Levítico 15:25 Referencias del Talmud: Jerusalem Talmud Orlah, Jerusalem Talmud Niddah, Jerusalem Talmud Horayot & Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

Who stated “heave of the tithe of demay”? Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr is as strict with their word as with the words of the Torah⁹Since the institution of demay is rabbinic, the rules for heave of the tithe of demay are more lenient than those for biblical heave; cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. Only R. Meïr does not recognize these differences.. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is as strict with their word as with the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥanina said, the following which we have stated there¹⁰Mishnah Niddah 6:13. A woman finding a blood stain on her underwear at a time when she does not expect her period does not know when to expect her next period since possibly the stain comes from menstrual blood. A woman is impure by flux if she has episodes for three successive days at a time when menstrual blood is excluded. In that case, she may not enter the Temple without bringing a sacrifice of purification (Lev. 15:29–30). R. Meïr requires a sacrifice because of the possibility of impurity but the sacrifice of purification may not be eaten by the Cohanim since possibly it was unnecessary.: “A woman who sees a stain [on her clothes] is out of order and must consider the possibility of flux, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say that stains do not imply flux¹¹Since the verse (Lev. 15:25) requires “blood flowing”, the impurity of stains is purely rabbinical. In the Babli, Niddah 52b, the position of the “Sages” is also considered a minority opinion, attributable to R. Ḥanina ben Antigonos. Since the later chapters of the Yerushalmi Niddah are lost, we do not know the position of the Yerushalmi in this matter..”

So far if she checked and found herself dry¹⁵No discharge whatsoever.. If she checked and found herself pure¹⁶She found a discharge from her body but it was of a kind declared pure in Mishnah 2:6. The existence of pure genital discharges is Pharisaic doctrine, absolutely denied by all Sadducee sources known to us; cf. the Damascus Document CD 5:7, Mishnah 4:2.? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rav, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If she checked and found herself pure she is forbidden to her husband until her [blood’s] source dries up¹⁷This is the standard Babylonian doctrine, culminating in the Babli (66a) in R. Ze‘ira’s doctrine, which accepts the Sadducee doctrine that all discharges are impure and, in order to avoid the consequences of this doctrine which are unacceptable in Pharisaic practice, treats every menstrual discharge as a continuing non-menstrual discharge (Lev. 15:25–30), which requires an additional seven days before purity may be achieved. Babylonian practice accepts the distinction between pure and impure discharges only for the rules of impurity, which were irrelevant in Babylonia, but not for those of marital relations.. One Rebbi Tobi said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, she is forbidden to her house for 24 hours. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, when I¹⁸A Babylonian immigrating into Palestine. immigrated here, I heard from all rabbis that she is immediately permitted to her husband¹⁹Since the determination of the character of blood as pure or impure is in the domain of competence of a rabbi, it follows that the woman who claims her blood to be pure has to show her blood to a rabbi. It is not to be assumed that any woman did that unless her household was run on the rules of ritual purity, i. e., a family of Cohanim or of “fellows” (cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay).. They wanted to say that for him who says, she is permitted to her husband, this is a check which diminishes from 24 hours²⁰All the food she prepares remains pure., but for him who says, she is forbidden to her husband, it is not counted as a check which diminishes from 24 hours²¹If she later has an impure discharge, the food becomes retroactively impure.. But even for him who says, she is forbidden to her husband, it is counted as a check which diminishes from 24 hours²²There is no reason to make the status of the check depend on its outcome.. Why is she forbidden to her husband? Because she is used to pure blood, she might get used to impure blood²³Once she is used to the looks of the pure discharge, she might decide herself about the quality of her discharge and wrongly qualify impure for pure. The prohibition of marital relations in this case is purely rabbinical; it has no biblical source..

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject; if they said, the menstruating woman is not mentioned in the Torah, Sabbath is not mentioned in the Torah, idolatry is not mentioned in the Torah, they are not liable⁹⁸Since anything written in the Torah is public knowledge and nobody would listen to them.. If they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part, they are liable. How is that? If they said, the menstruating woman is mentioned in the Torah but one who copulates with one who is watching a day to the next day is not liable⁹⁹In rabbinic medical theory, the minimum time which must elapse between one menstrual period and the next is the seven days of the niddah(Lev.15:19) followed by another 11 days. If a woman has a discharge on one of these 11 days, she is not classified as niddah but as zavah, whose rules are spelled out in Lev.15:25–30. Since the verse speaks of a discharge of many days, it is concluded that the full rules of zavah only apply after 3 days. For the first and second discharges in that 11 day period, the woman is called “watching one day to the next day”. For a day she is under the rules of niddah(Lev. 15:25) and therefore forbidden to her husband. But since the verse uses the expression all the days of the flow of her impurity shall be like the days of her menstruation, one could think that she is impure only during the day and not during the following night, or that a discharge during the night does not make her impure. This is clearly a matter of rabbinic interpretation.; Sabbath is mentioned in the Torah but one who brings from a private domain to a public domain is not liable¹⁰⁰The pentateuchal root of the prohibition to carry from a private to the public domain is Ex. 16:29, nobody should go out from his place, which is explained in Jer. 17:22 by do not move a load from your houses. Since as a matter of principle prophetic utterances should not be used as legal texts, the ruling of the Court could not be dismissed out of hand.; idolatry is mentioned in the Torah but one who prostrates himself is not liable¹⁰¹This is more difficult to understand since Deut. 17:3 clearly defines prostrating oneself in idolatry as a capital crime. Therefore, one has to agree with Maimonides’s Commentary that the Court changed the definition of “prostration”, e. g., ruling that kneeling down, bowing the head to the ground, is not punishable as long as one does not lie on the ground with outstretched hands and feet.; these are liable for it is said¹⁰²Lev. 4:13. Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Parašah4(7–8). something was hidden, something but not an entire subject.