Niddah 109

Chapter 109

א אי מה היא מטמאה באבן מסמא אף מדוה נמי מטמאה באבן מסמא

1 But might it not be suggested that1

ב אמר רב אשי אמר קרא (ויקרא טו, י) והנושא אותם אותם מיעוטא הוא

2 as she conveys uncleanness to objects under a heavy stone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">2 so does her blood also convey uncleanness to objects under a heavy stone? — R. Ashi replied: Scripture said, And he that beareth those things,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">3

ג ובשר המת מנלן אמר ר"ל אמר קרא (ויקרא כב, ה) לכל טומאתו לכל טומאות הפורשות ממנו

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

ד רבי יוחנן אמר (במדבר יט, טז) או בעצם אדם או בקבר אדם דומיא דעצם מה עצם יבש אף כאן יבש

4 that emanate from him.8 R. Johanan replied: Or a bone of a man, or a grave,9

ה מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאפריך אפרוכי

5 'a man' is10 on a par with 'a bone'; as a bone [conveys uncleanness when] dry so does a man.11

ו מיתיבי בשר המת שהופרך טהור התם דאקמח והוי עפרא

6 What is the practical difference between them?12 — The practical difference between them is the case of flesh that13 crumbles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">14

ז מיתיבי כל שבמת מטמא חוץ מן השינים והשער והצפורן ובשעת חבורן הכל טמא

7 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

ח אמר רב אדא בר אהבה דומיא דעצם מה עצם שנברא עמו אף כל שנברא עמו והאיכא שער וצפורן שנבראו עמו וטהורין

8 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

ט אלא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה דומיא דעצם מה עצם שנברא עמו ואין גזעו מחליף אף כל שנברא עמו ואין גזעו מחליף יצאו השינים שלא נבראו עמו יצאו שער וצפורן שאף על פי שנבראו עמו גזעו מחליף

9 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

י והרי עור דגזעו מחליף ותנן הגלודה רבי מאיר מכשיר וחכמים פוסלין ואפילו רבנן לא קפסלי אלא דאדהכי והכי שליט בה אוירא ומתה ולעולם גזעו מחליף ותנינן אלו שעורותיהם כבשרן עור האדם

10 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

יא הא איתמר עלה אמר עולא דבר תורה עור אדם טהור ומאי טעמא אמרו טמא גזרה שמא יעשה אדם עורות אביו ואמו שטיחין לחמור

11 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

יב ואיכא דאמרי הרי עור דאין גזעו מחליף ותנן וחכמים פוסלין ואפי' רבי מאיר לא קא מכשר אלא דקריר בשרא וחייא ולעולם אין גזעו מחליף ואמר עולא דבר תורה עור אדם טהור

12 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

יג כי איתמר דעולא אסיפא איתמר וכולן שעבדן או שהילך בהן כדי עבודה טהורין חוץ מעור אדם ואמר עולא דבר תורה עור אדם כי עבדו טהור ומה טעם אמרו טמא גזרה שמא יעשה אדם עור אביו ואמו שטיחין

13 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.'

יד והרי בשר דגזעו מחליף וטמא אמר מר בר רב אשי בשר נעשה מקומו צלקת

14 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

טו אבל הזוב זוב מנלן דתניא (ויקרא טו, ב) זובו טמא לימד על הזוב שהוא טמא

15 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

טז והלא דין הוא לאחרים גורם טומאה לעצמו לא כ"ש שעיר המשתלח יוכיח שגורם טומאה לאחרים והוא עצמו טהור אף אתה אל תתמה על זה שאע"פ שגורם טומאה לאחרים הוא עצמו טהור ת"ל זובו טמא לימד על הזוב שהוא טמא

16 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

יז ואימא ה"מ במגע אבל במשא לא מידי דהוה אשרץ אמר רב ביבי בר אביי במגע לא איצטריך קרא דלא גרע משכבת זרע

17 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,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter