The Mishnah discusses the daughters of the Tzedukim, a group that did not adhere to the Oral Torah and its laws. When these daughters follow their fathers' practices, which are considered improper, they are treated like Kutim. This means that anyone who had relations with a woman in a state of ritual impurity (a "bo'el nidah") from among the Tzedukim, and the Tzedukim women themselves, are considered ritually impure. However, if these daughters follow Jewish practices, they are considered like full-fledged Jewish women, and there is no issue. Rabbi Yose, on the other hand, maintains that they always retain the status of a Jewish woman unless they explicitly follow their fathers' practices. We will now explore the exact dispute between the first opinion (referred to as Tanna Kamma) and Rabbi Yose.
Let's consider a scenario where one does not know if a Tzeduki woman is following her father's practices. What is her status? The Mishnah states that the daughters of the Tzedukim, when they follow their fathers' practices, are like Kutim. This implies that only in such a case are they considered ritually impure. If they follow Jewish practices, they are considered Jewish women. This suggests that the default assumption is that they are like Kutim. However, Rabbi Yose states that they are always like Jewish women until they are known to follow their fathers' practices. This means Rabbi Yose holds that a Tzeduki woman is treated as a Jewish woman by default. The Tanna Kamma, by contrast, holds that a Tzeduki woman is treated as a Kuti by default, unless it is known that she follows Jewish practices.
A teaching from the Rabbis illustrates this point with a story. A Tzeduki man was speaking with a Kohen Gadol in the market. Some saliva came out of the Tzeduki's mouth and fell on the Kohen Gadol's garment. The Kohen Gadol's face changed color, concerned that he might have become ritually impure. He immediately went to the Tzeduki's wife to ascertain her status. She told the Kohen Gadol, "Even though we are the wives of the Tzedukim, we are afraid of the Perushim (the religious people) and we show all our blood to the Sages." Therefore, she assured him, there was no need to worry. The Kohen Gadol's concern stemmed from the fact that if the Tzeduki was a "bo'el nidah," then the saliva coming from his mouth would also be ritually impure. The wife's statement clarified that she consults the Sages regarding her ritual purity, thus alleviating the Kohen Gadol's concern.
Rabbi Yosef comments on this, stating that "we know about these Tzedukim; we are very expert on their practices." He confirms that they bring their blood to the Sages, so there is nothing to worry about. He notes one exception: a single Tzeduki wife in their neighborhood who did not bring her blood to the Sages, so "we know she is out of the way." The Gemara asks, "Forget about that! He was a Tzeduki, a 'bo'el nidah,' an 'Am Ha'aretz'! How could the Rabbi go there, on the saliva of an 'Am Ha'aretz' that is going to be ritually impure?" The Gemara responds that even an ordinary Israelite who is not a "bo'el nidah" can have ritually impure saliva if it is still moist, as the Sages made a rabbinic decree. The question is, who said he was an 'Am Ha'aretz'? Rava states he was a Tzeduki who was a scholar. Rav Ashi states he was a Tzeduki who was a scholar. The question is, if he was a scholar, why would he be a "bo'el nidah"?
The answer is that the Sages made all 'Amei Ha'aretz' like scholars on holidays, perhaps not to embarrass them. Since everyone comes to Jerusalem for the holidays, they did not want to differentiate between 'Amei Ha'aretz' and others, so everyone was treated as a scholar. Therefore, the story of the Kohen Gadol speaking to the Tzeduki in the street occurred on a regular day, not a holiday. Thus, he was not considered a scholar at that point, so there was no concern from the 'Am Ha'aretz' standpoint. However, he was still a Tzeduki. A Tzeduki does not cease to be a Tzeduki on a holiday. Therefore, the Kohen Gadol was worried. His wife's assurance that they consult the Sages resolved the issue. This implies that a regular Tzeduki is presumed to be a "bo'el nidah," and his saliva is ritually impure. Thus, unless the Kohen Gadol had checked with his wife, it would have been problematic. But he did check, and she said she was good because she asked the Rabbis. So, the Kohen Gadol was safe from both the 'Am Ha'aretz' problem and the Tzeduki problem.
Now, let's discuss the blood of a non-Jewish woman. The Sages decreed that the blood of a non-Jewish woman is ritually pure. This is true even for "dam tohar," the purifying blood that a woman sees after childbirth (seven days for a boy, fourteen for a girl). The reason the Sages made this decree is to distinguish between the blood of a non-Jewish woman and that of a Jewish woman. They wanted everyone to know that ritual impurity related to blood is only applicable to Jewish women. Therefore, to show a difference between her and a Jewish woman who is a "zavah" (a woman with an irregular flow of blood), they declared her blood to be pure. This is the view of Beit Shammai. The saliva, however, is ritually impure and can transmit impurity to a person. It is a primary source of impurity, making a person and vessels ritually impure. This is a rabbinic decree.
The Mishnah then discusses "dam tohar." What is the case of "dam tohar"? It refers to the blood that flows from a woman after childbirth. Beit Shammai states that "dam tohar" is ritually impure when moist but not when dry. This means that if she has not yet immersed in a ritual bath, the "dam tohar" that flows from her is ritually impure, just as her saliva is ritually impure. The Sages learned from verses that the saliva of a "zav" (a man with an irregular discharge) is ritually impure only when moist, not when dry. Therefore, if a woman is on her fourteenth day after childbirth and has not yet immersed, her "dam tohar" would be ritually impure. Why is Beit Shammai strict regarding the "dam tohar" of a woman who has not immersed in a ritual bath? Beit Shammai holds that ritual purity is not dependent on immersion but on the passage of thirty-one days. So, once fourteen days have passed, the blood should be pure. The reason Beit Shammai is strict is because she herself is ritually impure since she has not immersed. Although the blood itself is technically pure, since she is impure, Beit Shammai makes a decree.
The Gemara asks, if the blood itself is "dam tohar" according to the Torah (after seven or fourteen days), why does Beit Shammai say it is ritually impure? It's not like saliva, which collects. Blood just flows out. Beit Shammai is strict because of a rabbinic decree. If we were to permit this "dam tohar" after seven days without immersion, people might mistakenly permit blood seen before seven days without immersion, which is definitely impure according to the Torah. So, to prevent this error, Beit Shammai made a decree that "dam tohar" is ritually impure if she has not immersed. This is a very strong question, especially since we just learned that Beit Shammai says there is no ritual impurity for the blood of a non-Jewish woman. Why make a distinction between moist and dry for the blood of a non-Jewish woman, as we learned, so that people do not come to confuse it with the blood of an Israelite woman?
What is the reason the Sages imposed any ritual impurity on non-Jews? It was to prevent Israelites from becoming close to them, particularly due to the prevalence of inappropriate sexual relations. The Sages imposed a decree of impurity on their saliva and their "shekhvat zera" (seminal emission) to keep people away from them. This worked. However, if we were to say that their blood is impure, people might think it is a Torah-level impurity, and this would lead to burning "terumah" (sacred food) unnecessarily. Therefore, we can afford to be lenient regarding their blood to keep people away from them, and thus avoid burning "terumah." It makes sense. Why not make a distinction and say that only moist blood is impure, not dry? Because with a regular "nidah" (menstruant), both moist and dry blood are impure. We didn't want to risk confusion, so we said that her blood is totally pure. Why do we make it totally pure? Because in the case of a non-Jewish woman, there is no concern about confusion. She is fourteen days after childbirth and saw blood. Do we need to make a decree on this blood? Beit Shammai says we must make it impure because of a rabbinic decree on the blood itself. However, we do not want to make a decree that would lead to confusion with Torah law. Therefore, we must make a distinction between moist and dry blood, which is the case here.
Now, regarding the Mishnah's statement about "dam tohar" before she immerses in a ritual bath: Beit Shammai says that even though technically according to the Torah it is pure (depending on the days, after fourteen days she is good), Beit Shammai makes a decree that this "dam tohar" is not good. This is to prevent people from permitting blood seen before seven days without immersion. Therefore, we made a distinction between moist and dry. This is Beit Shammai's rationale. What is Beit Hillel's view on the Mishnah's statement that "dam tohar" before she immerses is impure? The Mishnah states that they agree in one case: that of a woman who gave birth. In that case, she will not be pure until she counts seven clean days and immerses. This is a straightforward Gemara. The Mishnah states that the blood of a non-Jewish woman is pure. The Sages made all non-Jewish people and "zavim" ritually impure because they were perverted and committed acts of inappropriate sexual relations. By saying they are impure, no Jew would come close to them. This is clearly a rabbinic decree. Beit Shammai comes along and says that regarding non-Jews, we did not make a decree on blood. Blood is okay. If she is a "zavah," she should be impure. I have no choice but to say the blood is pure. I explained this already.
Now, Beit Shammai provides his rationale for this ruling. He asks, "What do you want me to say? That the blood of a non-Jewish woman is ritually impure whether moist or dry?" People would then think it is a Torah-level impurity. To say that it is impure whether moist or dry is a Torah-level impurity. Beit Shammai can afford to restrict his ruling regarding "shekhvat zera" (seminal emission) because he has already covered the blood. The Gemara will ask, "Why did you pick on saliva and were lenient on blood? For the same reason, you could have been strict on blood." I can be strict on "shekhvat zera" because it is more prevalent. "Shekhvat zera" requires a person to bring about the emission himself, to heat himself up, which is a more deliberate act. Now we have a new concept. The "shekhvat zera" of a non-Jew. Is it ritually impure? The Mishnah states that the "shekhvat zera" of a non-Jew is ritually impure. This proves that "shekhvat zera" is only impure for a non-Jew by rabbinic decree. This proves that when "shekhvat zera" is alone, it must be pure. I am sorry, when it says "shekhvat zera" by a non-Jew, it is pure. When the Sages made it pure by rabbinic decree, it must be that the "shekhvat zera" of an Israelite is ritually impure by Torah law. This can solve the question of the "papas." The "shekhvat zera" of an Israelite, within three days, has a vitality. After three days, the "shekhvat zera" is dead; it is no longer considered "shekhvat zera." In a Jewish womb, it is not. After three days, it is spoiled, like non-kosher food. From here, the Sages bring a proof. There is a famous Hatam Sofer that you cannot necessarily take things from studies done on non-Jews. Their bodies are different based on diet. Something that harms them does not necessarily affect us.
What was this "dam tohar" of a woman with "tzara'at" (a skin affliction)? She is a "metzora'at" (a woman with "tzara'at"). She gave birth. So she sees blood. What did Beit Shammai say? Her "dam tohar" is also no good. What is the status of blood for a "metzora'at"? The Torah did not say it was as bad as she is. No, when the Torah states the exception for "metzora'at," it uses the word "zachar" (male). Therefore, just as the "ma'ayanot" (springs/discharges) of a male with "tzara'at" are ritually impure, so too are the "ma'ayanot" of a female with "tzara'at" ritually impure. What does the female "zavah" teach me? That even a "zavah" is impure. And that teaches me what? By a "metzora'at," the male with "tzara'at." And what do we learn from the word "zachar"? That all the "ma'ayanot" are going to be ritually impure. Whatever happens to a male, what if I know the "ma'ayanot" of the female? The extra word "zachar" and "nekevah" (female) teaches me that even things that are not normally impure for a "metzora'at" will be "ma'ayanot." Beit Hillel says no. He says a female with "tzara'at" cannot be learned from a male. Why can't I learn the law of a female from a male? Because a male with "tzara'at" is required to grow his hair; his "ma'ayanot" are impure. The first verse states "ma'ayanot" are impure. A female with "tzara'at" cannot be learned from a male. There is a special verse, so you do not have an extra verse to teach me. "Dam" is an extra verse. Because I learned "zachar." If that was the case, why didn't the Torah just write by the word "nekevah," I would have known automatically "zachar"? Because when she is not required to grow her hair, all the more so, she is impure, which means "nekevah" is a stringency over "zachar." I was more strict; I am learning the Torah enough. Strict then men, which means I will say they are like this. What is the stringency here? Why is a "metzora'at" not a "metzora'at"? She had a child. I know already that "dam" is an extra word.