Niddah 86

Chapter 86

א וירדה וטבלה מהו

1 from the source, and then she1

ב 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 תיקו

2 went down and performed ritual immersion? If you were to find a case2 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,3

ג ומטמאין בכל שהן אמר שמואל זב צריך כחתימת פי האמה שנאמר (ויקרא טו, ג) או החתים בשרו מזובו

3 or is it possible that no difference is made between them? — This is undecided. AND THE DISCHARGES CONVEY UNCLEANNESS HOWEVER SMALL THE QUANTITY. Samuel ruled: [the discharge of] a zab4 must be such a quantity as would stop the orifice of the membrum, for it is said in Scriptures Or his flesh be stopped from his issue.5 But have we not learnt: AND THE DISCHARGES CONVEY UNCLEANNESS, HOWEVER SMALL THE QUANTITY? — He6

ד והאנן תנן מטמאין בכל שהן הוא דאמר כרבי נתן דתניא רבי נתן אומר משום רבי ישמעאל זב צריך כחתימת פי האמה ולא הודו לו

4 maintains the same view as R. Nathan. For it was taught: R. Nathan citing R. Ishmael ruled, [the discharge of] a zab4 must be such a quantity as would stop the orifice of the membrum; but [the Rabbis] did not agree with him.7 What is R. Ishmael's reason? — Because Scripture said, Or his flesh be stopped from his issue.5 And the Rabbis?8 — That text9

ה מ"ט דרבי ישמעאל דאמר קרא או החתים בשרו מזובו

5 is required for the inference that the discharge conveys uncleanness only when in a state of fluidity10 but not when it is dry.11

ו ורבנן ההוא מבעי ליה לח מטמא ואינו מטמא יבש

6 And R. Ishmael?12 — That13

ז ורבי ישמעאל ההוא מרר נפקא

7 is inferred from run.14 And the Rabbis?15

ח ורבנן ההוא למנינא הוא דאתא זובו חדא רר בשרו תרי את זובו תלת לימד על זב בעל שלש ראיות שחייב בקרבן

8 — That text14 serves the purpose of indicating the number:16 His issue,9

ט או החתים בשרו מזובו טמא מקצת זובו טמא לימד על זב בעל שתי ראיות שמטמא משכב ומושב ורבי ישמעאל מנינא מנא ליה נפקא ליה מדרבי סימאי

9 implies once; His flesh run,9 implies twice; With his issue,9 implies three times; thus it was taught that a zab who observed three discharges is under an obligation to bring a sacrifice; Or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his uncleanness,9

י דתניא רבי סימאי אומר מנה הכתוב שתים וקראו טמא שלש וקראו טמא הא כיצד שתים לטומאה ושלש לקרבן

10 implies that he is unclean even on account of a part of the number of his issues,17 this teaches that a zab who observed only two discharges conveys uncleanness to his couch and seat. As to R. Ishmael, however,18 whence does he deduce the number required?19

יא ולמאן דנפקא ליה תרוייהו {ויקרא טו } מזאת תהיה טומאתו בזובו (ויקרא טו, ב) איש איש כי יהיה זב מבשרו מאי עביד ליה מבעי ליה עד שיצא מבשרו

11 — 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 unclean20 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. ');">21

יב זובו טמא למה לי לימד על הזוב שהוא טמא

12 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 Rabbis22 who deduced both numbers from 'This shall be his uncleanness in his issue',23

יג אמר רב חנילאי משום ר"א בר"ש שכבת זרע לרואה במשהו לנוגע בכעדשה והאנן מטמאין בכל שהן תנן מאי לאו לנוגע לא לרואה

13 what deduction do they make from the text 'when any man hath an issue out of his flesh'?24 — 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'?24 — 'This teaches that the issue itself25 is unclean. R. Hanilai citing R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon ruled: Semen conveys uncleanness to the man who emitted it,26

יד ת"ש חומר בשכבת זרע מבשרץ וחומר בשרץ מבשכבת זרע חומר בשרץ שהשרץ אין חלוקה טומאתו מה שאין כן בשכבת זרע חומר בשכבת זרע שהשכבת זרע מטמא בכל שהוא מה שאין כן בשרץ

14 however small its quantity, but as regards the man who touched it its quantity must be of the bulk of a lentil.27 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.26 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,28 which is not the case with semen.29

טו מאי לאו לנוגע לא לרואה

15 '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.30 Now does not this apply to one who touched the semen?31

טז והא דומיא דשרץ קתני מה שרץ בנגיעה אף שכבת זרע בנגיעה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה שום שרץ קתני ושום שכבת זרע קתני

16 — No, it applies only to one who emitted it.32 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?31 — R. Adda b. Ahabah replied: The ruling referred to a creeping thing in general33

יז ושרץ לא מטמא במשהו והא אנן תנן האברים אין להם שיעור פחות מכזית בשר המת ופחות מכזית בשר נבלה ופחות מכעדשה מן השרץ

17 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. ');">34 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 body35 have36 no prescribed minimum size [and uncleanness is, therefore, conveyed] by less than the size of an olive of corpse,37

יח שאני אבר דכוליה במקום עדשה קאי דהא אילו חסר פורתא אבר מי קמטמיא

18 by less than the size of an olive of nebelah or by less than the size of a lentil of a dead creeping thing?38

יט שכבת זרע דחלוקה טומאתו מאי היא אילימא בין ישראל לדנכרים ה"נ איכא עכבר דים ועכבר דיבשה

19 — It is different with a member of the body39 since the whole of it takes the place of the size of a lentil; for were any part of it40

כ אלא בין קטן לגדול

20 missing,41

כא אמר רב פפא כתנאי מנין לרבות נוגע בש"ז ת"ל (ויקרא כב, ד) או איש

21 would the member42 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. ');">43

כב ופליגי תנאי בעלמא דאיכא דאמרי דון מינה ומינה ואיכא דאמרי דון מינה ואוקי באתרא

22 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 also44

כג למ"ד דון מינה ומינה מה שרץ בנגיעה אף שכבת זרע בנגיעה ומינה מה שרץ בכעדשה אף ש"ז בכעדשה

23 a distinction between a sea-mouse and a land-mouse?45 — The distinction rather is that between a minor and an adult.46 R. Papa stated: This ruling47

כד ולמ"ד דון מינה ואוקי באתרא מה שרץ בנגיעה אף ש"ז בנגיעה ואוקי באתרא מה ש"ז לרואה במשהו אף לנוגע במשהו

24 is a point at issue between Tannas:48 [For it was taught] whence do we derive the inclusion in uncleanness of one who touched semen? From Scripture which explicitly stated, Or whosoever;49 and elsewhere Tannas differ on a relevant point,50 for there are those who hold that a deduction is carried through in all respects51

כה א"ל רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לרב פפא ממאי דמאו איש דשרץ קמרבי ליה דילמא מאו איש אשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע קמרבי ליה ודכ"ע דון מינה ומינה

25 while others hold that a deduction is limited by its original basis.52 Now according to those who hold that a deduction is carried through in all respects51 it follows that as a dead creeping thing53

כו שיילינהו לתנאי איכא דתני כרב פפא ואיכא דתני כרב הונא בריה דרב נתן

26 conveys uncleanness through touch so does semen convey uncleanness by touch and, consequently,54

כז <big>מתני׳</big> תנוקת בת יום אחד מטמאה בנדה בת י' ימים מטמאה בזיבה

27 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 basis55

כח תנוק בן יום אחד מטמא בזיבה ומטמא בנגעים ומטמא בטמא מת וזוקק ליבום ופוטר מן היבום ומאכיל בתרומה ופוסל (את) [מן] התרומה

28 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? ');">56 Said57 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?58 Is it not possible that the inclusion is derived from the expression of 'Or from whomsoever the flow of seed goeth out,59 and60 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. ');">61 The Tannas62 were asked63 Some recited as R. Papa while others recited in agreement with R. Huna son of R. Nathan. MISHNAH. A GIRL ONE DAY OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF MENSTRUATION. ONE WHO IS TEN DAYS OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF ZIBAH. A BOY ONE DAY OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF ZIBAH, AND TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY AND THAT OF CORPSEUNCLEANNESS; HE SUBJECTS [HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIDOW] TO THE DUTY OF LEVIRATE MARRIAGE;64 HE EXEMPTS [HIS MOTHER] FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE,65 HE ENABLES HER66 TO EAT TERUMAH AND HE ALSO CAUSES HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED FROM EATING TERUMAH;67

Previous Chapter Next Chapter