Niddah 65

אילימא תחתיו דזב {ויקרא טו } מואיש אשר יגע במשכבו נפקא אלא הנוגע בכל אשר יהיה הזב תחתיו ומאי ניהו עליון של זב והנושא נמי יטמא ומאי ניהו נישא מ"ט

If it be suggested: Under the <i>zab</i> [it could be objected: This]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is midras (cf. Prev. n. but two). ');">¹</span>

והנשא כתיב

is derived from, And whosoever toucheth his bed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 5. ');">²</span>

נתקו הכתוב מטומאה חמורה והביאו לידי טומאה קלה לומר לך שאינו מטמא אלא אוכלין ומשקין

Consequently it must mean: Whosoever toucheth any thing under which the <i>zab</i> was';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Heb, yiheyeh tahtaw may be rendered as E.V. 'that was under him' as well as 'under which he (the zab) was'. ');">³</span>

אימר

and this is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and what is it', ');">⁴</span>

נתקו הכתוב מטומאה חמורה דלא מטמא אדם לטמא בגדים אבל אדם או בגדים ליטמא

the cover above the <i>zab</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Rashal and Rashi. Cur. edd. in parenthesis add: 'And he who carries shall also be unclean; and what is that? What is being carried. What is the reason? It is written: And that which is carried'. ');">⁵</span>

אמר קרא יטמא טומאה קלה משמע

Scripture<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By separating the law of touching from that of carrying with the expression of 'shall be unclean'. ');">⁶</span>

ותחתונו של בועל נדה מנלן

segregated it from a grave uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Carrying which imparts uncleanness to a person as well as to his clothes. ');">⁷</span>

דתניא (ויקרא טו, כד) ותהי נדתה עליו יכול יעלה לרגלה ת"ל יטמא ז' ימים

and transferred it to a lighter uncleanness in order to tell you that it imparts uncleanness to foods and drinks only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not to a person. ');">⁸</span>

ומה ת"ל ותהי נדתה עליו

Might it not be suggested that Scripture segregated it from the grave uncleanness only in order that it shall not impart uncleanness to a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who touches it. ');">⁹</span>

שיכול לא יטמא אדם וכלי חרס ת"ל ותהי נדתה עליו מה היא מטמאה אדם וכלי חרס אף הוא מטמא אדם וכלי חרס

and thereby also impart uncleanness to his clothes, but that it does impart uncleanness to a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who touches it. ');">⁹</span>

אי מה היא עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים אף הוא עושה משכב ומושב לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים

or to clothes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That came in direct contact with it. ');">¹⁰</span>

ת"ל

— Scripture said: Shall be unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 10. ');">¹¹</span>

וכל המשכב אשר ישכב עליו יטמא

which implies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the washing of garments was not mentioned in that part of the verse. ');">¹²</span>

שאין ת"ל וכל המשכב אשר ישכב עליו יטמא ומה ת"ל וכל המשכב אשר וגו' נתקו הכתוב מטומאה חמורה והביאו לידי טומאה קלה לומר לך שאינו מטמא אלא אוכלין ומשקין

an uncleanness of a lighter character, And whence is the law concerning the couch beneath one who had intercourse with a menstruant deduced? — From what was taught: And her impurity be upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 24. ');">¹³</span>

פריך רב אחאי

As it might have been presumed that he is released from his uncleanness as soon as he is released,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he shall go up at her foot'. sc. if, for instance, on the sixth day of her uncleanness he became unclean through her he should become clean on the following day (which is her seventh day) on which she is released from her uncleanness. ');">¹⁴</span>

אימא נתקו הכתוב מטומאה חמורה והביאו לטומאה קלה דלא ליטמא אדם לטמויי בגדים אבל אדם ובגדים ליטמא

it was explicitly stated, He shall be unclean seven days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 24. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רב אסי

Then why was it explicitly stated, 'And her impurity be upon him'? As it might have been presumed that he imparts no uncleanness to man or earthenware, it was explicitly stated, 'And her impurity be upon him',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 24. ');">¹³</span>

יטמא טומאה קלה משמע

as she imparts uncleanness to man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And to the clothes he wears. ');">¹⁵</span>

אימא

and to earthenware<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By heset (v. Glos.). ');">¹⁶</span>

ותהי נדתה עליו כלל וכל המשכב פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט

so does he impart uncleanness to man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And to the clothes he wears. ');">¹⁵</span>

משכב ומושב אין מידי אחרינא לא

and earthenware.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By heset (v. Glos.). ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר אביי

In case it might be suggested:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if'. ');">¹⁷</span>

יטמא ז' ימים מפסיק הענין הוי כלל ופרט המרוחקין זה מזה וכל כלל ופרט המרוחקין זה מזה אין דנין אותו בכלל ופרט

As she causes a couch or a seat to become unclean so as to impart uncleanness to a man and thereby also impart uncleanness to his clothes, so does he also cause his couch and seat to impart uncleanness to man and thereby impart uncleanness to his clothes, it was explicitly stated: And every bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, XV, 24. ');">¹⁸</span>

רבא אמר

For<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was written, 'and her impurity be upon him' and about her it is written, that one who touches her bed must wash his garments. ');">¹⁹</span>

לעולם דנין וכל ריבויא הוא

it should not have been stated. 'and every bed on which he lieth shall be unclean', then why was it written, 'And every bed on which etc.'? Scripture has, thereby, segregated it from a grave uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the couch of the menstruant which imparts uncleanness to a person as well as to the clothes he wears. ');">²⁰</span>

מתקיף לה רבי יעקב

and transferred it to a lighter uncleanness, to tell you that it imparts uncleanness to foods and drinks only. R. Ahai demurred: Might it not be suggested that Scripture had segregated it from a grave uncleanness and transferred it to a lighter uncleanness only in order that it shall not impart uncleanness to a man and thereby also convey it to his clothes, but that it does impart uncleanness to a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who touches it. ');">²¹</span>

אימא כהיא מה היא לא חלקת בה בין מגעה למשכבה לטמא אדם ולטמא בגדים לחומרא אף הוא לא תחלוק בו בין מגעו למשכבו לטמא אדם ולטמא בגדים לקולא

or to clothes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That came in direct contact with it. ');">²²</span>

אמר רבא

— R. Assi replied: Shall be unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 10. ');">²³</span>

עליו להטעינו משמע

implies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the washing of garments was not mentioned in that part of the verse. ');">²⁴</span>

מפני שהן בועלי נדות וכו'

an uncleanness of a lighter nature. Might it not be argued: 'And her impurity be upon him'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, XV, 24. ');">¹⁸</span>

אטו כולהו בועלי נדות נינהו

is a generalization, 'and every bed'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, XV, 24. ');">¹⁸</span>

א"ר יצחק מגדלאה

is a specification<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the same general rule. ');">²⁵</span>

בנשואות שנו

and, since the scope of a generalization when followed by a specialization already comprehended in it is limited by the thing specified, only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'. ');">²⁶</span>

והן יושבות על דם וכו'

a bed and a seat, but no other thing should convey uncleanness? — Abaye replied: 'He shall be unclean for seven days'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, XV, 24. ');">¹⁸</span>

תניא אר"מ

makes a break in the context, so that this is a case of a generalization and a specification that are distant from one another and whenever a generalization and a specification are distant from one another the rule of generalization and specification does not apply. Raba replied: The rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of generalization followed by a specification. ');">²⁷</span>

אם הן יושבות על כל דם ודם תקנה גדולה היא להן אלא שרואות דם אדום ומשלימות אותו לדם ירוק

in fact does apply, but the expression of 'and every'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, XV, 24. ');">¹⁸</span>

דבר אחר

is an extension.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the general rule. The rule of generalization and specification does not, therefore, apply here. ');">²⁸</span>

יום שפוסקת בו סופרתו למנין שבעה

R. Jacob demurred: Might it not be argued that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who cohabits with a menstruant. ');">²⁹</span>

מתקיף לה רמי בר חמא

is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the man and the woman were compared. ');">³⁰</span>

ותספרנו ואנן נמי ניספריה דקיימא לן מקצת היום ככולו

subject to the same uncleanness as she in this respect: As in her case no distinction is made between her touch and her bed as regards the conveyance of uncleanness to a person and to his clothes, thus adopting the stricter course,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that both the person and his clothes are unclean. ');">³¹</span>

אמר רבא

so also in his case no distinction should be made between his touch and his bed as regards the conveyance of uncleanness to a person and to his clothes, the lenient course being adopted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that neither his person nor his clothes contract uncleanness. ');">³²</span>

אם כן שכבת זרע דסתר בזיבה היכי משכחת לה

— Raba replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. Scripture said. ');">³³</span>

והא מקצת היום ככולו

'Upon him' implies: To put a load upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in his case too the stricter course must be adopted. ');">³⁴</span>

אי דחזאי בפלגא דיומא ה"נ הכא במאי עסקינן דחזאי סמוך לשקיעת החמה

SINCE THEY COHABIT WITH MENSTRUANTS etc. Do they all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. married and unmarried men. ');">³⁵</span>

וליקום ולימא ליה לקרא

cohabit with menstruants? — R. Isaac of Magdala replied: This was learnt about married persons only.

כי כתיבא סמוך לשקיעת החמה כתיבא

BECAUSE [THEIR WIVES] CONTINUE [UNCLEAN FOR SEVEN DAYS] ON ACCOUNT OF A DISCHARGE OF ANY BLOOD etc. It was taught: R. Meir stated, If they continue [unclean for seven days] on account of a discharge of any blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether clean or unclean. ');">³⁶</span>

אין על כרחך שבקיה לקרא דאיהו דחיק ומוקי אנפשיה

is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The counting of seven days after each discharge whose colour differed from the previous one. ');">³⁷</span>

בעי רמי בר חמא

rather an important safeguard for them? But the fact is that when they observe a discharge of red blood they treat it as supplementary to a previous discharge of yellow blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. relevant n. on our Mishnah. ');">³⁸</span>

פולטת שכבת זרע מהו שתסתור בזיבה

Another explanation: She includes the day on which her discharge ceases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the third day of three consecutive days (after the termination of her period of menstruation) on each of which she experienced a discharge and in consequence of which, she is a confirmed zabah. ');">³⁹</span>

רואה היתה וסותרת

in the number of the seven days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While in the case of a zabah the law requires seven full days clear of any discharge whatsoever. ');">⁴⁰</span> Rami b. Hama demurred: Why indeed should she not count it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As one of the seven clean days. ');">⁴¹</span> and why should not we also count it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As one of the seven clean days. ');">⁴¹</span> seeing that we have an established rule that part of a day is regarded as the whole of it? — Raba retorted: If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That as regards the counting of the clean days after zibah a part of a day could be regarded as the whole of it. ');">⁴²</span> how could it be possible for an emission of semen to cause the counting<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of any one of the seven days (cf. supra 22a). ');">⁴³</span> after a <i>zibah</i> to be void seeing that a part of the day is to be counted as the whole of it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a part of the day presumably remains after the emission. ');">⁴⁴</span> If one had observed the discharge in the middle of the day the law might indeed be so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The remaining part of the day being counted as a full day and the counting of the seven days is in no way interrupted. ');">⁴⁵</span> but here we might be dealing with one who observed the discharge near sunset?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that no part of the day remained, ');">⁴⁶</span> — Could it then definitely be assumed that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and let him arise and say to him to'. ');">⁴⁷</span> the Scriptural text was written only [in regard to a discharge] near sunset? — Yes; you must indeed allow the text to be so explained, for it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In view of the accepted rule that part of a day counts as the whole of it. ');">⁴⁸</span> forces this interpretation upon itself. Rami b. Hama enquired: If a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had intercourse during her zibah. ');">⁴⁹</span> ejected some semen;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While she was counting her clean days after her zibah had terminated. ');">⁵⁰</span> does she cause her counting<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the one day on which the ejection occurred. ');">⁵¹</span> after a <i>zibah</i> to be void? Is she regarded as one who observed an emission of semen and causes, therefore, the counting<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the one day on which the ejection occurred. ');">⁵¹</span> to be void