intercourse with his daughter’s daughter he can be guilty of incest with her because she is his daughter's daughter, his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, his wife's sister, a married woman, and a menstruant. Rabbi Yose said: if the grandfather transgressed and married her first, he may thereby become guilty for offending with his father's wife. So too, if one had intercourse with his wife's daughter or her daughter's daughter.

If one had relations with his mother-in-law he may thereby become guilty for [having relations] with his mother-in-law, his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, his wife's sister, a married woman, and a menstruant. And so too, if one had intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law or of his mother-in-law. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: if one had intercourse with his mother-in-law he may thereby become guilty for [having relations] with his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. They said to him: all these three are the same name.

Rabbi Akiba said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer: if one performed many acts of forbidden work of the same category on different Shabbats but in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or to a separate one for each of them? He replied to me: he is liable to a separate one for each of them. And this can be derived by through a kal vehomer. If with regard to relations with a menstruant, for which there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning, one is still liable for each act, how much more must one be liable to separate offerings in the case of Shabbat, for which there are many categories [of work] and many ways of sinning! I said to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of the menstruant, since in that case there are two warnings: the man is warned with regard to the menstruant woman, and the menstruant woman is warned with a man; but can you hold the same in the case of the Shabbat where there is only one warning? He said to me: One who has relations with [menstruant] minors can prove the point, where there is but one warning, and yet one is liable for each act. I responded to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of minors because although no prohibition now applies, it will apply later; but can you hold the same view with regard to Shabbat where neither now nor later [is there more than one warning]? He said to me: Let the law concerning intercourse with an animal prove my point. I replied to him: the law concerning intercourse with an animal is indeed comparable to [that concerning] Shabbat.

Rabbi Akiba said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer: if one performed many acts of forbidden work of the same category on different Shabbats but in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or to a separate one for each of them? He replied to me: he is liable to a separate one for each of them. And this can be derived by through a kal vehomer. If with regard to relations with a menstruant, for which there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning, one is still liable for each act, how much more must one be liable to separate offerings in the case of Shabbat, for which there are many categories [of work] and many ways of sinning! I said to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of the menstruant, since in that case there are two warnings: the man is warned with regard to the menstruant woman, and the menstruant woman is warned with a man; but can you hold the same in the case of the Shabbat where there is only one warning? He said to me: One who has relations with [menstruant] minors can prove the point, where there is but one warning, and yet one is liable for each act. I responded to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of minors because although no prohibition now applies, it will apply later; but can you hold the same view with regard to Shabbat where neither now nor later [is there more than one warning]? He said to me: Let the law concerning intercourse with an animal prove my point. I replied to him: the law concerning intercourse with an animal is indeed comparable to [that concerning] Shabbat.

Rabbi Akiba said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer: if one performed many acts of forbidden work of the same category on different Shabbats but in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or to a separate one for each of them? He replied to me: he is liable to a separate one for each of them. And this can be derived by through a kal vehomer. If with regard to relations with a menstruant, for which there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning, one is still liable for each act, how much more must one be liable to separate offerings in the case of Shabbat, for which there are many categories [of work] and many ways of sinning! I said to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of the menstruant, since in that case there are two warnings: the man is warned with regard to the menstruant woman, and the menstruant woman is warned with a man; but can you hold the same in the case of the Shabbat where there is only one warning? He said to me: One who has relations with [menstruant] minors can prove the point, where there is but one warning, and yet one is liable for each act. I responded to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of minors because although no prohibition now applies, it will apply later; but can you hold the same view with regard to Shabbat where neither now nor later [is there more than one warning]? He said to me: Let the law concerning intercourse with an animal prove my point. I replied to him: the law concerning intercourse with an animal is indeed comparable to [that concerning] Shabbat.

Rabbi Akiba said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer: if one performed many acts of forbidden work of the same category on different Shabbats but in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or to a separate one for each of them? He replied to me: he is liable to a separate one for each of them. And this can be derived by through a kal vehomer. If with regard to relations with a menstruant, for which there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning, one is still liable for each act, how much more must one be liable to separate offerings in the case of Shabbat, for which there are many categories [of work] and many ways of sinning! I said to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of the menstruant, since in that case there are two warnings: the man is warned with regard to the menstruant woman, and the menstruant woman is warned with a man; but can you hold the same in the case of the Shabbat where there is only one warning? He said to me: One who has relations with [menstruant] minors can prove the point, where there is but one warning, and yet one is liable for each act. I responded to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of minors because although no prohibition now applies, it will apply later; but can you hold the same view with regard to Shabbat where neither now nor later [is there more than one warning]? He said to me: Let the law concerning intercourse with an animal prove my point. I replied to him: the law concerning intercourse with an animal is indeed comparable to [that concerning] Shabbat.

Rabbi Akiba said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer: if one performed many acts of forbidden work of the same category on different Shabbats but in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or to a separate one for each of them? He replied to me: he is liable to a separate one for each of them. And this can be derived by through a kal vehomer. If with regard to relations with a menstruant, for which there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning, one is still liable for each act, how much more must one be liable to separate offerings in the case of Shabbat, for which there are many categories [of work] and many ways of sinning! I said to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of the menstruant, since in that case there are two warnings: the man is warned with regard to the menstruant woman, and the menstruant woman is warned with a man; but can you hold the same in the case of the Shabbat where there is only one warning? He said to me: One who has relations with [menstruant] minors can prove the point, where there is but one warning, and yet one is liable for each act. I responded to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of minors because although no prohibition now applies, it will apply later; but can you hold the same view with regard to Shabbat where neither now nor later [is there more than one warning]? He said to me: Let the law concerning intercourse with an animal prove my point. I replied to him: the law concerning intercourse with an animal is indeed comparable to [that concerning] Shabbat.

Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.

Above them is one who had intercourse with a menstruant, for he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. Above them is the issue of a zav, his spit, his semen and his urine, and the blood of a menstruant, for they convey impurity both by contact and by carrying. Above them is an object on which one can ride, for it conveys impurity even when it lies under a heavy stone. Above the object on which one can ride is that on which one can lie, for contact is the same as its carrying. Above the object on which one can lie is the zav, for a zav conveys impurity to the object on which he lies, while the object on which he lies cannot convey the same impurity to that upon which it lies.

Above them is one who had intercourse with a menstruant, for he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. Above them is the issue of a zav, his spit, his semen and his urine, and the blood of a menstruant, for they convey impurity both by contact and by carrying. Above them is an object on which one can ride, for it conveys impurity even when it lies under a heavy stone. Above the object on which one can ride is that on which one can lie, for contact is the same as its carrying. Above the object on which one can lie is the zav, for a zav conveys impurity to the object on which he lies, while the object on which he lies cannot convey the same impurity to that upon which it lies.

There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person: A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe. If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe. If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three. If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice. If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering. But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these. If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel. But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A "proper quantity of flesh" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing.

If an oven was cut up by its width into rings that are each less than four handbreadths in height, it is clean. If he subsequently plastered it over with clay, it becomes susceptible to impurity when it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. If he distanced the plastering, and sand or gravel was put between it and the oven sides of such an oven it has been said, "A menstruant as well as a clean woman may bake in it and it remains clean."

If a menstruant placed coins in her mouth and went down and immersed herself, she becomes clean from her [former] uncleanness, but she becomes unclean on account of her spittle. If she put her hair in her mouth or closed her hand or pressed her lips tightly, it is as though she had not immersed herself. If a person held on to another man or to vessels and immersed them, they remain unclean; but if he had washed his hand before in the water, they become clean. Rabbi Shimon says: he should hold them loosely that water may enter into them. The hidden or wrinkled parts of the body do not need that water should enter into them.

Although though they said [that for a woman who has a regular period] it suffices to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she observes a flow, she should nevertheless examine herself [regularly], except for a menstruant or one who is sitting over pure blood. She should also use testing-rags when she has marital intercourse except when she is sitting over pure blood or when she is a virgin whose blood is clean. And twice [daily] she should examine herself: in the morning and at the [evening] twilight, and also when she is about to have sexual relations. Priestly women are subject to an additional restriction [for they should examine themselves] when they are going to eat terumah. Rabbi Judah said: [these must examine themselves] also after they have concluded eating terumah.

If a woman miscarried and it is unknown what it was, she sits for both a male child and a female child. If it is unknown whether it was a child or not, she sits for both a male and a female and as a menstruant.

If a woman miscarried on the fortieth day, she need not be concerned that it was a valid childbirth. On the forty-first day, she sits as for both a male and a female and as for a menstruant. Rabbi Ishmael says: [if she miscarried on] the forty-first day she sits as for a male and as for a menstruant, But if on the eighty-first day she sits as for a male and a female and a menstruant, because a male is fully fashioned on the forty-first day and a female on the eighty-first day. But the sages say: the fashioning of the male and the fashioning of the female both take forty-one days.

If a woman miscarried on the fortieth day, she need not be concerned that it was a valid childbirth. On the forty-first day, she sits as for both a male and a female and as for a menstruant. Rabbi Ishmael says: [if she miscarried on] the forty-first day she sits as for a male and as for a menstruant, But if on the eighty-first day she sits as for a male and a female and a menstruant, because a male is fully fashioned on the forty-first day and a female on the eighty-first day. But the sages say: the fashioning of the male and the fashioning of the female both take forty-one days.

If a woman miscarried on the fortieth day, she need not be concerned that it was a valid childbirth. On the forty-first day, she sits as for both a male and a female and as for a menstruant. Rabbi Ishmael says: [if she miscarried on] the forty-first day she sits as for a male and as for a menstruant, But if on the eighty-first day she sits as for a male and a female and a menstruant, because a male is fully fashioned on the forty-first day and a female on the eighty-first day. But the sages say: the fashioning of the male and the fashioning of the female both take forty-one days.

A woman who is having difficult labor is regarded as a menstruant. If she had difficult labor for three days of the eleven days and she ceased having pains for twenty-four hours and then gave birth, she is regarded as having given birth in zivah, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says: a night and a day, as the night and the day of Shabbat. That she ceased from having pain, but not from bleeding.

If a boy the age of nine years and one day had relations with his yevamah, he acquires her thereby; But he cannot divorce her until he is of majority age. He contracts uncleanness through intercourse with a menstruant so that he in turn conveys uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above. He disqualifies a woman from the priesthood. But he doesn't give her the right to eat terumah. He renders a beast invalid for the altar, and it is stoned on his account. If he had intercourse with any of the forbidden relations mentioned in the Torah, she is to be executed on his account, but he is exempt from punishment.

The blood of a menstruant and the flesh of a corpse convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. But the discharge [of a zav], and the phlegm [of a zav] and the spittle [of a zav], a dead sheretz, a nevelah and semen convey uncleanness when wet but not when dry. If they can be soaked and then revert to their original condition they convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. And how long must they be soaked? In lukewarm water for a period of twenty four hours. Rabbi Yose says: If the flesh of a corpse is dry, and it cannot be soaked and brought back to its original condition, it is clean.

If she lent her shirt to a non-Jewish woman or to a menstruant she may attribute a stain to either. If three women had worn the same shirt or had sat on the same wooden bench and subsequently blood was found on it, all are regarded as unclean. If they had sat on a stone bench or on the projection within the colonnade of a bath House: Rabbi Nehemiah says that they are clean, for Rabbi Nehemiah says: anything that is not susceptible to uncleanness is not susceptible to stains.

If a menstruant examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself to be clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [from impurity], and after some days she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is in a presumptive state of cleanness. If she examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was unclean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation [impurity], and after a time she examined herself and found that she was clean, she is in a presumptive state of uncleanness. [But] she conveys uncleanness for twenty-four hours retrospectively or during the time between the last and the previous examination. But if she had a regular period, it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. Rabbi Judah says: Any woman who did not ascertain her separation [from impurity] is regarded as being in a presumptive state of uncleanness. But the sages say: even if she examined herself on the second day of her menstruation and found that she was clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation, and after a time she examined herself and found that she was unclean, she is regarded as being in a presumptive state of cleanness.

The following cause uncleanness and also susceptibility [to uncleanness]; The flow of a zav, his spittle, his semen and his urine; A quarter-log of blood from a corpse, and the blood of a menstruant. Rabbi Eliezer says: semen does not cause susceptibility. R. Elazar ben Azariah says: the blood of a menstruant does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Shimon says: the blood of a corpse does not cause susceptibility, and if it fell on a gourd, he can scrape it off, and it remains clean.

The following cause uncleanness and also susceptibility [to uncleanness]; The flow of a zav, his spittle, his semen and his urine; A quarter-log of blood from a corpse, and the blood of a menstruant. Rabbi Eliezer says: semen does not cause susceptibility. R. Elazar ben Azariah says: the blood of a menstruant does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Shimon says: the blood of a corpse does not cause susceptibility, and if it fell on a gourd, he can scrape it off, and it remains clean.

Rabbi Joshua said: if a menstruant sat in a bed with a clean woman, [even] the cap on her head contracts midras uncleanness. And if she sat in a boat, the vessels on the top of the mast [also] contract midras uncleanness. If there was [on the boat] a tub full of clothes: If their weight was heavy, they become unclean, But if their weight was light, they remain clean. If a zav knocked against a balcony and thereby caused a loaf of terumah to fall down, it remains clean.

He who touches a zav, or a zavah, a menstruant, or a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, or any object on which these had been sitting or lying, conveys uncleanness at two [removes] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated, he still conveys uncleanness at one [remove], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. This is true whether he had touched, or had shifted, or had carried, or was carried.

If one touches the discharge of a zav, his spittle, semen or urine, or the blood of a menstruant, he conveys uncleanness at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; If he separated, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. This is the case whether he had touched or moved it. Rabbi Eliezer said: also if he had carried it.

He who has had a seminal emission is like one who has touched a dead sheretz. And one who has had sex with a menstruant is like one who has suffered corpse uncleanness. But one who has had sex with a menstruant is more stringent in that he conveys minor grades of uncleanness to what he lies or sits upon, so as to make foods and liquids unclean.

He who has had a seminal emission is like one who has touched a dead sheretz. And one who has had sex with a menstruant is like one who has suffered corpse uncleanness. But one who has had sex with a menstruant is more stringent in that he conveys minor grades of uncleanness to what he lies or sits upon, so as to make foods and liquids unclean.

And the queen was exceedingly afraid [vatithalhal]. What is the meaning of vatithalhal? Rav said: It means that she became a niddah (menstruant). R. Jeremiah said: that she needed to relieve herself.