Niddah 32b (לב:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara answers: The extra wording was written in order to expound the verse, and they expounded it:

to exclude a man from red discharge!

Thus, if a man sees reddish semen, he does not become impure on account of it! [The exposition of the verse is: A woman becomes impure through redness, as this is her normal way, whereas a man does not become impure through redness, since it is not his normal way to see such a discharge]] .

The Gemara raises an objection:

But it was taught:

With regard to a zava [there]:

“A woman

when her blood flows for many days,” and the beraita analyzes the verse:

I have derived only a woman

an adult who becomes a zava if she sees blood for three consecutive days after her seven days of nidda; but a minor who is only

ten days old—

for ziva, from where

do we know that she can become a zava ten days after her birth [seven days of nidda and three days of ziva]?

The verse states: “And a woman”

[with an additional vav], teaching that a minor also becomes a zava.

The Gemara concludes its objection:

Why do I need

this exposition—

derive it from nidda,

for just as the days of nidda apply to a minor, so too the days of ziva apply to her?!

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary

to have a special teaching that the law of a zava applies to a minor, because

if the Merciful One had written it only with regard to nidda,

alone,

I would have said:

Nidda,

which is more stringent,

because when she sees for one day she must sit for seven

days of nidda, therefore it applies even to a minor.

But a zava, if she sees for one day

does not need to sit for seven days. Rather,

observing one day corresponding to one day suffices for her; I might say that it does not

apply to a minor .

Therefore,

it is necessary

to expound “and a woman” to teach that the law of a zava applies even to a minor.

The Gemara nevertheless continues to object:

Let the Merciful One write

the law of a minor

with regard to a zava, and there would be no need

to write it

with regard to nidda. And I would know

even without a special exposition, since

there is no zava without nidda,

for the days of ziva are counted only after the seven days of nidda. If the seven days of nidda do not apply to a minor, the eleven days of ziva cannot apply to her either.

The Gemara answers:

Indeed, that is so:

There is no need for a verse to derive the law of nidda for a minor, since it is derived from ziva .

Rather, the verse

the extra “and a woman” stated with regard to a minor who is impure with nidda—

why do I need it? -

To exclude a man from redness!

The Gemara is surprised:

You already excluded this once

through the extra “and a woman” stated with regard to the impurity of a woman who has intercourse with a man?! The Gemara explains:

One

of the extra expressions, in the context of impurity through intercourse, is

to exclude

a man

from reddish semen

!

And one

of them, in the context of a minor’s nidda, is

to exclude

a man

from blood!

Thus, if blood issues from him through the opening of the organ, he does not become impure as a man in nidda, since the impurity of nidda does not apply to him .

The Gemara adds:

And similarly with regard to males,

we find an inclusion teaching that they become impure through ziva from the day of their birth!

As it was taught:

It is stated [Leviticus, there, verse 2]:

“A man, a man

when he has a discharge,”

what does “a man, a man” come to teach?—

To include a male child one day old, who becomes impure through ziva; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says—

there is no need

for this exposition to include a minor with regard to ziva, because it is explicitly stated in the verse concerning ziva:

It says:

[there, verse 33], “And concerning the man who has a discharge, for the male and for the female.” And we expound:

“For the male”—

anyone who is male, whether he is an adult or a minor.

“And for the female”—

anyone who is female, whether she is an adult or a minor. If so, what does “a man, a man” come to teach?

The Torah speaks in the language of human beings!

The Gemara asks:

Apparently, when the verse includes

something such as “a man, a man,” according to Rabbi Yehuda,

it includes a child one day old!

[Rabbi Yishmael does not dispute this point either; he maintains only that this inclusion is unnecessary with regard to a male zav.]

And we raise a contradiction:

With regard to one who experiences a seminal emission, it is stated [there, verse 16]: “And a man, when there issues from him a seminal emission.” The beraita analyzes the verse:

“A man”—I have derived only a man

[an adult] who becomes one who has experienced a seminal emission; but a minor

who is nine years and one day old, from where

do we know that he becomes one who has experienced a seminal emission?

The verse states: “And a man”!

Why do we not likewise learn that a child one day old becomes one who has experienced a seminal emission?

Rava said—

These are halakhot, and the Sages supported them with verses!

The Gemara clarifies:

Which is the halakha and which is the verse?

If you say: A child one day old

who causes impurity through ziva—

that is the halakha.

And a child nine years and one day old

who becomes impure through the impurity of a seminal emission—

that is the verse.

That cannot be, for

the verse is written without qualification,

and since an extra vav is written in “and a man,” even a child one day old should be included with regard to the impurity of a seminal emission?!

Rather, a child nine years and one day old

who causes impurity through a seminal emission—

that is the halakha;

and a child one day old

who causes impurity through ziva—

that is the verse!

The Gemara challenges Rava’s answer:

Since it is a halakha

that one becomes one who has experienced a seminal emission only at the age of nine,

the verse

“and a man,” stated with regard to semen and containing an extra vav,

why do I need it?

After all, this verse does not specifically indicate that a child of nine years and above is included.

The Gemara answers: The extra wording was written in order to expound the verse, and they expounded it

to exclude a woman from white discharge,

so that if a woman sees a white ziva discharge, she does not become impure .

The Gemara asks:

Why do I need the Torah to write with regard to males

“a man, a man,” to include a male minor one day old with regard to ziva,

and why do I need it to write with regard to females

“and a woman,” to include a female minor one day old with regard to nidda, and one ten days old with regard to ziva? It could include minors through one of these expressions, and we could hear the law for both.

The Gemara explains:

Both are necessary.

For if the Merciful One had written it with regard to males,

I would have said that the Torah was stringent only with them, rendering even minors impure,

because they become impure through sightings as through days:

if a zav sees three separate sightings of ziva on the same day, he becomes impure through ziva as though he had seen it on three consecutive days, and must count seven clean days.

But females, who do not become impure through sightings as through days,

for they become adult zavot only if they see for three separate [but consecutive] days: if they see only for one or two days, even with multiple sightings, they do not become impure with seven-day impurity, but merely observe one day corresponding to one day. If so, I would say,

perhaps the Torah did not

make it stringent for them, rendering them impure even during their minority. Therefore the verse must teach us that female minors also become impure through nidda and ziva .

And if the Merciful One had written it with regard to females,

teaching that they become women in nidda and zavot from their minority, I would have said that the Torah was stringent only with them

because they become impure

even

through involuntary discharge.

But males, who do not become impure through involuntary discharge

[if the ziva was caused against their will],

perhaps the Torah did not

make it stringent for them, rendering them impure through ziva during their minority. Therefore,

it is necessary

for the verse to teach us that both male and female minors become impure through ziva, just like adults.

We learned in the Mishna:

The Samaritans render the lower bedding impure like the upper layer.

The Gemara analyzes this:

What is meant by “the lower bedding

like the upper layer”?

If you say—

if there are ten mattresses, and he sits upon them

from above,

he renders them impure

all, including the bottom one.

That is obvious, for he presses upon them,

and everything beneath him is considered a surface upon which he lies, whether or not he touches it?!

Rather,

the lower bedding of one who has intercourse with a woman in nidda

[like the Samaritans]

should be like the upper layer of a zav!

[That is: The degree of impurity of one who has intercourse with a woman in nidda is a lesser impurity, so that even objects beneath him, such as his seat and bedding, do not cause the severe impurity caused by the lower bedding of a zav, but only have the status of “the upper layer of a zav,” namely, objects carried by the zav without his touching them] .

Just as

the upper layer

of a zav does not render impure

a person or vessels

but

only

food and drink,

so too

the lower bedding

of one who has intercourse with a woman in nidda renders impure only food and drink!

The Gemara explains the law of “the upper layer of a zav”:

“The upper layer

of a zav”—from where do we know

that it has only a lesser degree of impurity?

As it is written:

[Leviticus 15:10]

“And whoever touches anything that shall be beneath him

[the zav]

shall be impure”!

What

is meant by “beneath him”?