Niddah 68

ואפי' במעי עובדת כוכבים

even in the bowels of an idolatress,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she discharged it on a garment. ');">¹</span>

ושל עובד כוכבים טהור' בכל מקום ואפי' במעי ישראלית חוץ ממי רגלים שבה

while that of an idolater is clean everywhere, even in the bowels of an Israelitish woman, with the exception of any urine of hers that is mixed up with it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the idolater's semen is here ruled to be clean everywhere, support is adduced for Raba's ruling. ');">²</span>

וכי תימא ה"נ טהור' מדאוריית' אבל טמאה מדרבנן אטו מי רגליה מדאורייתא מי מטמאו

And should you argue that here also it is only Pentateuchally clean but unclean Rabbinically, [it could be retorted:] Does then her urine convey uncleanness Pentateuchally?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not. Its uncleanness is only Rabbinical. ');">³</span>

אלא ש"מ

Consequently it may be inferred that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An idolater's semen. ');">⁴</span>

טהורה אפילו מדרבנן ש"מ אמר מר

is clean even Rabbinically. This is conclusive.

שכבת זרע של ישראל טמאה בכ"מ אפי' במעי עובדת כוכבים

The Master said, 'The semen of an Israelite is unclean everywhere, even in the bowels of an idolatress'. May you not thereby solve a question of R. Papa; for R. Papa enquired. 'What is the law regarding the semen of an Israelite in the bowels of an idolatress?' [Concerning a discharge] within three days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After intercourse. ');">⁵</span>

תפשוט דבעי רב פפא

R. Papa raised no questions. His enquiry related only to one after three days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which in the case of an Israelitish woman is clean. ');">⁶</span>

דבעי רב פפא

What, he asked, is the law? Is it only in the case of Israelites, who are anxious to observe the commandments, that their bodies engender heat and the semen decomposes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After three days, and in consequence of this it is regarded as clean. ');">⁷</span>

שכבת זרע של ישראל במעי עובדת כוכבים מהו

but in the case of idolaters, who are not anxious to observe the commandments, their bodies engender no heat and their [semen] therefore does not decompose, or is it possible that on account of their consumption of forbidden animals and reptiles their bodies also engender heat and their semen also decomposes? — This remains undecided.

בתוך ג' לא קמיבעיא ליה לרב פפא כי קמיבעיא ליה לאחר ג' מאי

THE CLEAN BLOOD OF A LEPROUS WOMAN, BETH SHAMMAI etc. What is Beth Hillel's reason? — R. Isaac replied: 'Whether it be a man'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. ');">⁸</span>

ישראל דדייגי במצות חביל גופייהו ומסריח עובדי כוכבים דלא דייגי במצות לא חביל גופייהו ולא מסריח

includes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expression is not required for its context that previously in the same verse dealt in general terms 'of him that have an issue'. ');">⁹</span>

או דילמא

a male leper as regards his sources;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His mouth, for instance. Sc. not only is his body a primary uncleanness but, as the zab of which the text explicitly speaks, his spittle also is a primary uncleanness and may, therefore, impart uncleanness of the first degree to man and articles. ');">¹⁰</span>

כיון דאכלי שקצים ורמשים חביל גופייהו ומסריח

'or a woman'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. ');">⁸</span>

תיקו

includes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expression is not required for its context that previously in the same verse dealt in general terms 'of him that have an issue'. ');">⁹</span>

דם טהרה של מצורעת ב"ש כו'

a female leper as regards her sources. Now what could be meant by 'her sources'? If it be suggested: Her other sources<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those that do not discharge blood but spittle or urine. ');">¹¹</span>

מאי טעמא דב"ה

[the objection could be made that the uncleanness of these] could be inferred from that of the male.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As these sources of the male are unclean, so are the similar sources of the female. ');">¹²</span>

אמר ר' יצחק

The reference consequently must be to [the uncleanness of] her blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does not apply to the male. ');">¹³</span>

לזכר לרבות מצורע למעינותיו ולנקבה לרבות מצורעת למעינותיה

to declare her 'CLEAN BLOOD' unclean. And Beth Shammai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can they maintain their ruling in view of this argument? ');">¹⁴</span>

מאי מעינותיה

— [The uncleanness of] a female could not be deduced from that of a male, for it can be objected: The position of the male is different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From that of a female. ');">¹⁵</span>

אילימא שאר מעינותיה מזכר נפקא אלא לדמה לטמא דם טהרה שלה

since he is also required<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When leprous. ');">¹⁶</span>

וב"ש

to uncover his head and to rend his clothes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XIII, 45. ');">¹⁷</span>

נקבה מזכר לא אתיא דאיכא למיפרך

and he is also forbidden cohabitation; [how then could his uncleanness] be compared to that of a female<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When leprous. ');">¹⁸</span>

מה לזכר שכן טעון פריעה ופרימה ואסור בתשמיש המטה תאמר בנקבה דלא

who is not [subject to his restrictions]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ker. 8b. ');">¹⁹</span>

וב"ה

And Beth Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 237. n. 10. ');">²⁰</span>

לכתוב רחמנא בנקבה ולא בעי זכר

— The All Merciful could have written down the restrictions in regard to the female and there would have been no need to repeat them in regard to the male; for it could have been argued: If in the case of a female,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When leprous. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואנא אמינא

who is not required to uncover her head or to rend her clothes and who is not forbidden cohabitation either, the All Merciful included her sources<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As regards uncleanness, ');">²¹</span>

ומה נקבה שאינה טעונה פריעה ופרימה ואינה אסורה בתשמיש המטה רבי רחמנא מעינותיה

how much more then should this be the rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When leprous. ');">¹⁸</span>

זכר לא כ"ש

in the case of the male.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is subject to these restrictions. ');">²²</span>

אם אינו ענין לזכר תנהו ענין לנקבה ואם אינו ענין למעינותיה תנהו ענין לדמה לטמא דם טהרה שלה

Now since the text serves no purpose in regard to the male,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose case, as has just been shown, could well have been deduced from that of the female. ');">²³</span>

וב"ש

apply it to the female; and since it can serve no purpose as far as her other sources<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those that do not discharge blood but spittle or urine. ');">²⁴</span>

זכר מנקבה לא אתיא דאיכא למיפרך

are concerned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These having been deduced supra from 'or a woman', ');">²⁵</span>

מה לנקבה שכן מטמאה מאונס תאמר בזכר דלא

apply it to her blood, to declare her 'CLEAN BLOOD' unclean. And Beth Shammai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can they maintain their ruling in view of this argument? ');">²⁶</span>

וב"ה

— The uncleanness of a male cannot be deduced from that of a female, for it can be objected: The position of a female is different,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From that of a male. ');">²⁷</span>

קיימי במצורע ופרכי מילי דזב

since she becomes unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of zibah. ');">²⁸</span>

וב"ש

even as a result of a mishap; [how then could her uncleanness] be compared to that of a male who is not [subject to such a restriction]? And Beth Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can they maintain their ruling in view of this argument? ');">²⁶</span>

שום טומאה פרכי

— The subject dealt with is the position of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'stand at', ');">²⁹</span>

ואיבעית אימא אמרי לך ב"ש

the leper, how can they raise an objection against it from that of the <i>zab</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that'. ');">³⁰</span>

האי לזכר מיבעי ליה לזכר כל שהוא זכר (האי) בין גדול בין קטן

And Beth Shammai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can they maintain their ruling in view of this argument? ');">²⁶</span>

ובית הלל

— They raise objections from any form of uncleanness. And if you prefer I might reply that Beth Shammai can answer you: The expression<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that'. ');">³⁰</span>

נפקא להו מזאת תורת הזב בין גדול בין קטן

'whether it be a man'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. ');">³¹</span>

אמר רב יוסף כי פשיט רבי שמעון בן לקיש בזב בעי הכי

is required for the following exposition: 'Whether it be a man' whosoever is a man irrespective of whether he is of age or only a minor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In either case is he subject to the uncleanness of zibah. Now since the text is required for this exposition it cannot also serve the purpose for which Beth Hillel seek to employ it. ');">³²</span>

ראייה ראשונה של זב קטן מהו שתטמא במגע

And Beth Hillel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having used the text for their ruling in our Mishnah whence do they derive this ruling? ');">³³</span>

(ויקרא טו, לב) זאת תורת הזב ואשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע אמר רחמנא כל ששכבת זרע שלו מטמא ראייה ראשונה שלו מטמאה והאי כיון דשכבת זרע שלו לא מטמאה ראייה ראשונה נמי לא תטמא

— They derive this ruling from 'This is the law of him that hath an issue'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 32. ');">³⁴</span>

או דילמא

which implies, whether he be of age or a minor.

כיון דאילו איהו חזי תרתי מצטרפא מטמיא

R. Joseph stated: When R. Simeon b. Lakish discoursed on the <i>zab</i> he raised the following question.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'enquired thus'. ');">³⁵</span>

אמר רבא

Does the first observation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a discharge. ');">³⁶</span>

ת"ש זאת תורת הזב בין גדול בין קטן מה גדול ראייה ראשונה שלו מטמא אף קטן ראייה ראשונה נמי מטמא

of a <i>zab</i> who was a minor convey uncleanness by contact? The All Merciful having said, This is the law of him that hath an issue and of him from whom the flow of seed goeth out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 32. ');">³⁷</span>

בעי רב יוסף

therefore only if his 'flow of seed' causes uncleanness does his first observation also cause uncleanness, but the minor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., that'. ');">³⁸</span>

ראייה ראשונה של מצורע מהו שתטמא במשא

since his 'flow of seed' conveys no uncleanness, his first observation also conveys no uncleanness; or is it possible that it is unclean, since if he observed two discharges the two are combined?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Constituting him a confirmed zab in respect of the uncleanness of seven days, as an adult zab. ');">³⁹</span>

מקום זיבה מעין הוא ומטמא או דילמא לאו מעין הוא

— Raba replied. Come and hear: This is the law of him that have an issue,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 32. ');">³⁷</span>

אמר רבא

implies, whether he is of age or a minor; as in the case of an adult a first observation conveys uncleanness so also in that of a minor a first observation conveys uncleanness.

ת"ש (ויקרא טו, ב) זובו טמא הוא לימד על הזוב שהוא טמא

R. Joseph enquired: Does the blood of a first observation of a leper convey uncleanness by contact? Is the place of the <i>zibah</i> a source and, therefore, conveys uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the other sources of a leper. ');">⁴⁰</span>

במאי

or is it possible that it is no source and, therefore, conveys no uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Except by contact. ');">⁴¹</span>

אילימא בזב גרידא

— Raba replied, Come and hear: His issue is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 2, referring (since the root meaning 'issue' is repeated) to a second discharge. ');">⁴²</span> this teaches concerning an issue of a <i>zab</i> that it is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And conveys it not only by contact but also by carriage (cf. infra 55a). ');">⁴³</span> Now of what kind of person has this been said? If it be suggested: Of one who is only a <i>zab</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But no leper. ');">⁴⁴</span>