|  |  | Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah ### Folio 55a But might it not be suggested that1 as she conveys uncleanness to objects under a heavy stone2 so does her blood also convey uncleanness to objects under a heavy stone? — R. Ashi replied: Scripture said, And he that beareth those things,3 implying4 an exclusion.5 AND THE FLESH OF A CORPSE. Whence is this deduced? — Resh Lakish replied: Scripture said, Whatsoever uncleanness he hath,6 implying all forms of uncleanness7 that emanate from him.8 R. Johanan replied: Or a bone of a man, or a grave,9 'a man' is10 on a par with 'a bone'; as a bone [conveys uncleanness when] dry so does a man.11 What is the practical difference between them?12 — The practical difference between them is the case of flesh that13 crumbles.14 An objection was raised: The flesh of a corpse that was crumbled is clean?15 — There it is a case where it was pulverised and turned into dust. An objection was raised:16 Every part of a corpse conveys uncleanness except the teeth, the hair and the nails, but while they are attached [to the corpse] they are all unclean?17 — R. Adda b. Ahabah replied: It18 must be exactly like a bone; as a bone was created simultaneously with it19 so must every other part20 be such as was created with it.21 But are there not the hair and nails that were created with it19 and they are nevertheless clean? — Rather, said R. Adda b. Ahabah, It20 must be exactly like a bone; as a bone was created simultaneously with it19 and when cut22 does not grow again23 so must every other part20 be such as was created with it and when cut22 does not grow again. The teeth are, therefore, excluded since they were not created with it,19 and the hair and nails were excluded since, though they were created with it, they22 grow again. But skin surely [is a part of the body] that22 grows again, for24 we have learnt: A skinned animal,25 R. Meir declares, is ritually fit,26 and only the Sages declare it to be unfit.27 And even the Rabbis declare it to be unfit only because in the meantime28 the air affects it and it would die, but the skin29 would, as a matter of fact, grow again;30 and yet have we not learnt: In the case of the following their skins are on a par with their flesh,31 viz., the skin of a human being?32 — Surely in connection with this ruling it was stated: 'Ulla said, 'Pentateuchally the skin of a human being is clean, and what is the reason why they ruled it to be unclean? It is a preventive measure against the possibility that a person might use the skins of his father and mother as spreads for an ass.' Others there are who read: Skin, surely, [is a part of the body] that33 does not grow again, for34 we have learnt: And the Sages declare it to be unfit.35 And even R. Meir declares it to be fit only because its flesh hardens and the animal recovers its health but it does not, as a matter of fact, grow again,36 and yet did not 'Ulla state, 'Pentateuchally the skin of a man is clean'? — When 'Ulla's statement was made it had reference to the final clause37 only: But all these,38 if they were dressed or trodden upon sufficiently to render them fit for dressing, are clean39 with the exception of a human skin.40 And it was in connection with this ruling that 'Ulla stated, 'Pentateuchally the human skin is clean if it had been dressed; and what is the reason why they ruled it to be unclean? It is a preventive measure against the possibility that a person might use the skins of his father and mother as spreads'. But does not flesh grow again and yet it is unclean? — Mar son of R. Ashi replied: The place of missing flesh becomes a scar.41 BUT THE ISSUE. Whence is this42 deduced? — It was taught: His issue is unclean,43 teaches concerning an issue of a zab that it is unclean.44 But cannot this be arrived at by a process of reasoning: If it45 causes uncleanness to others46 would it not, with more reason, cause uncleanness to itself?47 The case of the scapegoat proves the contrary, since it causes uncleanness to others48 while it is itself clean. You also should not, therefore, be surprised in this case49 where, though the issue carries uncleanness to others,46 it is itself49 clean. Hence it was specifically stated, 'His issue is unclean'43 teaching thereby that the issue is unclean. But might it not be suggested that this50 applies only to contact [uncleanness] but not to carriage, this being a case similar to that of a dead creeping thing?51 — R. Bibi b. Abaye replied: There was no need for a Scriptural text as far as contact is concerned, since it50 is not inferior52 to semen, To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Lit., 'if'. On which she sits; though her weight can hardly exercise any tangible pressure on the objects (Tosaf.). Lit., 'a stone (used) for closing (a pit)'. V. Shab., Sonc. ed., p. 394, n. 2. Lev. XV, 10, dealing with the couch of a zab which (as explained in Torath Kohanim) when carried on a heavy stone conveys uncleanness to objects under the stone. Emphasis on 'those'. Sc. only those but not blood. Lev. XXII, 5. Whether wet or dry. Lit., 'separate'. Num. XIX, 16. By analogy. Sc. his corpse. R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. Owing to its extreme dryness. While according to Resh Lakish it would still be unclean since it emanates from a corpse, it would lose its uncleanness according to R. Johanan since it is not one solid piece like a bone. An objection against Resh Lakish. Both against Resh Lakish and R. Johanan. Oh. III, 3. Now teeth are on a par with bones and yet it was stated that when detached from the corpse they are clean (cf. prev. n.). To convey uncleanness. The body. To convey uncleanness. Teeth grow later. Lit., 'its stem'. Lit., 'changes', sc. once a bone has been removed no other will grow in its place. So MS.M. and marg. note. Cur. edd., 'and'. One whose skin has worn away owing to scabs or excessive work. For consumption, sc. it is not forbidden as terefah, since the skin grows again. Hul. 54a. Before a new skin has grown. Lit., 'its stem'. So that according to R. Adda b. Ahabah the skin should be clean. Sc. the former are as unclean as the latter. Hul. 122a. Lit., 'whose root'. So MS.M. and marg. note. Cur. edd., 'and'. Hul. 54a; because it does not grow again. The skin should consequently have been unclean. Of the Mishnah, beginning 'In the case of the following their skins etc.' cited supra. The skins which the Sages ruled to be unclean. Since they have lost all resemblance to flesh. Hul. 122a, Pes. 46a. Sc. it does not grow again to its original shape as is the case with hair or nails. That the issue of a zab is unclean. Lev. XV, 2. Supra 34b. The issue. Sc. the zab. What need then was there for the text of Lev. XV, 2? The man who carries it away (cf. Lev. XVI, 26). Zibah. The conveyance of uncleanness by an issue. Which also conveys uncleanness by means of contact but not by carriage. In its uncleanness. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Niddah 55b so that if a Scriptural text was required it was only in respect of carriage. But might it not be suggested that by means of carriage it conveys uncleanness to both man and his garments, while by means of contact it conveys uncleanness to man but not to his garments, this being a case similar to that of contact with a carcass?1 — This cannot be entertained, for it was taught: Others2 Say, Of them that have an issue, whether it be a man, or a woman,3 his 'issue' is compared4 to himself;5 as in his case you make no distinction between his contact and his carriage as regards the conveyance of uncleanness to man and to his garments,6 so also in that of his issue. But now that the law7 is deduced from 'Of them that have an issue',3 what need is there for 'His issue is unclean'?8 — R. Judah of Daskarta9 replied: It was required; since10 it might have been presumed that the case of the scapegoat proves the contrary,11 for it causes uncleanness to others12 while it itself is clean; and as to the deduction from13 'Of them that have an issue' [it might have been explained that] it serves the purpose of indicating the number,14 viz., 'issue', one; 'his issue',15 two; while after the third issue the All Merciful compared him to the 'woman',16 hence the All Merciful has written, 'His issue is unclean'. And now that the All Merciful has also written, 'His issue is unclean'17 you may apply to the other text18 this exposition19 also. AND SPITTLE. Whence do we deduce [the uncleanness of] spittle? — It was taught And if he20 … spit.21 As this might be presumed to apply even if the spittle did not touch,22 it was explicitly stated, upon him that is clean,21 only if it touched him that is clean.23 Thus I know the law concerning his spittle only,24 whence could I deduce the uncleanness of his mucus, phlegm and nasal discharge? From the explicit statement, And25 if he … spit.26 The Master said, 'As this might be presumed to apply even if the spittle did not touch',27 but whence could this uncleanness28 be deduced? — It might have been presumed that the expression of 'spit' here26 may be inferred from that of 'spit'29 mentioned in the case of a yebamah, as there the act30 is valid though the spittle does not touch [the yabam] so is the act31 valid here also even though the spittle did not touch the clean person, hence we were informed [that actual contact is essential]. But might it not be suggested that this31 applies only to touch32 but not to carriage, the law being similar to that of a dead creeping thing?33 — Resh Lakish replied: The school of R. Ishmael taught, Scripture said, 'upon that34 which is with the clean',26 implying, whatever is in the hand of him that is clean,35 I have declared it to be unclean to you.36 But might it not be suggested that by carriage it conveys uncleanness to the man and his garments while by contact it conveys uncleanness to man only but not to his garments, this law being similar to that of the touch of nebelah? — Resh Lakish replied and so it was also taught at the school of R. Ishmael: Scripture said, 'upon that which is with the clean'37 implying that that which I have declared to you as clean elsewhere I have declared to you as unclean here, and what is this? It is the touch of nebelah.38 But might it not be suggested that this39 refers to40 the carrying of a dead creeping thing?41 — If that were so, Scripture should have written, 'upon that which is with a man',42 why then did it write 'upon that which is with the clean'?43 Consequently the two deductions may be made.44 'And nasal discharge'. What [uncleanness] is [there in a] nasal discharge?45 — Rab replied: This is the case where it was drawn and discharged through the mouth,46 since in the circumstances it is impossible for the nasal secretion to be free from particles of spittle. R. Johanan, however, stated that it is unclean even if it is drawn and discharged through the nose. It is thus clear that he is of the opinion that the nose is a source,47 the All Merciful48 having included it.49 As to Rab,50 why should not the tears of a zab's eyes51 be enumerated?52 For53 has not Rab stated, He who wishes to blind his eye shall have it painted by an idolater,54 and Levi stated, He who wishes to die shall have his eyes painted by an idolater, and in connection with this R. Hiyya b. Goria explained, 'What is Rab's reason for not saying "He who wishes to die [etc.]"? Because one might sniff them up and discharge them, through the mouth'.55 Now56 what is Rab's explanation?57 — Granted that the poison is discharged,58 the tears themselves are not so discharged. Come and hear: 'There are nine fluids of59 a zab. His sweat, foul secretion and excrement are free from all uncleanness of zibah; the tears of his eye, the blood of his wound and the milk of a woman convey the uncleanness of liquids60 if they consist of a minimum quantity of a quarter of a log; but his zibah, his spittle and his urine61 convey major uncleanness';62 but nasal discharge was not mentioned. Now according to Rab63 one can well see why this was not mentioned, since it was not definite enough to be mentioned, for it is only sometimes that it is discharged through the mouth while at other times it is discharged through the nose;64 but according to R. Johanan65 why was it not mentioned? — But according to your view,66 was his mucus and phlegm67 mentioned?68 But the fact is that spittle was mentioned and the same law applies to all other secretions the law of whose uncleanness was derived from the Pentateuchal amplification,69 and so also here70 spittle was mentioned and all other secretions the law of whose uncleanness was derived from the amplification are also included. 'The tears of his eye' [is legally a fluid] since it is written in Scripture, And given them tears to drink in large measure,71 'the blood of his wound', since it is written, And drink the blood of the slain,72 and there is no difference73 between striking one down outright or striking one down in part;74 'the milk of a woman', since it is written, And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink.75 Whence do we derive the law that 'his urine' [is legally a fluid]? — It was taught: His issue is unclean, and this76 includes his urine in respect of uncleanness. But may not this77 be arrived at by a logical argument? If spittle, that emanates from a region of cleanness, is unclean how much more so his urine that emanates - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Cf. Lev. XI, 39, 40. Sc. R. Meir. Lev. XV, 33. By juxtaposition and analogy. The zab. Cf. Lev. XV, 7, 10. The latter verse speaks of the zab's couch and seat and applies with greater force to the zab himself. That the issue of a zab conveys uncleanness by contact and carriage. Lev. XV, 2. Darkarah, 16 parasangs N.E. of Bagdad. If the text of Lev. XV, 2, had not been available. Of what is deduced from Lev. XV, 33. The man who carries it away (cf. Lev. XVI, 26). Lit., 'and if on account of'. Lit., 'it is for the number that it came'. E.V., 'of them that have'. Who becomes unclean even in a case of an accidental issue. After no more than two issues a man does not become unclean unless they were intentional. From which the principle of the uncleanness of an issue is deduced. From which the prescribed number of issues had already been deduced. That no distinction is to be made between contact and carriage. A zab. Lev. XV, 8. The clean person in whose direction it was thrown. Only then is he unclean. Lit., 'I have not but'. Emphasis on 'and' which might well have been omitted. Lev. XV, 8. The clean person in whose direction it was thrown. Cf. prev. n. Deut. XXV, 9. Halizah. The conveyance of uncleanness by the zab's spittle. Sc. only if it came in contact with the clean person does it convey uncleanness to him. Which also conveys uncleanness by contact but not through carriage if an object intervened between it and the person. E.V. Upon him that is clean, Sc. within his hand. Sc. even if the spittle has fallen on an object that was merely carried by the clean person, so that the spittle did not come in direct contact with the man. Sc. that it conveys uncleanness to the person. Emphasis on 'clean'. Which causes the uncleanness of the man alone who touched it while his garments remain clean. In the case of the spittle of a zab, however, its touch by a clean man conveys uncleanness to his garments also. The deduction just made (cf. MS.M.). Cur. edd. 'like'. Sc. the garments which remain clean in the case of the carrying of a dead creeping thing are unclean in this case (cf. p. 386, n. 15). Whence, however, the proof that touch in this case is not like the touch of nebelah which causes the uncleanness of the man only and not that of his garments? From which (cf. supra p. 386, nn. 11 and 12) the deduction ('whatever is in the hand etc.') could well have been made. Emphasis on 'clean'. Cf. supra p. 386, n. 15 (second clause) and supra n. 2 (first clause). Seeing that Scripture speaks of spittle only. The uncleanness being due to the spittle. In the case of a zab whose sources are unclean. By the use of the expression ki yarok (E.V., if he spit) which (by change of vowels) may be read as one word, kerok, 'like spittle', Sc. any thing that is similar to spittle is subject to the same uncleanness. Among the sources of a zab. Who does not regard the nose as a source and attributes the uncleanness of a discharge from it to the particles of spittle that get mixed up with it when it passes through the mouth. Which might also pass through his mouth and collect particles of spittle. Among the unclean discharges. The following is evidence that Rab agrees that tears may be made to pass through the mouth. Who may well be suspected of mixing poisonous drugs in the eye paint. And thus avoid swallowing them. Cf. prev. n. but two. Of the omission of tears of the eye (cf. supra p. 387, nn. 11 and 12) from the list of unclean discharges. Through the mouth. Cf. MS.M. and Bomb. ed. Sc. cause the uncleanness of food and drink (as other unclean liquids) but not that of man and garments. Being sources. I.e., that of man and garments. Ker. 13a. V. supra p. 387, n. 11. When it is free from uncleanness. Hence it could not be included among those discharges that are invariably unclean. Who ruled that it is always unclean, irrespective of the channel through which it passed. That a discharge that is always unclean should have been mentioned among the others. Which are undoubtedly as unclean as his spittle. Of course not. V. supra p. 387, n. 9. The Baraitha cited from Ker. 13a. Ps. LXXX, 6; emphasis on 'drink'. Num. XXIII, 24, cf. prev. n. In respect of the blood. Lit., 'what (difference is there) to me (whether) he killed all of him … his half'. Judges IV, 19, cf. p. 388, n. 14 Lev. XV, 2f, emphasis on 'and this', sc. and another fluid also is unclean. The uncleanness of urine. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |