Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 17, 2019 | 讬状讟 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Chagigah is lovingly sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family, who are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas!

Niddah 55

From where do we derive that flesh of a dead body transfers impurity whether moist or dry? two answers are brought. The gemara raises contradictions. There are some exceptions – teeth, hair and nails. Why are those exceptions to the rule? What about skin? Is it like hair and nails because it can regenerate? If so, why can it carry impurites? From where do we derive that the zav’s discharge is also impure? Does it transfer impurities in the same way as the zav himself? Liquids from the nostril – from where do we derive that they transfer impurities? Debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. In which case would they differ?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗讬 诪讛 讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 讗祝 诪讚讜讛 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讘谉 诪住诪讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛谞讜砖讗 讗讜转诐 讗讜转诐 诪讬注讜讟讗 讛讜讗

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 15:10). The term 鈥渢hem鈥 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.

讜讘砖专 讛诪转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻诇 讟诪讗转讜 诇讻诇 讟讜诪讗讜转 讛驻讜专砖讜转 诪诪谞讜

搂 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: 鈥淥r 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鈥 (Leviticus 22:5). The term 鈥渇rom any鈥 is an amplification, indicating that one may become impure from any impurities that come from a dead person, whether they are moist or dry.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讜 讘注爪诐 讗讚诐 讗讜 讘拽讘专 讗讚诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注爪诐 诪讛 注爪诐 讬讘砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬讘砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan said that this halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗驻专讬讱 讗驻专讜讻讬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the inferences of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yo岣nan? 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 鈥渇rom any鈥 indicates that a corpse transmits impurity in any form, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains it is ritually pure, as it is unlike a bone, which does not crumble.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘砖专 讛诪转 砖讛讜驻专讱 讟讛讜专 讛转诐 讚讗拽诪讞 讜讛讜讬 注驻专讗

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 砖讘诪转 诪讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 讜讛砖注专 讜讛爪驻讜专谉 讜讘砖注转 讞讘讜专谉 讛讻诇 讟诪讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinions of both Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan teeth should transmit impurity because they are similar to bones, while according to Reish Lakish they should be included in the term 鈥渇rom any.鈥

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注爪诐 诪讛 注爪诐 砖谞讘专讗 注诪讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖谞讘专讗 注诪讜 讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖注专 讜爪驻讜专谉 砖谞讘专讗讜 注诪讜 讜讟讛讜专讬谉

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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注爪诐 诪讛 注爪诐 砖谞讘专讗 注诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讗祝 讻诇 砖谞讘专讗 注诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讬爪讗讜 讛砖讬谞讬诐 砖诇讗 谞讘专讗讜 注诪讜 讬爪讗讜 砖注专 讜爪驻讜专谉 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讘专讗讜 注诪讜 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝

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.

讜讛专讬 注讜专 讚讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讜转谞谉 讛讙诇讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽驻住诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 讜诪转讛 讜诇注讜诇诐 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讜转谞讬谞谉 讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛诐 讻讘砖专谉 注讜专 讛讗讚诐

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of skin, whose root renews itself, and this is as we learned in a mishna (岣llin 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鈥檚 root renews itself. And nevertheless we learned in a mishna (岣llin 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鈥nd the skin of the hump of a young camel, etc.

讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 注讜专 讗讚诐 讟讛讜专 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 讟诪讗 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 注讜专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 砖讟讬讞讬谉 诇讞诪讜专

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛专讬 注讜专 讚讗讬谉 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讜转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 拽讗 诪讻砖专 讗诇讗 讚拽专讬专 讘砖专讗 讜讞讬讬讗 讜诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 注讜专 讗讚诐 讟讛讜专

And some say a different version of the above discussion: Isn鈥檛 there the case of skin, whose root does not renew itself, and this is as we learned in a mishna (岣llin 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鈥檚 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.

讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚注讜诇讗 讗住讬驻讗 讗讬转诪专 讜讻讜诇谉 砖注讘讚谉 讗讜 砖讛讬诇讱 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪注讜专 讗讚诐 讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 注讜专 讗讚诐 讻讬 注讘讚讜 讟讛讜专 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讟诪讗 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 注讜专 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 砖讟讬讞讬谉

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.

讜讛专讬 讘砖专 讚讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讜讟诪讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘砖专 谞注砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜 爪诇拽转

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there the case of flesh, whose root renews itself, as when one鈥檚 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.

讗讘诇 讛讝讜讘 讝讜讘 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讝讜讘 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗

搂 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: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue, it is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). This taught with regard to ziva that it is impure.

讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 诇讗讞专讬诐 讙讜专诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇注爪诪讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讙讜专诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讟讛讜专 讗祝 讗转讛 讗诇 转转诪讛 注诇 讝讛 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讜专诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讟讛讜专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讝讜讘 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗

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: 鈥淗is issue, it is impure.鈥 This taught with regard to ziva that it is impure.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪讙注 讗讘诇 讘诪砖讗 诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖专抓 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讙注 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 讚诇讗 讙专注 诪砖讻讘转 讝专注

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.

讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪砖讗 讜讗讬诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讘讙讚讬诐 讜讘诪讙注 讗讚诐 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 诇讗 诇讟诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讙注 谞讘诇讛

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.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诪拽讬砖 讝讜讘讜 诇讜 诪讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讬谉 诪讙注讜 诇诪砖讗讜 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗祝 讝讜讘讜 讻谉

The Gemara answers: This could not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita that A岣rim say, with regard to the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of him that has an issue鈥nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 15:32鈥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.

讜讛砖转讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇谉 诪讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

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

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚住拽专转讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讙讜专诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇诪谞讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

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: 鈥淎nd of one who emits his issue [zovo], in the case of a male or a female鈥 (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.

讝讜讘 讞讚 讝讜讘讜 转专转讬 讜讘砖诇讬砖讬 讗拽砖讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇谞拽讘讛

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 鈥渉is issue [zovo],鈥 the superfluous addition indicates two emissions of ziva. With regard to these two emissions, the verse states: 鈥淚n the case of a male,鈥 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: 鈥淥r a female,鈥 indicating that even if the third emission was due to an accident he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering.

讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讚专讜砖 讘讬讛 谞诪讬 讛讗讬

Since one would not have derived the impurity of ziva from this verse, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淗is issue, it is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). And now that the Merciful One states: 鈥淗is issue, it is impure,鈥 one may derive from the verse 鈥渁nd of one who emits his issue鈥 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.

讜讛专讜拽 专讜拽 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻讬 讬专拽 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讟讛讜专 注讚 砖讬讙注 讘讟讛讜专

搂 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd if one who has an issue spits on the pure person,鈥 which teaches that unless the saliva comes into contact with the pure person he is not rendered impure.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 专讜拽讜 讻讬讞讜 讜谞讬注讜 讜诪讬 讛讗祝 砖诇讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 讬专拽

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: 鈥淎nd if one who has an issue spits.鈥 The superfluous 鈥渁nd鈥 is an amplification, indicating that these substances also transmit impurity.

讗诪专 诪专 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙注 诪讛讬讻讗 转讬转讬

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?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬诇祝 专讜拽 专讜拽 诪讬讘诪讛 诪讛 讛转诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚诇讗 谞讙注 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 谞讙注 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that we should derive a verbal analogy from the term saliva in the verse 鈥渁nd if one who has an issue spits,鈥 and the term saliva stated in connection with a yevama, a widow whose husband died childless and who participates in 岣litza, as the verse states: 鈥淗is yevama shall approach him, before the Elders, and remove his shoe from on his foot and spit before him鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:9). Just as there, with regard to 岣litza, 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.

讜讗讬诪专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪讙注 讗讘诇 讘诪砖讗 诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖专抓 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讟讛讜专 诪讛 砖讘讬讚 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗转讬 诇讱

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: 鈥淎nd if one who has an issue spits on the pure person.鈥 The term 鈥渙n the pure person鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讘讙讚讬诐 讘诪讙注 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 诇讗 诇讟诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讙注 谞讘诇讛

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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讟讛讜专 讟讛专讛 砖讟讛专转讬 诇讱 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讟诪讗转讬 诇讱 讻讗谉 讜讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 诪讙注 谞讘诇讛

Reish Lakish said, and so too the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that the verse states: 鈥淎nd if one who has an issue spits on the pure person.鈥 The term 鈥渙n the pure person鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻诪砖讗 讚砖专抓 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讘讗讚诐 诪讗讬 讘讟讛讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

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: 鈥淥n the pure person鈥? 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.

讜诪讬 讛讗祝 诪讗讬 诪讬 讛讗祝 讗诪专 专讘 讘谞讙专专讬谉 讚专讱 讛驻讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇诪讬 讛讗祝 讘诇讗 爪讞爪讜讞讬 讛专讜拽 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讙专专讬谉 讚专讱 讛讞讜讟诐 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 诪注讬讬谉 讛讜讗 讜专讞诪谞讗 专讘讬讬讛

搂 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 Yo岣nan says: The baraita is referring even to fluids that are emitted via the nose. Evidently, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淎nd if one who has an issue spits.鈥

讜专讘 谞讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 讚诪注转 注讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 讚诇住转诪讬讛 诇注讬谞讬讛 诇讬讻讞讜诇 诪讙讜讬 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 讚诇讬诪讜转 诇讬讻讞讜诇 诪讙讜讬

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 [likh岣l] 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讛讗 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 讚诇讬诪讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讙讜专专谉 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗谉 讚专讱 讛驻讛 讜专讘 谞讛讬 讚讝讬讛专讗 谞驻讬拽 讚诪注转讗 讙讜驻讗 诇讗 谞驻讬拽

The Gemara continues: And Rav 岣yya 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鈥檚 eye can exit the body via the mouth, the tears themselves do not exit the body through the mouth.

转讗 砖诪注 转砖注讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讝讘 讛谉 讛讝讬注讛 讜讛诇讬讞讛 住专讜讞讛 讜讛专讬注讬 讟讛讜专讬谉 诪讻诇讜诐 讚诪注转 注讬谞讜 讜讚诐 诪讙驻转讜 讜讞诇讘 讛讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讘专讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 讝讜讘讜 专讜拽讜 讜诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讜 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讬 讛讗祝 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara states: With regard to the above dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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 quarterlog 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讚诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗转讬 讚专讱 讛驻讛 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗转讬 讚专讱 讛讞讜讟诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬转谞讬

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 Yo岣nan, let the tanna teach that nasal fluids are impure.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讻讬讞讜 讜谞讬注讜 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 转谞讗 专讜拽 讜讻诇 讚讗转讗 诪专讘讜讬讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转谞讗 专讜拽讜 讜讻诇 讚讗转讗 诪专讘讜讬讗

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.

讚诪注转 注讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜转砖拽诪讜 讘讚诪注讜转 砖诇讬砖 讜讚诐 诪讙驻转讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讬砖转讛 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讬讛 驻诇讙讬讛 讞诇讘 讛讗砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜转驻转讞 讗转 谞讗讜讚 讛讞诇讘 讜转砖拽讛讜

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: 鈥淵ou have fed them with the bread of tears, and given them tears to drink in great measure鈥 (Psalms 80:6). And the blood from his wound is classified as a liquid, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall drink the blood of the slain鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd she opened the bottle of milk, and gave him to drink鈥 (Judges 4:19).

诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讜 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 讜讝讗转 诇专讘讜转 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 专讜拽 讛讘讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讟讛专讛 讟诪讗 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讜 讛讘讗讬谉

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: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue, it is impure. And this shall be his impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:2鈥3). The term 鈥渁nd this鈥 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鈥檚 mouth, whose secretions are not usually impure, is nevertheless impure, then with regard to his urine, which comes

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Chagigah is lovingly sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family, who are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas!

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 55

讗讬 诪讛 讛讬讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讘谉 诪住诪讗 讗祝 诪讚讜讛 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讘谉 诪住诪讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛谞讜砖讗 讗讜转诐 讗讜转诐 诪讬注讜讟讗 讛讜讗

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 15:10). The term 鈥渢hem鈥 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.

讜讘砖专 讛诪转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻诇 讟诪讗转讜 诇讻诇 讟讜诪讗讜转 讛驻讜专砖讜转 诪诪谞讜

搂 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: 鈥淥r 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鈥 (Leviticus 22:5). The term 鈥渇rom any鈥 is an amplification, indicating that one may become impure from any impurities that come from a dead person, whether they are moist or dry.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讜 讘注爪诐 讗讚诐 讗讜 讘拽讘专 讗讚诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注爪诐 诪讛 注爪诐 讬讘砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬讘砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan said that this halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗驻专讬讱 讗驻专讜讻讬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the inferences of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yo岣nan? 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 鈥渇rom any鈥 indicates that a corpse transmits impurity in any form, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains it is ritually pure, as it is unlike a bone, which does not crumble.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘砖专 讛诪转 砖讛讜驻专讱 讟讛讜专 讛转诐 讚讗拽诪讞 讜讛讜讬 注驻专讗

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 砖讘诪转 诪讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 讜讛砖注专 讜讛爪驻讜专谉 讜讘砖注转 讞讘讜专谉 讛讻诇 讟诪讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinions of both Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan teeth should transmit impurity because they are similar to bones, while according to Reish Lakish they should be included in the term 鈥渇rom any.鈥

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注爪诐 诪讛 注爪诐 砖谞讘专讗 注诪讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖谞讘专讗 注诪讜 讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖注专 讜爪驻讜专谉 砖谞讘专讗讜 注诪讜 讜讟讛讜专讬谉

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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注爪诐 诪讛 注爪诐 砖谞讘专讗 注诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讗祝 讻诇 砖谞讘专讗 注诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讬爪讗讜 讛砖讬谞讬诐 砖诇讗 谞讘专讗讜 注诪讜 讬爪讗讜 砖注专 讜爪驻讜专谉 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讘专讗讜 注诪讜 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝

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.

讜讛专讬 注讜专 讚讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讜转谞谉 讛讙诇讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽驻住诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 讜诪转讛 讜诇注讜诇诐 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讜转谞讬谞谉 讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛诐 讻讘砖专谉 注讜专 讛讗讚诐

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the case of skin, whose root renews itself, and this is as we learned in a mishna (岣llin 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鈥檚 root renews itself. And nevertheless we learned in a mishna (岣llin 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鈥nd the skin of the hump of a young camel, etc.

讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 注讜专 讗讚诐 讟讛讜专 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 讟诪讗 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 注讜专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 砖讟讬讞讬谉 诇讞诪讜专

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛专讬 注讜专 讚讗讬谉 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讜转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 拽讗 诪讻砖专 讗诇讗 讚拽专讬专 讘砖专讗 讜讞讬讬讗 讜诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 注讜专 讗讚诐 讟讛讜专

And some say a different version of the above discussion: Isn鈥檛 there the case of skin, whose root does not renew itself, and this is as we learned in a mishna (岣llin 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鈥檚 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.

讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚注讜诇讗 讗住讬驻讗 讗讬转诪专 讜讻讜诇谉 砖注讘讚谉 讗讜 砖讛讬诇讱 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪注讜专 讗讚诐 讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 注讜专 讗讚诐 讻讬 注讘讚讜 讟讛讜专 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讟诪讗 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 注讜专 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 砖讟讬讞讬谉

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.

讜讛专讬 讘砖专 讚讙讝注讜 诪讞诇讬祝 讜讟诪讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘砖专 谞注砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜 爪诇拽转

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there the case of flesh, whose root renews itself, as when one鈥檚 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.

讗讘诇 讛讝讜讘 讝讜讘 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讝讜讘 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗

搂 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: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue, it is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). This taught with regard to ziva that it is impure.

讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 诇讗讞专讬诐 讙讜专诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇注爪诪讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讙讜专诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讟讛讜专 讗祝 讗转讛 讗诇 转转诪讛 注诇 讝讛 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讜专诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讟讛讜专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讝讜讘 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗

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: 鈥淗is issue, it is impure.鈥 This taught with regard to ziva that it is impure.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪讙注 讗讘诇 讘诪砖讗 诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖专抓 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讙注 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 讚诇讗 讙专注 诪砖讻讘转 讝专注

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.

讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪砖讗 讜讗讬诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讘讙讚讬诐 讜讘诪讙注 讗讚诐 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 诇讗 诇讟诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讙注 谞讘诇讛

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.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诪拽讬砖 讝讜讘讜 诇讜 诪讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讬谉 诪讙注讜 诇诪砖讗讜 诇讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗祝 讝讜讘讜 讻谉

The Gemara answers: This could not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita that A岣rim say, with regard to the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of him that has an issue鈥nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 15:32鈥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.

讜讛砖转讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇谉 诪讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

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

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚住拽专转讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讙讜专诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇诪谞讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

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: 鈥淎nd of one who emits his issue [zovo], in the case of a male or a female鈥 (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.

讝讜讘 讞讚 讝讜讘讜 转专转讬 讜讘砖诇讬砖讬 讗拽砖讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇谞拽讘讛

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 鈥渉is issue [zovo],鈥 the superfluous addition indicates two emissions of ziva. With regard to these two emissions, the verse states: 鈥淚n the case of a male,鈥 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: 鈥淥r a female,鈥 indicating that even if the third emission was due to an accident he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering.

讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 讚专讜砖 讘讬讛 谞诪讬 讛讗讬

Since one would not have derived the impurity of ziva from this verse, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淗is issue, it is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). And now that the Merciful One states: 鈥淗is issue, it is impure,鈥 one may derive from the verse 鈥渁nd of one who emits his issue鈥 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.

讜讛专讜拽 专讜拽 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻讬 讬专拽 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讟讛讜专 注讚 砖讬讙注 讘讟讛讜专

搂 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd if one who has an issue spits on the pure person,鈥 which teaches that unless the saliva comes into contact with the pure person he is not rendered impure.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 专讜拽讜 讻讬讞讜 讜谞讬注讜 讜诪讬 讛讗祝 砖诇讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 讬专拽

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: 鈥淎nd if one who has an issue spits.鈥 The superfluous 鈥渁nd鈥 is an amplification, indicating that these substances also transmit impurity.

讗诪专 诪专 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讙注 诪讛讬讻讗 转讬转讬

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?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬诇祝 专讜拽 专讜拽 诪讬讘诪讛 诪讛 讛转诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚诇讗 谞讙注 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 谞讙注 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that we should derive a verbal analogy from the term saliva in the verse 鈥渁nd if one who has an issue spits,鈥 and the term saliva stated in connection with a yevama, a widow whose husband died childless and who participates in 岣litza, as the verse states: 鈥淗is yevama shall approach him, before the Elders, and remove his shoe from on his foot and spit before him鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:9). Just as there, with regard to 岣litza, 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.

讜讗讬诪专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪讙注 讗讘诇 讘诪砖讗 诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖专抓 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讟讛讜专 诪讛 砖讘讬讚 讟讛讜专 讟诪讗转讬 诇讱

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: 鈥淎nd if one who has an issue spits on the pure person.鈥 The term 鈥渙n the pure person鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讜讘讙讚讬诐 讘诪讙注 讗讚诐 诇讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 诇讗 诇讟诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讙注 谞讘诇讛

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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讟讛讜专 讟讛专讛 砖讟讛专转讬 诇讱 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讟诪讗转讬 诇讱 讻讗谉 讜讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 诪讙注 谞讘诇讛

Reish Lakish said, and so too the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that the verse states: 鈥淎nd if one who has an issue spits on the pure person.鈥 The term 鈥渙n the pure person鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻诪砖讗 讚砖专抓 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讘讗讚诐 诪讗讬 讘讟讛讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

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: 鈥淥n the pure person鈥? 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.

讜诪讬 讛讗祝 诪讗讬 诪讬 讛讗祝 讗诪专 专讘 讘谞讙专专讬谉 讚专讱 讛驻讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇诪讬 讛讗祝 讘诇讗 爪讞爪讜讞讬 讛专讜拽 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讙专专讬谉 讚专讱 讛讞讜讟诐 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 诪注讬讬谉 讛讜讗 讜专讞诪谞讗 专讘讬讬讛

搂 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 Yo岣nan says: The baraita is referring even to fluids that are emitted via the nose. Evidently, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淎nd if one who has an issue spits.鈥

讜专讘 谞讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 讚诪注转 注讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 讚诇住转诪讬讛 诇注讬谞讬讛 诇讬讻讞讜诇 诪讙讜讬 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 讚诇讬诪讜转 诇讬讻讞讜诇 诪讙讜讬

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 [likh岣l] 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讛讗 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 讚诇讬诪讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讙讜专专谉 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗谉 讚专讱 讛驻讛 讜专讘 谞讛讬 讚讝讬讛专讗 谞驻讬拽 讚诪注转讗 讙讜驻讗 诇讗 谞驻讬拽

The Gemara continues: And Rav 岣yya 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鈥檚 eye can exit the body via the mouth, the tears themselves do not exit the body through the mouth.

转讗 砖诪注 转砖注讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讝讘 讛谉 讛讝讬注讛 讜讛诇讬讞讛 住专讜讞讛 讜讛专讬注讬 讟讛讜专讬谉 诪讻诇讜诐 讚诪注转 注讬谞讜 讜讚诐 诪讙驻转讜 讜讞诇讘 讛讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讘专讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 讝讜讘讜 专讜拽讜 讜诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讜 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讬 讛讗祝 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara states: With regard to the above dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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 quarterlog 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讚诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗转讬 讚专讱 讛驻讛 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗转讬 讚专讱 讛讞讜讟诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬转谞讬

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 Yo岣nan, let the tanna teach that nasal fluids are impure.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讻讬讞讜 讜谞讬注讜 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 转谞讗 专讜拽 讜讻诇 讚讗转讗 诪专讘讜讬讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转谞讗 专讜拽讜 讜讻诇 讚讗转讗 诪专讘讜讬讗

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.

讚诪注转 注讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜转砖拽诪讜 讘讚诪注讜转 砖诇讬砖 讜讚诐 诪讙驻转讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讬砖转讛 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 拽讟诇讬讛 驻诇讙讬讛 讞诇讘 讛讗砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜转驻转讞 讗转 谞讗讜讚 讛讞诇讘 讜转砖拽讛讜

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: 鈥淵ou have fed them with the bread of tears, and given them tears to drink in great measure鈥 (Psalms 80:6). And the blood from his wound is classified as a liquid, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall drink the blood of the slain鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd she opened the bottle of milk, and gave him to drink鈥 (Judges 4:19).

诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讜 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 讜讝讗转 诇专讘讜转 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 专讜拽 讛讘讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讟讛专讛 讟诪讗 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讜 讛讘讗讬谉

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: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue, it is impure. And this shall be his impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:2鈥3). The term 鈥渁nd this鈥 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鈥檚 mouth, whose secretions are not usually impure, is nevertheless impure, then with regard to his urine, which comes

Scroll To Top