Reference for Niddah 108:40

אשר היא יושבת עליו היא ולא דמה

dry? And, furthermore, with reference to what we have learnt, 'If a woman aborted an object that was like a rind, like earth, like a hair, like red flies, let her put it in water and if it dissolves she is unclean', whence is this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That subsequent solution renders the originally dry object unclean. ');">³⁷</span> deduced? — 'Be'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her issue&nbsp;… be blood (Lev. XV, 29). ');">³⁸</span> is an inclusive statement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Covering all the objects mentioned. ');">³⁹</span> If [it be argued:] As she causes couch and seat to convey uncleanness to man and to his garments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. she does not merely convey to them an uncleanness of a degree next to, and lower than her own but one, that of 'father of uncleanness', which is on a par with hers. Only a 'father of uncleanness' can effect the uncleanness of a man. ');">⁴⁰</span> so should her blood also cause couch and garment to convey uncleanness to man and his garments. [it can be retorted:] Is then her blood capable of using a couch or a seat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not. The analogy, therefore, cannot be drawn. ');">⁴¹</span> — But according to your argument<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That since blood cannot use a couch or a seat it cannot cause it to be a 'father of uncleanness'. ');">⁴²</span> [it could also be objected]: Is a leprous stone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XIV, 34ff. ');">⁴³</span> capable of using a couch or a seat that a text should be required to exclude it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the restriction of causing a couch and a seat to become 'fathers of uncleanness'. ');">⁴⁴</span> For it was taught. 'It might have been presumed that a leprous stone should cause a couch and a seat to convey uncleanness to man and to his garments, this being arrived at logically, for if a <i>zab</i> who does not convey uncleanness by means of entry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a clean person enters with a zab into the same house the former does not thereby become unclean. ');">⁴⁵</span> causes couch and seat to convey uncleanness to man and to his garments, how much more then should a leprous stone, which does convey uncleanness by means of entry,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XIV, 46. ');">⁴⁶</span> convey uncleanness to couch and seat to convey it to man and his garments, hence it was specifically stated, He that hath the issue,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 4. ');">⁴⁷</span> implying only 'he that hath the issue' [is subject to the restriction]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of causing couch and seat to convey uncleanness to man and his garments. ');">⁴⁸</span> but not a leprous stone'. Now the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why a leprous stone was excluded from the restriction (cf. prev. n.). ');">⁴⁹</span> is that Scripture has excluded it, but if that had not been the case it would have conveyed the uncleanness, would it not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is not capable of using couch or seat. ');">⁵⁰</span> — A reply may indeed be forthcoming from this very statement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and from it'. ');">⁵¹</span> for did you not say. 'He that hath the issue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 4. ');">⁵²</span> [is subject to the restriction] but not a leprous stone'? Well here also Scripture said, Whereon she sitteth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV. 23. emphasis on 'she'. ');">⁵³</span> only she but not her blood.

Jastrow