Niddah 111

Chapter 111

א ממקום טמא אינו דין שיהו טמאין 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

1 from an unclean region?1 — The blood that issues from the orifice of the membrum2

ב דם היוצא מפי האמה מנלן דטהור דתניא יכול יהא דם היוצא מפיו ומפי האמה טמאין ת"ל (ויקרא טו, ב) זובו טמא הוא הוא טמא ואין דם היוצא מפיו ומפי האמה טמא אלא טהור

2 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 membrum2 is clean? — From what was taught It might have been assumed that blood that issues from his2 mouth or from the orifice of the membrum is unclean,3 hence it was explicitly stated, As to his issue it is unclean,4

ג ואיפוך אנא אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי דומיא דרוק מה רוק שמתעגל ויוצא אף כל שמתעגל ויוצא יצא דם שאין מתעגל ויוצא

3 only 'it' is unclean, but blood that issues from his mouth or from his membrum is not unclean but clean.5 But might I not reverse the deductions?6 — R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai replied: It7

ד והרי חלב שבאשה שמתעגל ויוצא ואמר מר חלב שבאשה מטמא טומאת משקין טומאת משקין אין אבל לא טומאה חמורה

4 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: Only8 the uncleanness of liquids but not major uncleanness? — Rather said R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai: It7 must be similar to spittle, as spittle is formed in globules when discharged but9

ה אלא אמר ר' יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי 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

5 may be re-absorbed, so must any other unclean fluid be one that is formed in globules when discharged and that10 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?11

ו ונילף מזובו מה זובו שאין מתעגל ויוצא מטמא אף כל אמר רבא מזובו ליכא למילף שכן גורם טומאה לאחרים

6 — Raba replied: One cannot make a deduction from his issue, since it also causes uncleanness to others.12 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 former13 refers to a whole14 while the latter15

ז והשרץ אמר ריש לקיש שרץ שיבש ושלדו קיימת טמא והאנן תנן מטמאין לחין ואין מטמאין יבשין אמר רבי זירא לא קשיא הא בכולן הא במקצתן

7 refers to a part;16 for it was taught: R. Isaac son of R. Bisna citing R. Simeon b. Yohai stated, In them,17 one might presume that it is necessary18 to touch a whole, hence it was explicitly stated, Of them.19 If only 'Of them' had been written it might have been presumed that it suffices18 to touch a part, hence it was explicitly stated 'In them'.17 How then are the two to be reconciled? The one20

ח דתניא א"ר יצחק ברבי ביסנא אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחי (ויקרא י״א:כ״ו) בהם יכול בכולן ת"ל מהם

8 refers to a wet creeping thing while the other21 refers to a dry one. Raba ruled: The lizards of Mahuza,22 if their shapes are retained, are unclean.

ט אי מהם יכול במקצתן תלמוד לומר בהם הא כיצד כאן בלח כאן ביבש

9 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 rag23 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!24 — R. Zera replied: This is no difficulty since the former25 refers to a whole26

י אמר רבא הני זבוגי דמחוזא כי שלדן קיימת טמאין ואמר ריש לקיש שרץ שנשרף ושלדו קיימת טמא

10 while the latter27 refers to a part; for it was taught: R. Isaac son of R. Bisna citing R. Simeon b. Yohai stated, In them',28 one might presume that it is necessary29 to touch a whole, hence it was explicitly stated, Of them.30

יא מיתיבי נמצא שרץ שרוף על גבי הזיתים וכן מטלית המהוהא טהורין שכל הטמאות כשעת מציאתן א"ר זירא לא קשיא הא בכולן הא במקצתן

11 If only 'of them' had been written it might have been presumed that it suffices29 to touch a part, hence it was explicitly stated, 'in them'. How then are the two to be reconciled? The one31 refers to a burnt creeping thing while the other refers to one that is not burnt. CONVEY UNCLEANNESS WHEN WET. The ISSUE?32

יב דתניא אמר רבי יצחק בר' ביסנא משום ר"ש בן יוחי בהם יכול בכולן ת"ל מהם

12 Because it is written, His flesh run.33 His mucus, PHLEGM AND SPITTLE?32 Because it is written, If he that hath the issue spit34

יג אי מהם יכול במקצתן ת"ל בהם הא כיצד כאן בשרוף כאן בשאינו שרוף

13 implying35 any fluid like spittle. A DEAD CREEPING THING?32 The All Merciful said, When they are dead,36 implying when they have the appearance of being dead.37

יד מטמאין לחין זב דכתיב (ויקרא טו, ג) רר בשרו כיחו וניעו ורוקו דכתיב (ויקרא טו, ח) כי ירוק הזב כעין רוק

14 SEMEN?32 Since it must be capable of causing fertilization. A CARCASS?32 Since it is written, If … die38

טו שרץ (ויקרא יא) במותם אמר רחמנא כעין מיתה שכבת זרע הראויה להזריע נבלה דכתיב (ויקרא יא, לט) כי ימות כעין מיתה

15 implying when they have the appearance of being dead.37 IF, HOWEVER, ON BEING SOAKED THEY ARE CAPABLE. R. Jeremiah enquired: Is the soaking to be from beginning to end39 in LUKEWARM WATER,40

טז אם יכולין להשרות בעי רבי ירמיה תחילתו וסופו בפושרין או דלמא תחילתו אף על פי שאין סופו

16 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. ');">41 — 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. 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.42

יז ת"ש דתניא כמה היא שרייתן בפושרין יהודה בן נקוסא אומר מעת לעת תחילתו אף על פי שאין סופו רשב"ג אומר צריכין שיהו פושרין מעת לעת

17 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.42 MISHNAH. 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 IT43 CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS44 IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS WET OR DRY.45 R. SIMEON RULED: IF IT IS DRY45 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. ');">46

יח רבי יוסי אומר בשר המת כו' אמר שמואל טהור מלטמא בכזית אבל מטמא טומאת רקב תניא נמי הכי רבי יוסי אומר בשר המת שיבש ואין יכול לשרות ולחזור כמות שהיה טהור מלטמא בכזית אבל טמא טומאת רקב

18 BUT IF IT IS WET45 IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS ONLY TO A TIME WHEN IT COULD STILL HAVE BEEN WET.47 GEMARA. The question was raised: Is the alley TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST SWEPT in the presumptive state of having been duly examined,48 or is it possible that it is in the presumptive state of having been properly swept?49 And in what case could this50

יט <big>מתני׳</big> השרץ שנמצא במבוי מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את המבוי הזה ולא היה בו שרץ או עד שעת כבוד

19 matter? — In that where a person declared that he had swept the alley but did not examine it.51

כ וכן כתם שנמצא בחלוק מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את החלוק הזה ולא היה בו כתם או עד שעת הכבוס

20 If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined'48

כא ומטמא בין לח בין יבש ר"ש אומר היבש מטמא למפרע והלח אינו מטמא אלא עד שעת שיהא יכול לחזור ולהיות לח

21 surely, he had not examined it;52 but if you say, 'it is in the presumptive state of having been properly swept'49 surely, at that time53

כב <big>גמ׳</big> איבעיא להו עד שעת כבוד חזקתו בדוק או דלמא חזקתו מתכבד

22 it was properly swept.54

כג ומאי נפקא מינה דאמר כביד ולא בדיק אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק הא לא בדק אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבד הא מתכבד

Previous Chapter Next Chapter