Niddah 110

כי איצטריך קרא למשא

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XI, 39, 40. ');">¹</span>

ואימא

— This cannot be entertained, for it was taught: Others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Meir. ');">²</span>

במשא מטמא אדם ובגדים

Say, Of them that have an issue, whether it be a man, or a woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. ');">³</span>

במגע אדם מטמא בגדים לא לטמא מידי דהוה אמגע נבלה

his 'issue' is compared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By juxtaposition and analogy. ');">⁴</span>

לא ס"ד דתניא אחרים אומרים

to himself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The zab. ');">⁵</span>

(ויקרא טו, לג) הזב את זובו לזכר ולנקבה מקיש זובו לו

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁶</span>

מה הוא לא חלקת בין מגעו למשאו לטמא אדם ולטמא בגדים אף זובו כן

so also in that of his issue. But now that the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the issue of a zab conveys uncleanness by contact and carriage. ');">⁷</span>

והשתא דנפקא לן מהזב את זובו זובו טמא למה לי

is deduced from 'Of them that have an issue',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. ');">³</span>

אמר רב יהודה מדסקרתא

what need is there for 'His issue is unclean'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 2. ');">⁸</span>

איצטריך סד"א

— R. Judah of Daskarta<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Darkarah, 16 parasangs N.E. of Bagdad. ');">⁹</span>

שעיר המשתלח יוכיח שגורם טומאה לאחרים והוא עצמו טהור ואי משום הזב את זובו למניינא הוא דאתא

replied: It was required; since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the text of Lev. XV, 2, had not been available. ');">¹⁰</span>

זוב חד זובו תרתי ובשלישי אקשיה רחמנא לנקבה

it might have been presumed that the case of the scapegoat proves the contrary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of what is deduced from Lev. XV, 33. ');">¹¹</span>

כתב רחמנא זובו טמא

for it causes uncleanness to others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man who carries it away (cf. Lev. XVI, 26). ');">¹²</span>

והשתא דאמר רחמנא זובו טמא הוא דרוש ביה נמי האי

while it itself is clean; and as to the deduction from<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and if on account of'. ');">¹³</span>

והרוק

'Of them that have an issue' [it might have been explained that] it serves the purpose of indicating the number,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is for the number that it came'. ');">¹⁴</span>

רוק מנלן

viz., 'issue', one; 'his issue',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V., 'of them that have'. ');">¹⁵</span>

דתניא

two; while after the third issue the All Merciful compared him to the 'woman',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁶</span>

{ויקרא טו } וכי ירוק יכול אע"פ שלא נגע ת"ל בטהור עד שיגע בטהור

hence the All Merciful has written, 'His issue is unclean'. And now that the All Merciful has also written, 'His issue is unclean'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which the principle of the uncleanness of an issue is deduced. ');">¹⁷</span>

אין לי אלא רוקו כיחו וניעו ומי האף שלו מנין

you may apply to the other text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which the prescribed number of issues had already been deduced. ');">¹⁸</span>

ת"ל וכי ירוק

this exposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no distinction is to be made between contact and carriage. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר מר

also.

יכול אע"פ שלא נגע מהיכא תיתי

AND SPITTLE. Whence do we deduce [the uncleanness of] spittle? — It was taught And if he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A zab. ');">²⁰</span>

סד"א

… spit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 8. ');">²¹</span>

נילף רוק רוק מיבמה מה התם אע"פ דלא נגע אף ה"נ דלא נגע קמ"ל

As this might be presumed to apply even if the spittle did not touch,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The clean person in whose direction it was thrown. ');">²²</span>

ואימר

it was explicitly stated, upon him that is clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 8. ');">²¹</span>

הני מילי במגע אבל במשא לא מידי דהוה אשרץ

only if it touched him that is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only then is he unclean. ');">²³</span>

אמר ריש לקיש תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל

Thus I know the law concerning his spittle only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I have not but'. ');">²⁴</span>

אמר קרא בטהור מה שביד טהור טמאתי לך

whence could I deduce the uncleanness of his mucus, phlegm and nasal discharge? From the explicit statement, And<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on 'and' which might well have been omitted. ');">²⁵</span>

ואימא

if he&nbsp;… spit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 8. ');">²⁶</span>

במשא מטמא אדם ובגדים במגע אדם לטמא בגדים לא לטמא מידי דהוה אמגע נבלה

The Master said, 'As this might be presumed to apply even if the spittle did not touch',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The clean person in whose direction it was thrown. ');">²⁷</span>

אמר ריש לקיש וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל

but whence could this uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר קרא בטהור טהרה שטהרתי לך במקום אחר טמאתי לך כאן ואיזה זה זה מגע נבלה

be deduced? — It might have been presumed that the expression of 'spit' here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 8. ');">²⁶</span>

ואימא כמשא דשרץ

may be inferred from that of 'spit'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9. ');">²⁹</span>

א"כ נכתוב קרא באדם מאי בטהור ש"מ תרתי

mentioned in the case of a yebamah, as there the act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halizah. ');">³⁰</span>

ומי האף

is valid though the spittle does not touch [the yabam] so is the act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The conveyance of uncleanness by the zab's spittle. ');">³¹</span>

מאי מי האף

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 this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The conveyance of uncleanness by the zab's spittle. ');">³¹</span>

אמר רב

applies only to touch<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. only if it came in contact with the clean person does it convey uncleanness to him. ');">³²</span>

בנגררין דרך הפה לפי שאי אפשר למי האף בלא צחצוחי הרוק

but not to carriage, the law being similar to that of a dead creeping thing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which also conveys uncleanness by contact but not through carriage if an object intervened between it and the person. ');">³³</span>

ור' יוחנן אמר

— Resh Lakish replied: The school of R. Ishmael taught, Scripture said, 'upon that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V. Upon him that is clean, Sc. within his hand. ');">³⁴</span>

אפילו בנגררין דרך החוטם אלמא קסבר

which is with the clean',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 8. ');">²⁶</span>

מעיין הוא ורחמנא רבייה

implying, whatever is in the hand of him that is clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">³⁵</span>

ורב נחשוב נמי דמעת עינו

I have declared it to be unclean to you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that it conveys uncleanness to the person. ');">³⁶</span>

דאמר רב

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 <i>nebelah</i>? — Resh Lakish replied and so it was also taught at the school of R. Ishmael: Scripture said, 'upon that which is with the clean'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on 'clean'. ');">³⁷</span>

האי מאן דבעי דלסתמיה לעיניה ליכחול מעובד כוכבים

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 <i>nebelah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">³⁸</span>

ולוי אמר

But might it not be suggested that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deduction just made (cf. MS.M.). ');">³⁹</span>

האי מאן דבעי דלימות ליכחול מעובד כוכבים

refers to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. 'like'. ');">⁴⁰</span>

ואמר רב חייא בר גוריא

the carrying of a dead creeping thing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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? ');">⁴¹</span>

מ"ט דרב דלא אמר האי מאן דבעי דלימות הואיל ויכול לגוררן ולהוציאן דרך הפה

— If that were so, Scripture should have written, 'upon that which is with a man',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which (cf. supra p. 386, nn. 11 and 12) the deduction ('whatever is in the hand etc.') could well have been made. ');">⁴²</span>

ורב נהי דזיהרא נפיק דמעתא גופא לא נפיק

why then did it write 'upon that which is with the clean'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on 'clean'. ');">⁴³</span>

ת"ש תשעה משקין הזב הן

Consequently the two deductions may be made.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 386, n. 15 (second clause) and supra n. 2 (first clause). ');">⁴⁴</span>

הזיעה והליחה סרוחה והריעי טהורין מכלום

'And nasal discharge'. What [uncleanness] is [there in a] nasal discharge?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that Scripture speaks of spittle only. ');">⁴⁵</span>

דמעת עינו ודם מגפתו וחלב האשה מטמאין טומאת משקין ברביעית

— Rab replied: This is the case where it was drawn and discharged through the mouth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncleanness being due to the spittle. ');">⁴⁶</span>

אבל זובו רוקו ומימי רגליו מטמאין טומאה חמורה

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a zab whose sources are unclean. ');">⁴⁷</span>

ואילו מי האף לא קתני

the All Merciful<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁴⁸</span>

בשלמא לרב לא קתני דלא פסיקא ליה למתני זימנין דאתי דרך הפה וזימנין דאתי דרך החוטם

having included it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Among the sources of a zab. ');">⁴⁹</span>

אלא לר' יוחנן ליתני

As to Rab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁵⁰</span>

ולטעמיך כיחו וניעו מי קתני

why should not the tears of a zab's eyes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which might also pass through his mouth and collect particles of spittle. ');">⁵¹</span>

אלא

be enumerated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Among the unclean discharges. ');">⁵²</span>

תנא רוק וכל דאתא מרבויא הכא נמי תנא רוקו וכל דאתא מרבויא

For<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The following is evidence that Rab agrees that tears may be made to pass through the mouth. ');">⁵³</span>

דמעת עינו דכתיב (תהלים פ, ו) ותשקמו בדמעות שליש

has not Rab stated, He who wishes to blind his eye shall have it painted by an idolater,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who may well be suspected of mixing poisonous drugs in the eye paint. ');">⁵⁴</span>

ודם מגפתו דכתיב (במדבר כג, כד) ודם חללים ישתה מה לי קטליה כוליה מה לי קטליה פלגיה

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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus avoid swallowing them. ');">⁵⁵</span>

חלב האשה דכתיב (שופטים ד, יט) ותפתח את נאד החלב ותשקהו

Now<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but two. ');">⁵⁶</span>

מימי רגליו מנלן

what is Rab's explanation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the omission of tears of the eye (cf. supra p. 387, nn. 11 and 12) from the list of unclean discharges. ');">⁵⁷</span>

דתניא

— Granted that the poison is discharged,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through the mouth. ');">⁵⁸</span>

זובו טמא וזאת לרבות מימי רגליו לטומאה

the tears themselves are not so discharged.

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