Niddah 86
אם תמצי לומר בתר עקירה אזלינן אע"ג דמצי נקיט להו ה"מ ישראלית דטמאה דאורייתא אבל עובדת כוכבים זבה דטמאה דרבנן לא או דילמא לא שנא
went down and performed ritual immersion? If you were to find a case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of an Israelitish woman. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
תיקו
where we follow the time of the detachment even where the woman can restrain the discharge [the question would arise], Does this apply only to the Israelitish woman who is Pentateuchally unclean but not to an idolatress who was a zabah, since she is only Rabbinically unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 5. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
נפקא ליה מדרבי סימאי דתניא רבי סימאי אומר
implies three times; thus it was taught that a <i>zab</i> who observed three discharges is under an obligation to bring a sacrifice; Or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 3. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
הא כיצד
this teaches that a <i>zab</i> who observed only two discharges conveys uncleanness to his couch and seat. As to R. Ishmael, however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who requires the expression of 'run with his issue' for the inference he mentioned supra. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ולמאן דנפקא ליה תרוייהו {ויקרא טו } מזאת תהיה טומאתו בזובו (ויקרא טו, ב) איש איש כי יהיה זב מבשרו מאי עביד ליה
— He derives it from an exposition of R. Simai; for it was taught: R. Simai stated, Scripture enumerated two issues and described the man as unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When any man hath an issue out of his flesh (Lev. XV, 2), counts as one; his issue be unclean (ibid), counts as a second. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
מבעי ליה עד שיצא מבשרו
and it also enumerated three issues and described the man as unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This shall be his uncleanness in his issue (Lev. XV, 3) counts as one; His flesh run with his issue (ibid.) counts as a second; or his flesh be stopped from his issue (ibid.) counts as a third. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
זובו טמא למה לי
how is this to be reconciled? Two observations subject a man to the restrictions of uncleanness, and three observations render him liable to bring a sacrifice. But according to the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'him'. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
שכבת זרע לרואה במשהו לנוגע בכעדשה
— They require it for the deduction that uncleanness does not begin until the discharge emerged from one's flesh. What need, however, was there for 'His issue be unclean'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 12. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
ת"ש
however small its quantity, but as regards the man who touched it its quantity must be of the bulk of a lentil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A lesser quantity, as is the case with a dead creeping thing, conveys no uncleanness. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
חומר בשכבת זרע מבשרץ וחומר בשרץ מבשכבת זרע
But did we not learn, AND THE DISCHARGES CONVEY UNCLEANNESS, HOWEVER SMALL THE QUANTITY, which applies, does it not, to the case of one who touched semen? — No, it applies only to one who emitted it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to the one who observes'. ');"><sup>26</sup></span>
חומר בשרץ שהשרץ אין חלוקה טומאתו מה שאין כן בשכבת זרע
Come and hear: In one respect the law of semen is more restrictive than that of a dead creeping thing while in another respect the law of a dead creeping thing is more restrictive than that of semen. 'The law of a dead creeping thing is more restrictive' in that no distinction [of age] is made about its uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Young and old are equally unclean. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
חומר בשכבת זרע שהשכבת זרע מטמא בכל שהוא מה שאין כן בשרץ
which is not the case with semen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncleanness on account of an emission of semen being restricted to one who is over nine years of age. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
מאי לאו לנוגע
'The law of semen is more restrictive' in that uncleanness is conveyed by its smallest quantity, which is not the case with a creeping thing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Kel. I. Cf. supra n. 2. ');"><sup>30</sup></span>
אמר רב אדא בר אהבה
But was it not taught as being on a par with the creeping thing: As the latter is a case of touching so also the former?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But this would present an objection against R. Hanilai's ruling. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
ושרץ לא מטמא במשהו
and to semen in general.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it referred to the form of uncleanness appropriate to each. A dead creeping thing can never convey uncleanness unless its bulk is of the prescribed size, while semen, when it concerns the man who had emitted it, may convey uncleanness, however small its quantity. ');"><sup>34</sup></span>
והא אנן תנן
But does a creeping thing convey no uncleanness even when it is of the smallest bulk? Have we not in fact learnt: Members of the body<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. any part of it which consists of flesh, sinews and bones (v. Bertinoro). ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
פחות מכזית בשר המת ופחות מכזית בשר נבלה ופחות מכעדשה מן השרץ
no prescribed minimum size [and uncleanness is, therefore, conveyed] by less than the size of an olive of corpse,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but one. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
שאני אבר דכוליה במקום עדשה קאי דהא אילו חסר פורתא אבר מי קמטמיא
by less than the size of an olive of <i>nebelah</i> or by less than the size of a lentil of a dead creeping thing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Oh. I, 7, which shows that a dead creeping thing conveys uncleanness, however small its bulk. ');"><sup>38</sup></span>
כתנאי מנין לרבות נוגע בש"ז ת"ל (ויקרא כב, ד) או איש
have conveyed any uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not; which shows that it is only on account of its importance that the force of conveying uncleanness (as a piece of the prescribed size) was imparted to it. Any other part of the body, however, is subject to the prescribed minimum. ');"><sup>43</sup></span>
ופליגי תנאי בעלמא דאיכא דאמרי דון מינה ומינה ואיכא דאמרי דון מינה ואוקי באתרא
What is meant by the 'distinction in uncleanness' in the case of semen? If it be suggested: The distinction between the semen of an Israelite and that of foreigners [it could be objected]: Is there not in this case also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of a creeping thing. ');"><sup>44</sup></span>
מה שרץ בנגיעה אף ש"ז בנגיעה
[For it was taught] whence do we derive the inclusion in uncleanness of one who touched semen? From Scripture which explicitly stated, Or whosoever;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is now presumed to refer to Lev. XXII, 5, which deals with the uncleanness of a creeping thing. ');"><sup>49</sup></span>
מה ש"ז לרואה במשהו אף לנוגע במשהו
for there are those who hold that a deduction is carried through in all respects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'judge from it and (again) from it', i.e., all that applies to the case from which deduction is made is also applicable to the case deduced ');"><sup>51</sup></span>
א"ל רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לרב פפא
while others hold that a deduction is limited by its original basis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'judge from it and set it in its (original) place', i.e., the rules applicable to the case deduced limit the scope of the deduction. ');"><sup>52</sup></span>
ממאי דמאו איש דשרץ קמרבי ליה דילמא מאו איש אשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע קמרבי ליה
Now according to those who hold that a deduction is carried through in all respects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'judge from it and (again) from it', i.e., all that applies to the case from which deduction is made is also applicable to the case deduced ');"><sup>51</sup></span>
שיילינהו לתנאי איכא דתני כרב פפא ואיכא דתני כרב הונא בריה דרב נתן
conveys uncleanness through touch so does semen convey uncleanness by touch and, consequently,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and from it', since 'a deduction is carried through in all respects.' ');"><sup>54</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> תנוקת בת יום אחד מטמאה בנדה בת י' ימים מטמאה בזיבה
as a dead creeping thing conveys uncleanness only when it is of the bulk of a lentil so does semen convey uncleanness only when it is of the bulk of a lentil; while according to him who maintained that a deduction is limited by its original basis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 301, n. 15. ');"><sup>55</sup></span>
תנוק בן יום אחד מטמא בזיבה ומטמא בנגעים ומטמא בטמא מת וזוקק ליבום ופוטר מן היבום ומאכיל בתרומה ופוסל (את) [מן] התרומה
it also follows that as a dead creeping thing conveys uncleanness through touch so does semen convey uncleanness through touch, but then, limiting it to its original basis, as semen conveys uncleanness to the man who emitted it, however small its quantity, so does it also convey uncleanness to the man who touched it, however small its quantity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It has thus been shown that R. Hanilai's ruling is a point at issue between Tannas. Is it likely, however, that R. Hanilai would differ from the Tannas who presumably hold a different view? ');"><sup>56</sup></span> Said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In an attempt to remove the difficulty (cf. prev. n. second clause). ');"><sup>57</sup></span> R. Huna son of R. Nathan to R. Papa: Whence the proof that the inclusion in uncleanness of one who touched semen is deduced from the expression of 'Or whosoever occurring in the context dealing with the creeping thing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 5, as presumed by R. Papa supra. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> Is it not possible that the inclusion is derived from the expression of 'Or from whomsoever the flow of seed goeth out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the deduction is not made from the contact of the creeping thing. ');"><sup>60</sup></span> all may be of the opinion that a deduction is to be carried through in all respects?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. even if all were to uphold this view, uncleanness would nevertheless be conveyed by the touch of the smallest quantity of semen, since the inference is made, not from the uncleanness of the creeping thing but from that of the emission of semen which is conveyed by the smallest quantity. ');"><sup>61</sup></span> The Tannas<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those who recited Mishnahs and Baraithas at the college; v. Glos. s.v. (b). ');"><sup>62</sup></span> were asked<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To give a decision as to whether R. Papa or R. Huna was in the right. ');"><sup>63</sup></span> Some recited as R. Papa while others recited in agreement with R. Huna son of R. Nathan. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A GIRL ONE DAY OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF MENSTRUATION. ONE WHO IS TEN DAYS OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF <i>ZIBAH</i>. A BOY ONE DAY OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF <i>ZIBAH</i>, AND TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY AND THAT OF CORPSEUNCLEANNESS; HE SUBJECTS [HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIDOW] TO THE DUTY OF LEVIRATE MARRIAGE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Provided he was born prior to his brother's death. ');"><sup>64</sup></span> HE EXEMPTS [HIS MOTHER] FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he was born after his father's death though he only lived for a short while. ');"><sup>65</sup></span> HE ENABLES HER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His mother, the daughter of an Israelite, who was married to a priest, though the latter was dead when the child was born. ');"><sup>66</sup></span> TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i> AND HE ALSO CAUSES HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED FROM EATING <i>TERUMAH</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is now presumed to refer to a priest's daughter who was married to an Israelite who died and was survived by a son one day old (v. Gemara infra.) ');"><sup>67</sup></span>