Niddah 64

Chapter 64

א למעוטי איש מאודם

1 — 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

ב והא דתניא אשה אין לי אלא אשה בת י' ימים לזיבה מנין ת"ל ואשה למה לי ליגמר מנדה

2 But consider the following Baraitha:2 From the term of 'woman'3 I would only infer that a woman [is subject to the restriction of zibah], 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 is also subject to the restrictions of zibah? Hence it was explicitly stated, And if a woman.3

ג צריכא דאי כתב רחמנא בנדה הוה אמינא נדה משום דכי חזאי חד יומא בעיא למיתב ז' אבל זבה דאי חזאי חד יומא בשומרת יום כנגד יום סגי לה אימא לא צריכא

3 Now, what need was there for this text,5 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 — 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 discharge7 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

ד וליכתוב רחמנא בזבה ולא בעי בנדה ואנא ידענא דאין זבה בלא נדה אין ה"נ ואלא קרא למה לי למעוטי איש מאודם

4 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?9 — To exclude a man from the uncleanness of a red discharge.10 But was he not already once excluded?11 — One text serves to exclude him from the uncleanness of a discharge of red semen and the other from that of blood.

ה הא מיעטתיה חדא זימנא חד למעוטי משכבת זרע וחד למעוטי מדם

5 The same law12 applies also to males. For it was taught:13

ו וכן לענין זכרים דתניא (ויקרא טו, ב) איש איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות תינוק בן יום אחד שהוא מטמא בזיבה דברי רבי יהודה

6 'A man, a man',14 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 zibah; so R. Judah. R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: This15 is not necessary, for, surely, Scripture says, Whether it be a man or a woman,16 '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'?17

ז רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אין צריך הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא טו, לג) לזכר ולנקבה לזכר כל שהוא זכר בין שהוא גדול בין שהוא קטן ולנקבה כל שהיא נקבה בין גדולה בין קטנה א"כ מה ת"ל איש איש דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם

7 The Torah used an ordinary form of speech.18 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]19 '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?19 — Raba replied: These20 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?21 — 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.

ח אלמא כי מרבי קרא בן יום אחד מרבי ורמינהו איש אין לי אלא איש בן תשע שנים ויום אחד מנין ת"ל {ויקרא טו } ואיש

8 What need was there for Scripture to write [an additional word22 and letter]23 as regards males and females respectively?24 — 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] observations25

ט אמר רבא הלכתא נינהו ואסמכינהו רבנן אקראי הי הלכתא והי קרא אילימא בן יום אחד הלכתא ובן ט' שנים ויום אחד קרא קרא סתמא כתיב

9 [on the same day] as by [three observations on three successive] days,26 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.27 [The additional letters and words were, therefore,] necessary. 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 spreads28

י אלא בן ט' שנים ויום אחד הלכתא ובן יום א' קרא וכי מאחר דהלכתא היא קרא למה לי למעוטי אשה מלובן

10 and he sat upon them they all become unclean, is not this [it could be retorted] obvious seeing that he exercised pressure upon them?29 — 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 zab.30 As the cover above a zab 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 zab deduced? — From the Scriptural text, And whosoever toucheth any thing that was under him shall be unclean.31

יא למה לי למכתב בזכרים ולמה לי למכתב בנקבות

יב צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא בזכרים משום דמטמאו בראיות כבימים אבל נקבות דלא מטמאו בראיות כבימים אימא לא

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

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

יד הכותים מטמאין משכב תחתון כעליון מאי משכב תחתון כעליון אילימא דאי איכא י' מצעות ויתיב עלייהו מטמו להו פשיטא דהא דרס להו

טו 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

טז עליונו של זב מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא טו, י) וכל הנוגע בכל אשר יהיה תחתיו יטמא מאי תחתיו

Previous Chapter Next Chapter