Commentary for Niddah 110:66

והלא דין הוא ומה רוק הבא ממקום טהרה טמא מימי רגליו הבאין

Come and hear: 'There are nine fluids of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. MS.M. and Bomb. ed. ');">⁵⁹</span> a <i>zab</i>. His sweat, foul secretion and excrement are free from all uncleanness of <i>zibah</i>; the tears of his eye, the blood of his wound and the milk of a woman convey the uncleanness of liquids<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. cause the uncleanness of food and drink (as other unclean liquids) but not that of man and garments. ');">⁶⁰</span> if they consist of a minimum quantity of a quarter of a <i>log</i>; but his <i>zibah</i>, his spittle and his urine<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being sources. ');">⁶¹</span> convey major uncleanness';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that of man and garments. Ker. 13a. ');">⁶²</span> but nasal discharge was not mentioned. Now according to Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 387, n. 11. ');">⁶³</span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is free from uncleanness. Hence it could not be included among those discharges that are invariably unclean. ');">⁶⁴</span> but according to R. Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled that it is always unclean, irrespective of the channel through which it passed. ');">⁶⁵</span> why was it not mentioned? — But according to your view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a discharge that is always unclean should have been mentioned among the others. ');">⁶⁶</span> was his mucus and phlegm<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are undoubtedly as unclean as his spittle. ');">⁶⁷</span> mentioned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not. ');">⁶⁸</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 387, n. 9. ');">⁶⁹</span> and so also here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha cited from Ker. 13a. ');">⁷⁰</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. LXXX, 6; emphasis on 'drink'. ');">⁷¹</span> 'the blood of his wound', since it is written, And drink the blood of the slain,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXIII, 24, cf. prev. n. ');">⁷²</span> and there is no difference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the blood. ');">⁷³</span> between striking one down outright or striking one down in part;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what (difference is there) to me (whether) he killed all of him&nbsp;… his half'. ');">⁷⁴</span> 'the milk of a woman', since it is written, And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges IV, 19, cf. p. 388, n. 14 ');">⁷⁵</span> Whence do we derive the law that 'his urine' [is legally a fluid]? — It was taught: His issue is unclean, and this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 2f, emphasis on 'and this', sc. and another fluid also is unclean. ');">⁷⁶</span> includes his urine in respect of uncleanness. But may not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncleanness of urine. ');">⁷⁷</span> 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

Explore commentary for Niddah 110:66. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.