Niddah 111
דם היוצא מפי האמה יוכיח שבא ממקום טמא וטהור אף אתה אל תתמה על זה שאע"פ שבא ממקום טומאה יהיה טהור ת"ל זובו טמא וזאת לרבות מימי רגליו לטומאה
— The blood that issues from the orifice of the membrum<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a confirmed zab. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
דם היוצא מפי האמה מנלן דטהור
could prove the contrary, for though it issues from an unclean region it is nevertheless clean; you also need not, therefore, be surprised at this that, though it issues from an unclean region, it should be clean. Hence it was explicitly stated, 'His issue is unclean and this', to include his urine in respect of uncleanness. Whence is it deduced that the blood that issues from the orifice of the membrum<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a confirmed zab. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
יכול יהא דם היוצא מפיו ומפי האמה טמאין ת"ל (ויקרא טו, ב) זובו טמא הוא הוא טמא
mouth or from the orifice of the membrum is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As his spittle and issue respectively are unclean. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי
But might I not reverse the deductions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And this' including blood that issues from his mouth or membrum, and 'as to his issue etc.' excluding urine. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
דומיא דרוק מה רוק שמתעגל ויוצא אף כל שמתעגל ויוצא יצא דם שאין מתעגל ויוצא
— R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai replied: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A fluid that is to be included in the same law of uncleanness as spittle. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
והרי חלב שבאשה שמתעגל ויוצא ואמר מר
must be similar to spittle; as spittle is formed in globules when it is discharged so must any other unclean fluid be one that is formed in globules when it is discharged; blood is, therefore, excluded since it is not formed in globules when it is discharged. But is not a woman's milk formed in globules when it is discharged and the Master nevertheless stated that 'a woman's milk conveys the uncleanness of liquids' which implies: Only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
חלב שבאשה מטמא טומאת משקין
the uncleanness of liquids but not major uncleanness? — Rather said R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A fluid that is to be included in the same law of uncleanness as spittle. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
דומיא דרוק מה רוק מתעגל ויוצא וחוזר ונבלע אף כל מתעגל ויוצא וחוזר ונבלע יצא דם שאינו מתעגל ויוצא יצא חלב שבאשה שאע"פ שמתעגל ויוצא אינו חוזר ונבלע
may be re-absorbed; blood is, therefore, excluded since it is not formed in globules when it is discharged, and a woman's milk is excluded since, though it is formed in globules when discharged, it cannot be re-absorbed. But why should not deduction be made from the zab's issue: As his issue which is not formed in globules when it is discharged causes uncleanness so does any other fluid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is not formed in globules when discharged. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
מה זובו שאין מתעגל ויוצא מטמא אף כל
A DEAD CREEPING THING. Resh Lakish ruled: A dead creeping thing that dried up but whose shape was retained is unclean. But have we not learnt that they CONVEY UNCLEANNESS WHEN WET BUT NOT WHEN DRY? — R. Zera replied: This is no difficulty since the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling of Resh Lakish. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
אי מהם יכול במקצתן
Resh Lakish further stated: If a dead creeping thing was burnt while its shape was retained it is unclean. An objection was raised: If a burnt creeping thing was found upon olives and so also if a tattered rag<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is no longer subject to uncleanness. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
תלמוד לומר בהם
was found upon them they are clean, because all questions of uncleanness are determined by the condition of the objects at the time they are found!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Toh. IX, 9; thus the burnt creeping thing, like the tattered rag, is regarded as clean: how then could Resh Lakish maintain that it is unclean? ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
נמצא שרץ שרוף על גבי הזיתים וכן מטלית המהוהא טהורין שכל הטמאות כשעת מציאתן
to touch a part, hence it was explicitly stated, 'in them'. How then are the two to be reconciled? The one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Requiring contact with a whole. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
נבלה דכתיב (ויקרא יא, לט) כי ימות כעין מיתה
in LUKEWARM WATER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if they resume their original moist condition only after soaking in lukewarm water for the full period of twenty-four hours they are unclean. ');"><sup>40</sup></span>
אם יכולין להשרות
or only at the beginning although it is not so at the end?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. they are regarded as clean if they have not resumed their original condition after being soaked in water that was at first lukewarm and then turned cold, though they would have resumed that condition if they had been soaked all the time in lukewarm water. ');"><sup>41</sup></span>
בעי רבי ירמיה
— Come and hear what was taught: For how long must they be soaked in lukewarm water? Judah b. Nakosa replied, For twenty-four hours, being lukewarm at the beginning though not at the end. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel replied, They must be lukewarm throughout the twenty-four hours.
תחילתו וסופו בפושרין או דלמא תחילתו אף על פי שאין סופו
R. JOSE RULED: THE FLESH OF A CORPSE etc. Samuel explained: It is CLEAN in so far only as not to convey uncleanness if it is of the bulk of an olive, but it does convey the uncleanness of corpse mould.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a ladleful of it conveys uncleanness by means of touch, carriage and overshadowing. ');"><sup>42</sup></span>
ת"ש דתניא
So it was also taught: R. Jose ruled, The flesh of a corpse that is dry and, on being soaked, cannot return to its original condition is clean in so far only as not to convey uncleanness if it is of the bulk of an olive but it is subject to the uncleanness of corpse-mould.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a ladleful of it conveys uncleanness by means of touch, carriage and overshadowing. ');"><sup>42</sup></span>
כמה היא שרייתן בפושרין
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A DEAD CREEPING THING WAS FOUND IN AN ALLEY IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY TO SUCH TIME AS ONE CAN TESTIFY, 'I EXAMINED THIS ALLEY AND THERE WAS NO CREEPING THING IN IT', OR TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST SWEPT. SO ALSO A BLOODSTAIN, IF IT WAS FOUND ON A SHIRT, CAUSES UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY TO SUCH TIME AS ONE CAN TESTIFY, 'I EXAMINED THIS SHIRT AND THERE WAS NO STAIN ON IT' OR TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST WASHED. AND IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dead creeping thing as well as the bloodstain. ');"><sup>43</sup></span>
צריכין שיהו פושרין מעת לעת
IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the times previously indicated, since it is possible that the creeping thing or stain may have been there soon after the alley had been swept or the shirt washed. ');"><sup>46</sup></span>
אמר שמואל
IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS ONLY TO A TIME WHEN IT COULD STILL HAVE BEEN WET.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not to the times previously indicated if they are earlier. For if it had been there since the earlier times it would have been dry by now. ');"><sup>47</sup></span>
טהור מלטמא בכזית אבל מטמא טומאת רקב
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The question was raised: Is the alley TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST SWEPT in the presumptive state of having been duly examined,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the person who swept it who had thus definitely ascertained that there was no unclean object in it at the time. ');"><sup>48</sup></span>
תניא נמי הכי רבי יוסי אומר
or is it possible that it is in the presumptive state of having been properly swept?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if any unclean object had been there at the time it would have been swept away. ');"><sup>49</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השרץ שנמצא במבוי מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את המבוי הזה ולא היה בו שרץ או עד שעת כבוד
matter? — In that where a person declared that he had swept the alley but did not examine it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To ascertain whether any unclean object remained after the sweeping. ');"><sup>51</sup></span>
וכן כתם שנמצא בחלוק מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את החלוק הזה ולא היה בו כתם או עד שעת הכבוס
If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the person who swept it who had thus definitely ascertained that there was no unclean object in it at the time. ');"><sup>48</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איבעיא להו
it was properly swept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no unclean object could have remained. Hence the uncleanness could be retrospective only to the time of the sweeping. ');"><sup>54</sup></span>