Niddah 69

לאחרים גורם טומאה לעצמו לא כל שכן

[the difficulty would arise:] If it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The issue of a zab. ');">¹</span>

אלא פשיטא בזב מצורע ומדאיצטריך קרא לרבויי בראייה שניה שמע מינה

causes the uncleanness of others,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Anything that the zab carries is unclean. ');">²</span>

מקום זיבה לאו מעין הוא

is it not obvious that it causes that of the man himself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What need then is there to mention the obvious? ');">³</span>

אמר ליה רב יהודה מדסקרתא לרבא

It is consequently obvious that this has been said of a <i>zab</i> who is a leper.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom, being unclean on account of his leprosy, the inference a minori ad majus cannot be applied. ');">⁴</span>

ממאי

And since a Scriptural text was required to include him in the category of uncleanness after a second observation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus implying that a first issue is clean. ');">⁵</span>

דילמא לעולם אימא לך בזב גרידא ודקאמרת לאחרים גורם טומאה לעצמו לא כל שכן שעיר המשתלח יוכיח שגורם טומאה לאחרים והוא עצמו טהור

it may be inferred that the place of the <i>zibah</i> is no source.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, therefore, causes no uncleanness by carriage. Had it been a source the first discharge would have been unclean and there would have been no need to include in the uncleanness a second one. ');">⁶</span>

אמר אביי

Said Rab Judah of Diskarta<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Deskarah, sixteen parasangs N.E. of Bagdad. v. Obermeyer. p. 146]. ');">⁷</span>

מאי תבעי ליה

to Raba: What is the proof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from what'. ');">⁸</span>

והא הוא דאמר זאת תורת הזב בין גדול בין קטן וכיון דנפקא ליה מהתם אייתר ליה לזכר לרבות מצורע למעינותיו נקבה לרבות מצורעת למעינותיה ואקשיה רחמנא מצורע לזב גמור מה זב גמור מטמא במשא אף ראייה ראשונה של מצורע מטמא במשא

Is it not still possible to maintain that the text deals with one who is only a <i>zab</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While the discharge of a leper requires no Scriptural text to tell of its uncleanness since even a first one is unclean by reason of its issue from a leper's source. ');">⁹</span>

א"ר הונא

and as to your objection 'If it causes the uncleanness of others, is it not obvious that it causes that of the man himself?' [It can be retorted:] The case of the scapegoat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev, XVI, 5ff. ');">¹⁰</span>

ראייה ראשונה של זב מטמאה באונס שנאמר

proves [the invalidity of your argument], for it causes uncleanness to others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man who carries it to Azazel (cf. Lev. XVI, 8, 26). ');">¹¹</span>

(ויקרא טו, לב) זאת תורת הזב ואשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע מה שכבת זרע מטמא באונס אף ראייה ראשונה של זב מטמאה באונס

while it is itself clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As any other live beast. ');">¹²</span>

תא שמע

Abaye observed: Why did he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph. ');">¹³</span>

ראה ראייה ראשונה בודקין אותו

at all raise such a question, seeing that he himself stated, 'This is the law of him that hath an issue,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 32. ');">¹⁴</span>

מאי לאו לטומאה

implies, whether he is of age or a minor', and since this law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncleanness of a minor. ');">¹⁵</span>

לא לקרבן

has been deduced by him from that text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 32. ');">¹⁴</span>

ת"ש

the expression of 'whether it be a man'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33, from which it was deduced supra that the first discharge of a minor is unclean. ');">¹⁶</span>

בשניה בודקין אותו

remains free for the purpose of including a leper in regard to his source and 'or a woman' serves to include a female leper in regard to her sources; and the All Merciful has compared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By including the expression of 'whether it be a man' (applied to the leper) in the text dealing with the zab. ');">¹⁷</span>

למאי

the leper to the confirmed <i>zab</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One who observed two discharges (for the proof cf. Rashi). ');">¹⁸</span>

אילימא לקרבן אבל לטומאה לא אקרי כאן מבשרו ולא מחמת אונסו אלא לאו לטומאה ומדסיפא לטומאה רישא נמי לטומאה

As the confirmed <i>zab</i> conveys uncleanness through carriage so does the first discharge of a leper convey uncleanness by carriage.

מידי איריא

R. Huna ruled: The first observed discharge of a <i>zab</i> conveys uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a light nature: Only by contact and for the duration of one day; and only when it was followed by a second discharge does the person become a confirmed zab in respect of the counting of the seven days of uncleanness. ');">¹⁹</span>

הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

even in the case of a mishap; for it is 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. ');">¹⁴</span>

תא שמע רבי אליעזר אומר

as 'the flow of seed' conveys uncleanness even in the case of a mishap so does the first observed discharge of a <i>zab</i> convey uncleanness even in the case of a mishap. Come and hear: If he observed a first discharge, he must be examined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zabim II, 2. ');">²⁰</span>

אף בשלישי בודקין אותו מפני הקרבן

Is not this done to determine his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what, not to'. ');">²¹</span>

מכלל דתנא קמא מפני הטומאה קאמר

uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By ascertaining whether the discharge was or was not due to a mishap. In the former case it would be deemed clean. An objection against R. Huna. ');">²²</span>

לא דכולי עלמא לקרבן והכא באתים קא מיפלגי רבנן לא דרשי אתים ורבי אליעזר דריש אתים

— No; in regard to a sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which must be brought after three observed discharges. In case of a mishap the discharge is not reckoned as one of the three. ');">²³</span>

רבנן לא דרשי אתים

Come and hear: At the second observation of a discharge he must be examined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zabim II, 2. ');">²⁰</span>

הזב חדא זובו תרתי לזכר בשלישי אקשיה רחמנא לנקבה

Now for what purpose? If it be suggested: For that of a sacrifice but not for that of uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the major uncleanness. ');">²⁴</span>

ורבי אליעזר דריש אתים

[it could be retorted:] Apply here the Scriptural text 'out of his flesh'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 2, dealing with one who observed two discharges. ');">²⁵</span>

הזב חדא את תרתי זובו תלת ברביעי אקשיה רחמנא לנקבה

which implies, but not as a result of a mishap.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could it be held that no examination is required for this purpose? ');">²⁶</span>

תא שמע רבי יצחק אומר

Consequently it must be for the purpose of uncleanness. And since the final clause refers to an examination in regard to uncleanness must not the first clause also refer to one for uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3, ');">²⁷</span>

והלא זב בכלל בעל קרי היה ולמה יצא להקל עליו ולהחמיר עליו

— What an argument! Each might refer to an examination for different purposes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that as it is and that as it is'. sc. while the latter examination serves the purposes of ascertaining the person's subjection to uncleanness, the former (as stated supra) may serve that of ascertaining whether he is liable to a sacrifice. ');">²⁸</span>

להקל עליו שאין מטמא באונס ולהחמיר עליו

Come and hear: R. Eliezer ruled: Even at the third observation he must be examined on account of the sacrifice.' From which it follows, does it not, that the first Tanna requires it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The examination. ');">²⁹</span> on account of the uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By ascertaining whether the discharge was or was not due to a mishap. In the former case it would be deemed clean. An objection against R. Huna. ');">²²</span> — No; all may require it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The examination. ');">²⁹</span> on account of the sacrifice, but here they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer and the first Tanna. ');">³⁰</span> differ on the exposition of the eth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Grammatically the sign of the defined accusative. ');">³¹</span> particles. The Rabbis base no exposition on the eth particles and R. Eliezer does. 'The Rabbis base no exposition on the eth particles': 'He that hath an issue'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV. 33. V. following n. ');">³²</span> represents one discharge, 'his issue'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. E.V.. Of them that have an issue, ');">³³</span> represents a second one; so far 'for the man';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. (E.V.. whether it be a man). Sc. in the case of a mishap it is not subject to uncleanness. ');">³⁴</span> while at the third discharge the All Merciful compared him to the woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. (E.V. or a woman). Sc. even in the case of a mishap it is subject to uncleanness (cf. infra 36b) and also the obligation of a sacrifice. ');">³⁵</span> 'And R. Eliezer does': 'He that hath an issue'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. V. infra n. 3. ');">³⁶</span> represents one discharge, 'eth'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Grammatically the sign of the defined accusative. ');">³⁷</span> represents a second one, 'his issue'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. E.V., Of them that have an issue. ');">³⁸</span> represents a third one, while at the fourth discharge the All Merciful compared him to the woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. nn. In this case, however, the comparison is restricted to the case of a mishap. viz., if such a discharge occurred after some of the seven days have been counted all the counting is void. Uncleanness sets in after two discharges while a sacrifice is incurred after the third discharge. ');">³⁹</span> Come and hear: R. Isaac said, A <i>zab</i>, surely, was included in the same law of uncleanness as one who emitted semen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As will he shown infra. ');">⁴⁰</span> why then was he excluded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In being given a special section to himself. ');">⁴¹</span> In order to relax the law for him in one respect and to restrict it for him in another respect. 'To relax the law for him' in that he does not become unclean in case of a mishap; and to restrict it for him'