נדה נה

נדה נה

אִי מָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה בְּאֶבֶן מְסָמָא, אַף מַדְוֶהָ נָמֵי מְטַמְּאָה בְּאֶבֶן מְסָמָא?

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.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא אוֹתָם״ — ״אוֹתָם״ מִיעוּטָא הוּא.

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.

וּבְשַׂר הַמֵּת, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָמַר קְרָא ״לְכֹל טֻמְאָתוֹ״ — לְכׇל טְמָאוֹת הַפּוֹרְשׁוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ.

§ 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.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״אוֹ בְעֶצֶם אָדָם אוֹ בְקָבֶר״ — אָדָם דּוּמְיָא דְּעֶצֶם: מָה עֶצֶם יָבֵשׁ, אַף כָּאן יָבֵשׁ.

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.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאִפְּרִיךְ אִפְּרוֹכֵי.

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.

מֵיתִיבִי: בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁהוּפְרַךְ טָהוֹר! הָתָם דְּאַקְמַח וְהָוֵי עַפְרָא.

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.

מֵיתִיבִי: כֹּל שֶׁבַּמֵּת מְטַמֵּא, חוּץ מִן הַשִּׁינַּיִם, וְהַשֵּׂעָר, וְהַצִּפּוֹרֶן, וּבִשְׁעַת חִבּוּרָן — הַכֹּל טָמֵא!

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.”

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: דּוּמְיָא דְּעֶצֶם, מָה עֶצֶם שֶׁנִּבְרָא עִמּוֹ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁנִּבְרָא עִמּוֹ. וְהָאִיכָּא שֵׂעָר וְצִפּוֹרֶן, שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ עִמּוֹ וּטְהוֹרִין!

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?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: דּוּמְיָא דְּעֶצֶם, מָה עֶצֶם שֶׁנִּבְרָא עִמּוֹ וְאֵין גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף, אַף כֹּל שֶׁנִּבְרָא עִמּוֹ וְאֵין גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף. יָצְאוּ הַשִּׁינַּיִם — שֶׁלֹּא נִבְרְאוּ עִמּוֹ, יָצְאוּ שֵׂעָר וְצִפּוֹרֶן — שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ עִמּוֹ, גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף.

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.

וַהֲרֵי עוֹר, דְּגִזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף, וּתְנַן: הַגְּלוּדָה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן לָא קָפָסְלִי אֶלָּא דְּאַדְּהָכֵי וְהָכֵי שָׁלֵיט בַּהּ אַוֵּירָא וּמִתָה, וּלְעוֹלָם גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף. וּתְנֵינַן: אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶם כִּבְשָׂרָן — עוֹר הָאָדָם!

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.

הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה — עוֹר אָדָם טָהוֹר, וּמַאי טַעְמָא אָמְרוּ טָמֵא? גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עוֹרוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שְׁטִיחִין לַחֲמוֹר.

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.

וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הֲרֵי עוֹר, דְּאֵין גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף, וּתְנַן: וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קָא מַכְשַׁר אֶלָּא דְּקָרִיר בִּשְׂרָא וְחָיֵיא, וּלְעוֹלָם אֵין גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף. וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה עוֹר אָדָם טָהוֹר!

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.

כִּי אִיתְּמַר דְּעוּלָּא אַסֵּיפָא אִיתְּמַר, ״וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִבְּדָן אוֹ שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָה טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מֵעוֹר אָדָם״, וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה עוֹר אָדָם כִּי עִבְּדּוֹ טָהוֹר, וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ טָמֵא? גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עוֹר אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שְׁטִיחִין.

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.

וַהֲרֵי בָּשָׂר, דְּגִזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף, וְטָמֵא! אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: בָּשָׂר נַעֲשֶׂה מְקוֹמוֹ צַלֶּקֶת.

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.

אֲבָל הַזּוֹב. זוֹב מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא״ — לִימֵּד עַל הַזּוֹב שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא.

§ 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.

וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא: לַאֲחֵרִים גּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה, לְעַצְמוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁגּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה לַאֲחֵרִים, וְהוּא עַצְמוֹ טָהוֹר. אַף אַתָּה אַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל זֶה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה לַאֲחֵרִים — הוּא עַצְמוֹ טָהוֹר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא״ — לִימֵּד עַל הַזּוֹב שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא.

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.

וְאֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמַגָּע, אֲבָל בְּמַשָּׂא לָא, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַשֶּׁרֶץ! אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמַגָּע לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, דְּלָא גָּרַע מִשִּׁכְבַת זֶרַע,

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.

כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַשָּׂא. וְאֵימָא: בְּמַשָּׂא מְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּבְגָדִים, וּבְמַגָּע אָדָם מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים לָא לְטַמֵּא, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמַּגַּע נְבֵלָה!

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.

לָא סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: ״הַזָּב אֶת זוֹבוֹ לַזָּכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה״ — מַקִּישׁ זוֹבוֹ לוֹ, מָה הוּא לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בֵּין מַגָּעוֹ לְמַשָּׂאוֹ לְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּלְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים, אַף זוֹבוֹ כֵּן.

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.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּנָפְקָא לַן מֵ״הַזָּב אֶת זוֹבוֹ״, ״זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא״ לְמָה לִי?

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)?

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה מִדִּסְקַרְתָּא: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁגּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה לַאֲחֵרִים וְהוּא עַצְמוֹ טָהוֹר. וְאִי מִשּׁוּם ״הַזָּב אֶת זוֹבוֹ״, לְמִנְיָינָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

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.

״זוֹב״ — חַד, ״זוֹבוֹ״ — תַּרְתֵּי, וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁי אַקְּשֵׁיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְקֵבָה!

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.

כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא״. וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא הוּא״, דְּרוֹשׁ בֵּיהּ נָמֵי הַאי.

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.

וְהָרוֹק. רוֹק מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכִי יָרוֹק״ — יָכוֹל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָגַע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּטָּהוֹר״ — עַד שֶׁיִּגַּע בַּטָּהוֹר.

§ 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.

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא רוּקּוֹ, כִּיחוֹ וְנִיעוֹ וּמֵי הָאַף שֶׁלּוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכִי יָרוֹק״.

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.

אָמַר מָר: יָכוֹל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָגַע? מֵהֵיכָא תֵּיתֵי?

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?

סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, נֵילַף ״רוֹק״ ״רוֹק״ מִיבָמָה — מָה הָתָם, אַף עַל פִּי דְּלָא נְגַע, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי דְּלָא נְגַע, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

וְאֵימַר: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמַגָּע, אֲבָל בְּמַשָּׂא — לָא, מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַשֶּׁרֶץ! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בַּטָּהוֹר״ — מַה שֶּׁבְּיַד טָהוֹר טִמֵּאתִי לָךְ.

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.

וְאֵימָא: בְּמַשָּׂא מְטַמֵּא אָדָם וּבְגָדִים, בְּמַגָּע אָדָם לְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים לָא לְטַמֵּא, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמַּגַּע נְבֵלָה!

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.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אָמַר קְרָא ״בַּטָּהוֹר״ — טׇהֳרָה שֶׁטִּהַרְתִּי לְךָ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, טִמֵּאתִי לְךָ כָּאן, וְאֵיזֶה זֶה? מַגַּע נְבֵלָה.

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.

וְאֵימָא כְּמַשָּׂא דְּשֶׁרֶץ! אִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״בָּאָדָם״, מַאי ״בַּטָּהוֹר״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

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.

וּמֵי הָאַף. מַאי מֵי הָאַף? אָמַר רַב: בְּנִגְרָרִין דֶּרֶךְ הַפֶּה, לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְמֵי הָאַף בְּלֹא צִחְצוּחֵי הָרוֹק. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּנִגְרָרִין דֶּרֶךְ הַחוֹטֶם. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: מַעְיָין הוּא, וְרַחֲמָנָא רַבְּיֵיהּ.

§ 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.”

וְרַב, נַחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי דִּמְעַת עֵינוֹ! דְּאָמַר רַב: הַאי מָאן דְּבָעֵי דְּלִסְתַּמֵּיה (לְעֵינֵיהּ) — לִיכְחוֹל מִגּוֹי. וְלֵוִי אֲמַר: הַאי מָאן דְּבָעֵי דְּלֵימוּת — לִיכְחוֹל מִגּוֹי.

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.

וְאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב דְּלָא אָמַר הָא ״מַאן דְּבָעֵי דְּלֵימוּת״, הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לְגוֹרְרָן וּלְהוֹצִיאָן דֶּרֶךְ הַפֶּה? וְרַב: נְהִי דְּזִיהֲרָא נָפֵיק, דִּמְעֲתָא גּוּפַאּ לָא נָפֵיק.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: תִּשְׁעָה מַשְׁקֵה הַזָּב הֵן — הַזֵּיעָה, וְהַלֵּיחָה סְרוּחָה, וְהָרֶיעִי — טְהוֹרִין מִכְּלוּם; דִּמְעַת עֵינוֹ, וְדַם מַגֵּפָתוֹ, וַחֲלֵב הָאִשָּׁה — מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין בִּרְבִיעִית; אֲבָל זוֹבוֹ, רוּקּוֹ, וּמֵימֵי רַגְלָיו — מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה; וְאִילּוּ ״מֵי הָאַף״ לָא קָתָנֵי.

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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב, לָא קָתָנֵי דְּלָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ לְמִתְנֵי, זִימְנִין דְּאָתֵי דֶּרֶךְ הַפֶּה, וְזִימְנִין דְּאָתֵי דֶּרֶךְ הַחוֹטֶם, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לִיתְנֵי.

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.

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, ״כִּיחוֹ וְנִיעוֹ״ מִי קָתָנֵי? אֶלָּא תְּנָא רוֹק, וְכֹל דְּאָתֵי מֵרִבּוּיָא. הָכָא נָמֵי תְּנָא רוּקּוֹ, וְכֹל דְּאָתֵי מֵרִבּוּיָא.

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.

דִּמְעַת עֵינוֹ — דִּכְתִיב ״וַתַּשְׁקֵמוֹ בִּדְמָעוֹת שָׁלִישׁ״. וְדַם מַגֵּפָתוֹ — דִּכְתִיב ״וְדַם חֲלָלִים יִשְׁתֶּה״. מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ, מָה לִי קַטְלֵיהּ פַּלְגֵיהּ. חֲלֵב הָאִשָּׁה — דִּכְתִיב ״וַתִּפְתַּח אֶת נֹאוֹד הֶחָלָב וַתַּשְׁקֵהוּ״.

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).

מֵימֵי רַגְלָיו — מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא… וְזֹאת״ — לְרַבּוֹת מֵימֵי רַגְלָיו לְטוּמְאָה. וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה רוֹק הַבָּא מִמְּקוֹם טׇהֳרָה טָמֵא, מֵימֵי רַגְלָיו הַבָּאִין

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