Niddah 55

אי מה היא מטמאה באבן מסמא אף מדוה נמי מטמאה באבן מסמא

The Gemara raises an objection: There is a unique halakha with regard to the impurity of a zav and a menstruating woman: In a case where one of them sits on an item, including one that cannot become ritually impure, e.g., a stone, and beneath that item is a vessel, that vessel becomes impure, even if their weight has no effect on the vessel, as in the case of a very heavy stone. If the verse compares the status of the menstrual blood to the status of the menstruating woman, as derived above, one can infer as follows: Just as a menstruating woman transmits impurity to items that lie beneath a very heavy stone, so too, her menstrual flow also transmits impurity to items that lie beneath a very heavy stone.

אמר רב אשי אמר קרא והנושא אותם אותם מיעוטא הוא

Rav Ashi said in response: Items designated for lying or sitting also transmit impurity to items that lie beneath a very heavy stone. The verse states with regard to an item of this kind, which was rendered impure by a zav: “And whoever touches anything that was under him shall be impure until the evening, and he that carries them shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and he shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:10). The term “them” is an exclusion, indicating that items designated for lying or sitting transmit impurity to items that lie beneath a very heavy stone, but menstrual blood does not.

ובשר המת מנלן אמר ריש לקיש אמר קרא לכל טמאתו לכל טומאות הפורשות ממנו

§ The mishna teaches: And the flesh of a corpse transmits impurity both when moist and when dry. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Reish Lakish said that this is as the verse states: “Or whoever touches any creeping thing by which he may be made impure, or a man from whom he may be made impure, from any impurity that he has” (Leviticus 22:5). The term “from any” is an amplification, indicating that one may become impure from any impurities that come from a dead person, whether they are moist or dry.

רבי יוחנן אמר או בעצם אדם או בקבר אדם דומיא דעצם מה עצם יבש אף כאן יבש

Rabbi Yoḥanan said that this halakha is derived from the verse: “And whoever touches in the open field one who is slain with a sword, or one who died, or the bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:16). The verse indicates that the impurity of a dead man is similar to the impurity of a bone: Just as a bone is dry, so too here, with regard to the impurity of a corpse, it transmits impurity even when it is dry.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאפריך אפרוכי

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the inferences of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers that the practical difference between them is the case of a corpse which is so dry that it crumbles. Reish Lakish maintains it is impure, as the term “from any” indicates that a corpse transmits impurity in any form, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains it is ritually pure, as it is unlike a bone, which does not crumble.

מיתיבי בשר המת שהופרך טהור התם דאקמח והוי עפרא

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: The flesh of a corpse that crumbled is ritually pure. The Gemara answers that this is not difficult, as the baraita there is referring to where the flesh is so dry that it has become like flour and is therefore classified as dust.

מיתיבי כל שבמת מטמא חוץ מן השינים והשער והצפורן ובשעת חבורן הכל טמא

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinions of both Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna (Oholot 3:3): Everything that is in a corpse transmits impurity, except for the teeth, and the hair, and the nails. This is the halakha only when these items are separated from the body, but when they are attached to the corpse they are all impure. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan teeth should transmit impurity because they are similar to bones, while according to Reish Lakish they should be included in the term “from any.”

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה דומיא דעצם מה עצם שנברא עמו אף כל שנברא עמו והאיכא שער וצפורן שנבראו עמו וטהורין

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Only items that are similar to a bone transmit impurity: Just as a bone is an item that was created with him at the time of birth, so too, all items that transmit impurity are those that were created with him, whereas teeth are not present at the time of birth. The Gemara asks: But are there not the cases of hair and nails, which were created with him, and yet the mishna states that they are ritually pure?

אלא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה דומיא דעצם מה עצם שנברא עמו ואין גזעו מחליף אף כל שנברא עמו ואין גזעו מחליף יצאו השינים שלא נבראו עמו יצאו שער וצפורן שאף על פי שנבראו עמו גזעו מחליף

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said a different explanation: Only those items that are similar to a bone transmit impurity: Just as a bone is an item that was created with him and its root does not renew itself, i.e., if a bone is removed a new bone does not grow in its place, so too, any item that was created with him and whose root does not renew itself transmits impurity. The teeth were excluded from this category, as they were not created with him. The hair and nails were excluded, as even though they were created with him their roots renew themselves, since they grow again after they are cut off.

והרי עור דגזעו מחליף ותנן הגלודה רבי מאיר מכשיר וחכמים פוסלין ואפילו רבנן לא קפסלי אלא דאדהכי והכי שליט בה אוירא ומתה ולעולם גזעו מחליף ותנינן אלו שעורותיהם כבשרן עור האדם

The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the case of skin, whose root renews itself, and this is as we learned in a mishna (Ḥullin 54a): In the case of an animal whose hide was removed [hageluda], Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, as the skin renews itself, and the Rabbis deem it an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] and unfit for consumption. The Gemara explains: And even the Rabbis deem it unfit only due to the fact that in the meantime, between the removal of the old hide and the growth of the new one, the air affects it and as a result it will die, but they concede that actually the skin’s root renews itself. And nevertheless we learned in a mishna (Ḥullin 122a): These are the entities whose skin has the same halakhic status as their flesh: The skin of a dead person, and the skin of a domesticated pig…and the skin of the hump of a young camel, etc.

הא איתמר עלה אמר עולא דבר תורה עור אדם טהור ומאי טעמא אמרו טמא גזרה שמא יעשה אדם עורות אביו ואמו שטיחין לחמור

The Gemara explains that it was stated with regard to that mishna that Ulla said: By Torah law, the skin of a dead person is ritually pure. And what is the reason the Sages said that it is impure? It is a rabbinic decree lest a person should fashion rugs for a donkey out of the skins of his deceased father and mother.

ואיכא דאמרי הרי עור דאין גזעו מחליף ותנן וחכמים פוסלין ואפילו רבי מאיר לא קא מכשר אלא דקריר בשרא וחייא ולעולם אין גזעו מחליף ואמר עולא דבר תורה עור אדם טהור

And some say a different version of the above discussion: Isn’t there the case of skin, whose root does not renew itself, and this is as we learned in a mishna (Ḥullin 54a): In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa and unfit for consumption, as its skin does not regrow? The Gemara explains: And even Rabbi Meir deems it fit only because the flesh cools and the animal heals, but he concedes that actually the skin’s root does not renew itself. Accordingly, the skin of a corpse should be impure. But Ulla said: By Torah law, the skin of a dead person is ritually pure.

כי איתמר דעולא אסיפא איתמר וכולן שעבדן או שהילך בהן כדי עבודה טהורין חוץ מעור אדם ואמר עולא דבר תורה עור אדם כי עבדו טהור ומה טעם אמרו טמא גזרה שמא יעשה אדם עור אביו ואמו שטיחין

The Gemara answers that when the opinion of Ulla was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause of that mishna: And for all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or where one spread them on the ground and trod on them for the same amount of time it takes for tanning, they are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure, except for the skin of a dead person, which maintains the status of flesh. And with regard to this Ulla said that by Torah law the skin of a dead person, when one tanned it, is ritually pure. And what is the reason the Sages said it is impure? It is a rabbinic decree lest a person should fashion rugs out of the skin of his deceased father and mother.

והרי בשר דגזעו מחליף וטמא אמר מר בר רב אשי בשר נעשה מקומו צלקת

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the case of flesh, whose root renews itself, as when one’s flesh is cut it regrows and heals, and yet it is impure? Mar bar Rav Ashi says: Flesh does not renew itself, as although when someone is cut his flesh regrows and heals, a scar is formed in its place.

אבל הזוב זוב מנלן דתניא זובו טמא לימד על הזוב שהוא טמא

§ The mishna teaches: But ziva transmits impurity when moist, although not when dry. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that ziva transmits impurity? As it is taught in a baraita that discusses the verse: “When any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue, it is impure” (Leviticus 15:2). This taught with regard to ziva that it is impure.

והלא דין הוא לאחרים גורם טומאה לעצמו לא כל שכן שעיר המשתלח יוכיח שגורם טומאה לאחרים והוא עצמו טהור אף אתה אל תתמה על זה שאף על פי שגורם טומאה לאחרים הוא עצמו טהור תלמוד לומר זובו טמא לימד על הזוב שהוא טמא

The baraita asks: Why is this derivation necessary? Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? Since ziva causes impurity to others, i.e., to the one who emitted the discharge, is it not all the more so that ziva itself is impure? The baraita replies that the case of the scapegoat brought on Yom Kippur may prove that this inference is not valid, as it causes impurity to others, i.e., the dispatcher of the scapegoat is rendered impure, and yet the goat itself is pure. So too, you should not be surprised about this, the discharge of ziva, that even though it causes impurity to others, ziva itself is pure. Therefore, the verse states: “His issue, it is impure.” This taught with regard to ziva that it is impure.

ואימא הני מילי במגע אבל במשא לא מידי דהוה אשרץ אמר רב ביבי בר אביי במגע לא איצטריך קרא דלא גרע משכבת זרע

The Gemara objects: But one may say that this statement, that the discharge of ziva transmits impurity, applies only to transmitting impurity by contact. But with regard to transmitting impurity by carrying it does not transmit impurity, just as it is with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, which transmits impurity by contact but not by carrying. Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: A verse was not necessary to teach that ziva transmits ritual impurity by contact, as the halakha with regard to ziva is no less stringent than with regard to semen, which transmits impurity by contact.

כי איצטריך קרא למשא ואימא במשא מטמא אדם ובגדים ובמגע אדם מטמא בגדים לא לטמא מידי דהוה אמגע נבלה

When the verse was necessary, it was to teach that ziva transmits impurity by carrying. The Gemara asks: And yet one may say that ziva transmits impurity to a person and to his garments only by carrying, but as for impurity by contact, although ziva transmits impurity to the person who touches it, it does not transmit impurity to his garments, just as is the halakha with regard to contact with an unslaughtered animal carcass. If one touches a carcass he is rendered impure but his garments remain pure, despite the fact that if one carries a carcass his garments are also rendered impure.

לא סלקא דעתך דתניא אחרים אומרים הזב את זובו לזכר ולנקבה מקיש זובו לו מה הוא לא חלקת בין מגעו למשאו לטמא אדם ולטמא בגדים אף זובו כן

The Gemara answers: This could not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita that Aḥerim say, with regard to the verse: “This is the law of him that has an issue…And of her who experiences the flow of her menstrual impurity, and of one who emits his issue [zovo], in the case of a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:32–33). The verse juxtaposes the impurity of the issue of the zav to the impurity of the zav himself: Just as with regard to him you did not distinguish between impurity transmitted by contact with him and impurity transmitted by carrying him, as in both cases the zav transmits impurity to a person and transmits impurity to his garments, so too, with regard to the issue of the zav the halakha is the same.

והשתא דנפקא לן מהזב את זובו זובו טמא למה לי

The Gemara asks: And now that we have derived the impurity of the discharge of a zav from the verse: “And of one who emits his issue” (Leviticus 15:33), why do I need the verse: “When any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue, it is impure” (Leviticus 15:2)?

אמר רב יהודה מדסקרתא איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא שעיר המשתלח יוכיח שגורם טומאה לאחרים והוא עצמו טהור ואי משום הזב את זובו למניינא הוא דאתא

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: This verse was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that the case of the scapegoat may prove that the discharge of a zav is not impure, as the scapegoat causes impurity to others and yet the goat itself is pure. Likewise, one might conclude that although the discharge of a zav causes impurity to others, ziva itself is pure. And if one were to dismiss this possibility, due to the verse: “And of one who emits his issue [zovo], in the case of a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:33), one could reply that it does not indicate the impurity of ziva. Rather, it comes to teach the number of emissions by which one becomes impure with the impurity of a zav.

זוב חד זובו תרתי ובשלישי אקשיה רחמנא לנקבה

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta clarifies this interpretation of the verse. The term: An issue [zov], would indicate one emission of ziva. Since the verse uses the term “his issue [zovo],” the superfluous addition indicates two emissions of ziva. With regard to these two emissions, the verse states: “In the case of a male,” indicating that the status of a male zav differs from the status of a female zava in that he is not rendered impure if the emission occurred due to an accident, which would render a female impure. But in the case of the third emission of ziva the Merciful One juxtaposed the status of a male zav to that of a female, as the verse states: “Or a female,” indicating that even if the third emission was due to an accident he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering.

כתב רחמנא זובו טמא והשתא דאמר רחמנא זובו טמא הוא דרוש ביה נמי האי

Since one would not have derived the impurity of ziva from this verse, the Merciful One wrote: “His issue, it is impure” (Leviticus 15:2). And now that the Merciful One states: “His issue, it is impure,” one may derive from the verse “and of one who emits his issue” not only the number of emissions, but also this interpretation, that there is no difference between the impurity imparted by ziva by contact and by carrying.

והרוק רוק מנלן דתניא וכי ירק יכול אף על פי שלא נגע תלמוד לומר בטהור עד שיגע בטהור

§ The mishna teaches: And the mucus and the saliva of a zav transmit impurity when moist but not when dry. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the ritual impurity of the saliva of a zav? The Gemara answers that this is derived as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if one who has an issue spits on the pure person, then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and he is impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:8). One might have thought that the saliva transmits impurity even if the zav merely spat in the direction of a pure person, despite the fact that it did not come into contact with him. Therefore, the verse states: “And if one who has an issue spits on the pure person,” which teaches that unless the saliva comes into contact with the pure person he is not rendered impure.

אין לי אלא רוקו כיחו וניעו ומי האף שלו מנין תלמוד לומר וכי ירק

The baraita continues: I have derived only that his saliva is impure. From where is it derived that his phlegm, his mucus, and his nasal fluids are also impure? The verse states: “And if one who has an issue spits.” The superfluous “and” is an amplification, indicating that these substances also transmit impurity.

אמר מר יכול אף על פי שלא נגע מהיכא תיתי

The Master said above: One might have thought that the saliva transmits impurity even if the zav merely spat in the direction of a pure person, despite the fact that it did not come into contact with him. The Gemara asks: From where would this be derived? Why would one think that a person becomes impure from saliva that did not come into contact with him, making it necessary for a verse to exclude this possibility?

סלקא דעתך אמינא נילף רוק רוק מיבמה מה התם אף על פי דלא נגע אף הכא נמי דלא נגע קא משמע לן

The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that we should derive a verbal analogy from the term saliva in the verse “and if one who has an issue spits,” and the term saliva stated in connection with a yevama, a widow whose husband died childless and who participates in ḥalitza, as the verse states: “His yevama shall approach him, before the Elders, and remove his shoe from on his foot and spit before him” (Deuteronomy 25:9). Just as there, with regard to ḥalitza, the ritual is valid even though the saliva did not touch her brother-in-law, so too here, with regard to the saliva of a zav, it transmits impurity despite the fact that it did not come into contact with the pure person. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the saliva of a zav transmits impurity only if it comes into contact with the pure person.

ואימר הני מילי במגע אבל במשא לא מידי דהוה אשרץ אמר ריש לקיש תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אמר קרא בטהור מה שביד טהור טמאתי לך

The Gemara objects: And yet one may say that this statement, that the saliva of a zav transmits impurity, applies only to transmitting impurity by contact. But with regard to transmitting impurity by carrying it does not transmit impurity, just as is the halakha with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, which transmits impurity by contact but not by carrying. Reish Lakish said that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if one who has an issue spits on the pure person.” The term “on the pure person” is interpreted to mean that in any case where something of the saliva is in the hand of the pure person I deemed him impure for you, even if he did not come into direct contact with the saliva but merely carried it.

ואימא במשא מטמא אדם ובגדים במגע אדם לטמא בגדים לא לטמא מידי דהוה אמגע נבלה

The Gemara objects: But one may say that although the saliva of a zav transmits impurity both by carrying and by contact, nevertheless there is the following difference between them: By carrying the saliva of a zav, it transmits impurity to a person and to his garments, but by contact, although it transmits impurity to the person who touches it, it does not transmit impurity to his garments, just as is the halakha with regard to contact with an unslaughtered animal carcass.

אמר ריש לקיש וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אמר קרא בטהור טהרה שטהרתי לך במקום אחר טמאתי לך כאן ואיזה זה זה מגע נבלה

Reish Lakish said, and so too the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that the verse states: “And if one who has an issue spits on the pure person.” The term “on the pure person” teaches that a case of purity, i.e., that which I deemed pure for you in a different case, I have deemed impure for you here. And which case is this? This is referring to contact with an animal carcass, which renders only the one touching it impure, but not his garments, whereas the saliva of a zav renders them both impure.

ואימא כמשא דשרץ אם כן נכתוב קרא באדם מאי בטהור שמע מינה תרתי

The Gemara objects: But one can say that the case deemed pure elsewhere but deemed impure here is that of carrying the carcass of a creeping animal. Perhaps the verse is teaching that whereas a creeping animal does not transmit impurity by carrying, the saliva of a zav does transmit impurity by carrying. By contrast, contact with the saliva of a zav renders only the one touching it impure, but not his garments, as is the halakha with regard to an animal carcass. The Gemara responds: If that is so, let the verse write: If one who has an issue spits on the person. What is the reason the verse states specifically: “On the pure person”? Conclude two conclusions from it, both that the saliva of a zav transmits impurity by carrying and that contact with the saliva renders impure both the person and his garments.

ומי האף מאי מי האף אמר רב בנגררין דרך הפה לפי שאי אפשר למי האף בלא צחצוחי הרוק ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו בנגררין דרך החוטם אלמא קסבר מעיין הוא ורחמנא רבייה

§ The aforementioned baraita teaches: And the nasal fluids of a zav also transmit impurity. The Gemara asks: What are these nasal fluids? Rav says: This is referring to fluids that are emitted via the mouth of a person. They are impure because it is impossible for the nasal fluids to flow through the mouth without containing traces of saliva, which are impure. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The baraita is referring even to fluids that are emitted via the nose. Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that nasal fluids are categorized as a flow of bodily fluids, and the Merciful One included it among the impure bodily fluids of a zav, by the amplification: “And if one who has an issue spits.”

ורב נחשוב נמי דמעת עינו דאמר רב האי מאן דבעי דלסתמיה לעיניה ליכחול מגוי ולוי אמר האי מאן דבעי דלימות ליכחול מגוי

The Gemara asks: But according to Rav, who maintains that nasal fluids are impure because they contain traces of saliva, this is difficult: Let the mishna also count among the impure bodily fluids of the zav the tears of his eye, as Rav said: He who desires to blind his eye should have a gentile paint [likhḥol] his eye, as the gentile is apt to add a substance that causes blindness. And Levi said: He who desires to die should have a gentile paint his eye, as the gentile is apt to add poison to the paint.

ואמר רב חייא בר גוריא מאי טעמא דרב דלא אמר הא מאן דבעי דלימות הואיל ויכול לגוררן ולהוציאן דרך הפה ורב נהי דזיהרא נפיק דמעתא גופא לא נפיק

The Gemara continues: And Rav Ḥiyya bar Gurya said: What is the reasoning of Rav, that he did not say like Levi: He who desires to die should have a gentile paint his eye? Rav did not say this because he maintains one can prevent the poisonous substances from killing him, since he can suck the poisonous substances into his mouth by inhaling and emit them via the mouth. This indicates that the fluids of the eye can also be emitted through the mouth, and if so, the tears of a zav should likewise transmit impurity. The Gemara answers: And Rav would say that although the poison [dezihara] placed in one’s eye can exit the body via the mouth, the tears themselves do not exit the body through the mouth.

תא שמע תשעה משקין הזב הן הזיעה והליחה סרוחה והריעי טהורין מכלום דמעת עינו ודם מגפתו וחלב האשה מטמאין טומאת משקין ברביעית אבל זובו רוקו ומימי רגליו מטמאין טומאה חמורה ואילו מי האף לא קתני

The Gemara states: With regard to the above dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan, come and hear a baraita: There are nine types of fluids of the zav. The sweat, the foul secretion from an infected wound, and the excrement are pure from any form of impurity. The tears that emerge from his eye, the blood from his wound, and the milk of a woman who is a zava all transmit the ritual impurity of liquids, i.e., they render food and liquids impure, as other impure liquids do, in a situation where there is at least a quarter–log of the fluid. But his ziva, his saliva, and his urine all transmit a severe form of ritual impurity. The Gemara comments: The baraita lists many substances, and yet it does not teach that nasal fluids are impure.

בשלמא לרב לא קתני דלא פסיקא ליה למתני זימנין דאתי דרך הפה וזימנין דאתי דרך החוטם אלא לרבי יוחנן ליתני

Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, the tanna of the baraita does not teach that nasal fluids are impure, as he could not teach it categorically, since sometimes the nasal fluid comes via the mouth, and is impure, and sometimes it comes via the nose, and is not impure. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, let the tanna teach that nasal fluids are impure.

ולטעמיך כיחו וניעו מי קתני אלא תנא רוק וכל דאתא מרבויא הכא נמי תנא רוקו וכל דאתא מרבויא

The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, does this tanna teach that his phlegm and his mucus are impure? Rather, he taught that saliva is impure, and this includes the impurity of all substances that are derived from its amplification, e.g., his phlegm and his mucus. Here too, with regard to nasal fluids, the tanna taught the halakha of his saliva, and this includes all substances that are derived from its amplification, including nasal fluids.

דמעת עינו דכתיב ותשקמו בדמעות שליש ודם מגפתו דכתיב ודם חללים ישתה מה לי קטליה כוליה מה לי קטליה פלגיה חלב האשה דכתיב ותפתח את נאוד החלב ותשקהו

The baraita teaches that in the case of a zav or zava, the tears of their eyes and the blood from their wounds, as well as the milk of a zava, all transmit the ritual impurity of liquids. The Gemara cites the source for these cases of impurity: The tears of his eye are classified as a liquid, as it is written: “You have fed them with the bread of tears, and given them tears to drink in great measure” (Psalms 80:6). And the blood from his wound is classified as a liquid, as it is written: “And he shall drink the blood of the slain” (Numbers 23:24). Although the verse is referring to the blood of a dead person, and not to the blood of a wound, what difference does it make to me if one killed all of him, and what difference does it make to me if one killed part of him, i.e., wounded him? With regard to the milk of a woman, it too is classified as a liquid, as it is written: “And she opened the bottle of milk, and gave him to drink” (Judges 4:19).

מימי רגליו מנלן דתניא זובו טמא וזאת לרבות מימי רגליו לטומאה והלא דין הוא ומה רוק הבא ממקום טהרה טמא מימי רגליו הבאין

The baraita teaches that the urine of a zav transmits a severe form of ritual impurity, as do his ziva and his saliva. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the urine of a zav is impure? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “When any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue, it is impure. And this shall be his impurity” (Leviticus 15:2–3). The term “and this” comes to include his urine with regard to a severe form of ritual impurity. The baraita asks: And could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? If saliva, which comes from a place of purity, i.e., one’s mouth, whose secretions are not usually impure, is nevertheless impure, then with regard to his urine, which comes