Niddah 64

למעוטי איש מאודם

— To exclude a man from the uncleanness of a red discharge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of semen (v. infra) which is similar in nature to the discharge dealt with in the text under discussion. Only a woman's is subject to uncleanness but not that of a man. ');">¹</span>

והא דתניא

But consider the following Baraitha:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and that which was taught'. ');">²</span>

אשה אין לי אלא אשה בת י' ימים לזיבה מנין ת"ל ואשה

From the term of 'woman'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 25, dealing with zibah. ');">³</span>

למה לי

I would only infer that a woman [is subject to the restriction of <i>zibah</i>], whence, however, could it be deduced that a female child that is ten days old<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One younger than ten days cannot possibly be subject to this form of uncleanness since one cannot be a confirmed zabah before the elapse of seven days of menstruation and three subsequent days on each of which a discharge is observed. ');">⁴</span>

ליגמר מנדה

is also subject to the restrictions of <i>zibah</i>? Hence it was explicitly stated, And if a woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 25, dealing with zibah. ');">³</span>

צריכא דאי כתב רחמנא בנדה הוה אמינא

Now, what need was there for this text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wherefore to me'. ');">⁵</span>

נדה משום דכי חזאי חד יומא בעיא למיתב ז'

seeing that the law could have been inferred from that of menstruation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. since, as has been shown supra, an infant of one day is subject to the uncleanness of menstruation it naturally follows that on her tenth day (cf. prev. n. but one) she is also subject to that of zibah. ');">⁶</span>

אבל זבה דאי חזאי חד יומא בשומרת יום כנגד יום סגי לה אימא

— It was necessary. For if the All Merciful had written the law in regard to a menstruant only it might have been presumed that it applied only to the menstruant, since even if she observed a discharge on one day only she must continue unclean for seven days, but not to a zabah for whom, if she observed a discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the seven days of menstruation. ');">⁷</span>

לא צריכא

on one day, it suffices to wait only one day corresponding to it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if she observed a discharge on the second day also, she need only wait one day, after which she is clean. Only a discharge that continued for three consecutive days would subject her to the uncleanness of a confirmed zabah. ');">⁸</span>

וליכתוב רחמנא בזבה ולא בעי בנדה ואנא ידענא דאין זבה בלא נדה

hence the necessity for the second text. Then why should not the All Merciful write the law in regard to a zabah and there would be no need to give it again in regard to a menstruant, since one knows that there can be no zabah unless she was previously a menstruant? — That is so indeed. Then what was the need for the Scriptural text?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The additional waw in the case of the menstruant. ');">⁹</span>

אין ה"נ

— To exclude a man from the uncleanness of a red discharge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text implying that only a woman is subject to the uncleanness of a red discharge but not a man. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואלא קרא למה לי

But was he not already once excluded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. ');">¹¹</span>

למעוטי איש מאודם

— One text serves to exclude him from the uncleanness of a discharge of red semen and the other from that of blood.

הא מיעטתיה חדא זימנא

The same law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a child one day old is subject to the uncleanness of a discharge as an adult. ');">¹²</span>

חד למעוטי משכבת זרע וחד למעוטי מדם

applies also to males. For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ar. 3a. ');">¹³</span>

וכן לענין זכרים

'A man, a man',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 2, dealing with the laws of a zab. E.V., 'any man'. ');">¹⁴</span>

דתניא

what need was there for the repetition of 'man'? To include a male child one day old who also is to be subject to the uncleanness of <i>zibah</i>; so R. Judah. R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exposition of Lev. XV, 2 (v. prev. n.). ');">¹⁵</span>

(ויקרא טו, ב) איש איש מה ת"ל איש איש

is not necessary, for, surely, Scripture says, Whether it be a man or a woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. ');">¹⁶</span>

לרבות תינוק בן יום אחד שהוא מטמא בזיבה דברי רבי יהודה

'whether it be a man' implies any one who is man, whether adult or infant; 'or a woman' implies any one who is a female irrespective of whether she is adult or minor. If so, why was it expressly stated, 'a man, a man'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 2 dealing with the laws of a zab. E.V., 'any man'. ');">¹⁷</span>

רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר

The Torah used an ordinary form of speech.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'spoke as is the language of man'. ');">¹⁸</span>

אין צריך הרי הוא אומר

Thus it is evident that in including a child Scripture included even an infant one day old. Does not, however, an incongruity arise: [If Scripture had only written]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 16, in regard to the emission of semen. ');">¹⁹</span>

(ויקרא טו, לג) לזכר ולנקבה לזכר כל שהוא זכר בין שהוא גדול בין שהוא קטן

'a man' I would only know [that the law applied to] a man, whence could it be derived that it also applies to a child who is nine years and one day old? Hence it was explicitly stated, And a man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 16, in regard to the emission of semen. ');">¹⁹</span>

ולנקבה כל שהיא נקבה בין גדולה בין קטנה

— Raba replied: These<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of zibah in respect of an infant one day old and the law of the emission of semen in regard to a boy who is nine years and one day old. ');">²⁰</span>

א"כ מה ת"ל איש איש

are traditional laws but the Rabbis found props for them in Scriptural texts. Which one is only a traditional law and which can be deduced from the Scriptural text? If it be suggested that the law relating to an infant one day old is traditional and that relating to a child who is nine years and one day old is deduced from a Scriptural text, is not the text [it could be objected] written in general terms?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 223, n. 8 mut. mut. ');">²¹</span>

דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם

— Rather say: The law relating to a child who is nine years and one day old is traditional and the one relating to an infant one day old is derived from the Scriptural text. But, since the former is a traditional law, what was the purpose of the Scriptural text? — To exclude a woman from the uncleanness of a white discharge.

אלמא כי מרבי קרא בן יום אחד מרבי

What need was there for Scripture to write [an additional word<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Man. ');">²²</span>

ורמינהו

and letter]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Waw ('and') in we-ishah. ');">²³</span>

איש אין לי אלא איש בן תשע שנים ויום אחד מנין

as regards males and females respectively?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. why could not the same ages of the male and of the female be derived from one another? ');">²⁴</span>

ת"ל {ויקרא טו } ואיש

— These were necessary. For if the All Merciful had written the law in respect of males only it might have been presumed that it applied to them alone since they become unclean by [three] observations<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of discharges. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר רבא

[on the same day] as by [three observations on three successive] days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.K. 24a. ');">²⁶</span>

הלכתא נינהו ואסמכינהו רבנן אקראי

but not to females who do not become unclean by [three] observations [on the same day] as by [three observations on three successive] days. And if the All Merciful had written the law in respect of females alone, it might have been presumed to apply to them only, since they become unclean even if a discharge was due to a mishap but not to males who do not become unclean when a discharge is due to a mishap.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 36b. ');">²⁷</span>

הי הלכתא והי קרא

[The additional letters and words were, therefore,] necessary.

אילימא בן יום אחד הלכתא ובן ט' שנים ויום אחד קרא קרא סתמא כתיב

THE SAMARITANS IMPART UNCLEANNESS TO A COUCH UNDERNEATH AS TO A COVER ABOVE, What is meant by A COUCH UNDERNEATH AS A COVER ABOVE? If it be suggested to mean that if there were ten spreads<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One above the other. ');">²⁸</span>

אלא בן ט' שנים ויום אחד הלכתא ובן יום א' קרא

and he sat upon them they all become unclean, is not this [it could be retorted] obvious seeing that he exercised pressure upon them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Midras (v. Glos.) is one of the means whereby a zab conveys uncleanness. ');">²⁹</span>

וכי מאחר דהלכתא היא קרא למה לי

— The meaning rather is that a couch underneath one who had intercourse with a menstruant is subject to the same law of uncleanness as the cover above a <i>zab</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not as the couch under him which imparts uncleanness to human beings also. ');">³⁰</span>

למעוטי אשה מלובן למה לי למכתב בזכרים ולמה לי למכתב בנקבות צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא בזכרים משום דמטמאו בראיות כבימים אבל נקבות דלא מטמאו בראיות כבימים אימא לא

As the cover above a <i>zab</i> imparts uncleanness to foods and drinks only so does the couch underneath one who had intercourse with a menstruant impart uncleanness to foods and drinks only. Whence is the law concerning the cover above a <i>zab</i> deduced? — From the Scriptural text, And whosoever toucheth any thing that was under him shall be unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 10. ');">³¹</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא בנקבות משום דקמטמו באונס אבל זכרים דלא מטמאו באונס אימא

For what could be the meaning of 'under him'?

לא צריכא

הכותים מטמאין משכב תחתון כעליון

מאי משכב תחתון כעליון

אילימא דאי איכא י' מצעות ויתיב עלייהו מטמו להו פשיטא דהא דרס להו

אלא שיהא תחתונו של בועל נדה כעליונו של זב מה עליונו של זב אינו מטמא אלא אוכלין ומשקין אף תחתונו של בועל נדה אינו מטמא אלא אוכלין ומשקין

עליונו של זב מנלן

דכתיב (ויקרא טו, י) וכל הנוגע בכל אשר יהיה תחתיו יטמא מאי תחתיו