Niddah 68

Chapter 68

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

1 even in the bowels of an idolatress,1 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.2

ב וכי תימא ה"נ טהור' מדאוריית' אבל טמאה מדרבנן אטו מי רגליה מדאורייתא מי מטמאו אלא ש"מ טהורה אפילו מדרבנן ש"מ

2 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?3 Consequently it may be inferred that it4 is clean even Rabbinically. This is conclusive.

ג אמר מר שכבת זרע של ישראל טמאה בכ"מ אפי' במעי עובדת כוכבים תפשוט דבעי רב פפא דבעי רב פפא שכבת זרע של ישראל במעי עובדת כוכבים מהו

3 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 days5 R. Papa raised no questions. His enquiry related only to one after three days.6 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 decomposes7 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.

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

4 THE CLEAN BLOOD OF A LEPROUS WOMAN, BETH SHAMMAI etc. What is Beth Hillel's reason? — R. Isaac replied: 'Whether it be a man'8

ה ישראל דדייגי במצות חביל גופייהו ומסריח עובדי כוכבים דלא דייגי במצות לא חביל גופייהו ולא מסריח או דילמא כיון דאכלי שקצים ורמשים חביל גופייהו ומסריח תיקו

5 includes9 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 'or a woman'8 includes9

ו דם טהרה של מצורעת ב"ש כו' מאי טעמא דב"ה אמר ר' יצחק לזכר לרבות מצורע למעינותיו ולנקבה לרבות מצורעת למעינותיה

6 a female leper as regards her sources. Now what could be meant by 'her sources'? If it be suggested: Her other sources11 [the objection could be made that the uncleanness of these] could be inferred from that of the male.12 The reference consequently must be to [the uncleanness of] her blood,13 to declare her 'CLEAN BLOOD' unclean. And Beth Shammai?14

ז מאי מעינותיה אילימא שאר מעינותיה מזכר נפקא אלא לדמה לטמא דם טהרה שלה

7 — [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 different15 since he is also required16

ח וב"ש נקבה מזכר לא אתיא דאיכא למיפרך מה לזכר שכן טעון פריעה ופרימה ואסור בתשמיש המטה תאמר בנקבה דלא

8 to uncover his head and to rend his clothes17 and he is also forbidden cohabitation; [how then could his uncleanness] be compared to that of a female18 who is not [subject to his restrictions]?19

ט וב"ה לכתוב רחמנא בנקבה ולא בעי זכר ואנא אמינא ומה נקבה שאינה טעונה פריעה ופרימה ואינה אסורה בתשמיש המטה רבי רחמנא מעינותיה זכר לא כ"ש

9 And Beth Hillel?20 — 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,18 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 sources21 how much more then should this be the rule18 in the case of the male.22

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

10 Now since the text serves no purpose in regard to the male,23

יא וב"ש זכר מנקבה לא אתיא דאיכא למיפרך מה לנקבה שכן מטמאה מאונס תאמר בזכר דלא

11 apply it to the female; and since it can serve no purpose as far as her other sources24 are concerned,25 apply it to her blood, to declare her 'CLEAN BLOOD' unclean. And Beth Shammai?26

יב וב"ה קיימי במצורע ופרכי מילי דזב וב"ש שום טומאה פרכי

12 — 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,27 since she becomes unclean28 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?26 — The subject dealt with is the position of29

יג ואיבעית אימא אמרי לך ב"ש האי לזכר מיבעי ליה לזכר כל שהוא זכר (האי) בין גדול בין קטן ובית הלל נפקא להו מזאת תורת הזב בין גדול בין קטן

13 the leper, how can they raise an objection against it from that of the zab?30 And Beth Shammai?26 — They raise objections from any form of uncleanness. And if you prefer I might reply that Beth Shammai can answer you: The expression30 'whether it be a man'31

יד אמר רב יוסף כי פשיט רבי שמעון בן לקיש בזב בעי הכי ראייה ראשונה של זב קטן מהו שתטמא במגע (ויקרא טו, לב) זאת תורת הזב ואשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע אמר רחמנא

14 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 And Beth Hillel?33 — They derive this ruling from 'This is the law of him that hath an issue'34

טו כל ששכבת זרע שלו מטמא ראייה ראשונה שלו מטמאה והאי כיון דשכבת זרע שלו לא מטמאה ראייה ראשונה נמי לא תטמא או דילמא כיון דאילו איהו חזי תרתי מצטרפא מטמיא

15 which implies, whether he be of age or a minor. R. Joseph stated: When R. Simeon b. Lakish discoursed on the zab he raised the following question.35

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

16 Does the first observation36 of a zab 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,37

יז בעי רב יוסף ראייה ראשונה של מצורע מהו שתטמא במשא מקום זיבה מעין הוא ומטמא או דילמא לאו מעין הוא

17 therefore only if his 'flow of seed' causes uncleanness does his first observation also cause uncleanness, but the minor,38 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?39 — Raba replied. Come and hear: This is the law of him that have an issue,37

יח אמר רבא ת"ש (ויקרא טו, ב) זובו טמא הוא לימד על הזוב שהוא טמא במאי אילימא בזב גרידא

18 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. R. Joseph enquired: Does the blood of a first observation of a leper convey uncleanness by contact? Is the place of the zibah a source and, therefore, conveys uncleanness,40 or is it possible that it is no source and, therefore, conveys no uncleanness?41 — Raba replied, Come and hear: His issue is unclean,42 this teaches concerning an issue of a zab that it is unclean.43 Now of what kind of person has this been said? If it be suggested: Of one who is only a zab44

Previous Chapter Next Chapter