Niddah 110

Chapter 110

א כי איצטריך קרא למשא ואימא במשא מטמא אדם ובגדים במגע אדם מטמא בגדים לא לטמא מידי דהוה אמגע נבלה

1 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

ב לא ס"ד דתניא אחרים אומרים (ויקרא טו, לג) הזב את זובו לזכר ולנקבה מקיש זובו לו מה הוא לא חלקת בין מגעו למשאו לטמא אדם ולטמא בגדים אף זובו כן

2 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

ג והשתא דנפקא לן מהזב את זובו זובו טמא למה לי

3 is deduced from 'Of them that have an issue',3

ד אמר רב יהודה מדסקרתא איצטריך סד"א שעיר המשתלח יוכיח שגורם טומאה לאחרים והוא עצמו טהור ואי משום הזב את זובו למניינא הוא דאתא

4 what need is there for 'His issue is unclean'?8 — R. Judah of Daskarta9 replied: It was required; since10

ה זוב חד זובו תרתי ובשלישי אקשיה רחמנא לנקבה

5 it might have been presumed that the case of the scapegoat proves the contrary,11

ו כתב רחמנא זובו טמא והשתא דאמר רחמנא זובו טמא הוא דרוש ביה נמי האי

6 for it causes uncleanness to others12 while it itself is clean; and as to the deduction from13

ז והרוק רוק מנלן דתניא {ויקרא טו } וכי ירוק יכול אע"פ שלא נגע ת"ל בטהור עד שיגע בטהור

7 '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

ח אין לי אלא רוקו כיחו וניעו ומי האף שלו מנין ת"ל וכי ירוק

8 you may apply to the other text18 this exposition19

ט אמר מר יכול אע"פ שלא נגע מהיכא תיתי

9 also. AND SPITTLE. Whence do we deduce [the uncleanness of] spittle? — It was taught And if he20

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

10 … spit.21 As this might be presumed to apply even if the spittle did not touch,22

יא ואימר הני מילי במגע אבל במשא לא מידי דהוה אשרץ אמר ריש לקיש תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אמר קרא בטהור מה שביד טהור טמאתי לך

11 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

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

12 if he … spit.26 The Master said, 'As this might be presumed to apply even if the spittle did not touch',27

יג אמר ריש לקיש וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אמר קרא בטהור טהרה שטהרתי לך במקום אחר טמאתי לך כאן ואיזה זה זה מגע נבלה

13 but whence could this uncleanness28 be deduced? — It might have been presumed that the expression of 'spit' here26

יד ואימא כמשא דשרץ א"כ נכתוב קרא באדם מאי בטהור ש"מ תרתי

14 may be inferred from that of 'spit'29 mentioned in the case of a yebamah, as there the act30

טו ומי האף מאי מי האף אמר רב בנגררין דרך הפה לפי שאי אפשר למי האף בלא צחצוחי הרוק ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו בנגררין דרך החוטם אלמא קסבר מעיין הוא ורחמנא רבייה

15 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

טז ורב נחשוב נמי דמעת עינו דאמר רב האי מאן דבעי דלסתמיה לעיניה ליכחול מעובד כוכבים ולוי אמר האי מאן דבעי דלימות ליכחול מעובד כוכבים

16 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.<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 But might it not be suggested that this39 refers to40

יז ואמר רב חייא בר גוריא מ"ט דרב דלא אמר האי מאן דבעי דלימות הואיל ויכול לגוררן ולהוציאן דרך הפה ורב נהי דזיהרא נפיק דמעתא גופא לא נפיק

17 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 — 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

יח ת"ש תשעה משקין הזב הן הזיעה והליחה סרוחה והריעי טהורין מכלום דמעת עינו ודם מגפתו וחלב האשה מטמאין טומאת משקין ברביעית אבל זובו רוקו ומימי רגליו מטמאין טומאה חמורה ואילו מי האף לא קתני

18 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 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

יט בשלמא לרב לא קתני דלא פסיקא ליה למתני זימנין דאתי דרך הפה וזימנין דאתי דרך החוטם אלא לר' יוחנן ליתני

19 having included it.49 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

כ ולטעמיך כיחו וניעו מי קתני אלא תנא רוק וכל דאתא מרבויא הכא נמי תנא רוקו וכל דאתא מרבויא

20 why should not the tears of a zab's eyes51 be enumerated?52 For53

כא דמעת עינו דכתיב (תהלים פ, ו) ותשקמו בדמעות שליש ודם מגפתו דכתיב (במדבר כג, כד) ודם חללים ישתה מה לי קטליה כוליה מה לי קטליה פלגיה חלב האשה דכתיב (שופטים ד, יט) ותפתח את נאד החלב ותשקהו

21 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

כב מימי רגליו מנלן דתניא זובו טמא וזאת לרבות מימי רגליו לטומאה והלא דין הוא ומה רוק הבא ממקום טהרה טמא מימי רגליו הבאין

22 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

Previous Chapter Next Chapter