Niddah 32b — the Talmud in English

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

to exclude a man from reddish discharge!

For if a man sees red seminal emission, he does not become impure through it! [And the exposition of the verse is: a woman becomes impure through redness, for this is her normal way, but a man does not become impure through redness, for it is not his normal way to see such a thing]] .

The Gemara raises an objection:

But it was taught:

it was said concerning a woman with a flux [there, 25]:

“A woman

when her blood flows for many days,” and the beraita discusses this:

I have only

a grown woman, who becomes a woman with a flux if she sees blood for three consecutive days after her seven days of nidda; a minor who is only

ten days old—

for flux, from where

that she can become a woman with a flux ten days after her birth [seven days of nidda and another three days of flux]?

The verse states: “And a woman” [the additional vav],

teaching that a minor also becomes a woman with a flux.

And the Gemara concludes its objection:

Why do I need

this exposition—

let it be derived from nidda,

that just as the days of nidda apply to a minor, so the days of flux apply to her?!

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary

to have a special teaching that the law of a woman with a flux applies to a minor. Since

if the Merciful One had written concerning nidda

alone,

I would have said—

a woman with nidda

who is stringent,

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

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

But a woman with a flux, if she sees for one day

she does not need to sit for seven days. Rather,

it is sufficient for her to observe one day corresponding to one day; I would say no

it does not apply to a minor .

Therefore

it is necessary

to expound “and a woman,” to teach that the law of a woman with a flux applies also to a minor.

The Gemara still raises an objection:

Let the Merciful One write

the law of a minor

with regard to a woman with a flux, and it would not need

to write it

with regard to nidda. And I would know

even without a special exposition, since

there is no woman with a flux without nidda,

for the law of nidda applies to a minor, because the eleven days of flux are counted only after the seven days of nidda; and if the seven days of nidda do not apply to a minor, the eleven days of flux cannot apply to her.

The Gemara answers:

That is indeed so

that a verse is not needed to expound the law of nidda with regard to a minor, since it is learned from the law of a woman with a flux .

Rather, the verse

the extra “and a woman” stated concerning an impure minor with nidda—

why do I need it? -

To exclude a man from reddish discharge!

The Gemara wonders:

But you excluded this once already

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

extra word, in the impurity through intercourse, is

to exclude

a man

from red seminal emission!

!

And one

extra word, concerning the nidda of a minor, is

to exclude

a man

from blood!

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

The Gemara adds:

And likewise with regard to males

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

For it was taught:

it is stated [Leviticus, there, 2]:

“Any man

who will be a man with a flux,”

what does “man, man” come to teach—

to include a child one day old, who becomes impure through flux; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says—

it is not necessary

to have this exposition to include a minor with regard to flux, for it is explicit in the verse concerning flux:

Behold, it says:

“And the man with a flux, his flux, for a male and for a female.” And we expound:

“For a male”—

whoever is male, whether he is grown or whether he is a minor.

“And for a female”—

whoever is female, whether grown or whether a minor! If so, what does “man, man” come to teach?—

The Torah spoke in the language of human beings!

The Gemara raises an objection:

Apparently, when the verse includes

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

it includes even a child one day old!

[And Rabbi Ishmael likewise did not dispute this, but held that this inclusion is unnecessary with regard to a man with a flux].

And we raise a contradiction:

it is stated concerning one who experiences a seminal emission [there, 16], “And a man, when there issues from him seminal emission.” And the beraita discusses this:

“A man”—I have only a man

[a grown man] who becomes one who experiences a seminal emission; a minor

nine years and one day old, from where

that he becomes one who experiences a seminal emission?

The verse states: “And a man”!

And why should we not learn that even a child one day old becomes one who experiences a seminal emission?

Rava said—

They are halakhot, and the Sages supported them by verses!

And the Gemara clarifies:

Which is the halakha and which is the verse?

If you say: a child one day old

who becomes impure through flux—

the halakha.

And one nine years and one day old

who becomes impure with the impurity of seminal emission—

the verse.

This is not possible, for

the verse is written without qualification,

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

Rather, one nine years and one day old

who becomes impure with the impurity of seminal emission—

the halakha

32a, and a child one day old

who becomes impure through flux—

the verse!

The Gemara raises an objection to Rava’s answer:

But since it is a halakha

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

the verse “

and a man,” stated concerning seminal emission and containing an extra vav,

why do I need it?

For this verse has no indication specifically to include one who is nine years old or older.

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

to exclude a woman from whiteness,

for if a woman sees a white flux, she is not impure .

The Gemara asks:

Why do I need it to be written concerning males

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

and why do I need it to be written concerning females

“and a woman,” to include a minor one day old with regard to nidda, and ten days old with regard to flux? It would be possible to include minors through one of them, and it would be understood with regard to both.

The Gemara explains:

They are both necessary.

For if the Merciful One had written concerning males,

I would have said that only in their case did the verse impose the stringency of rendering even minors impure,

because they become impure through sightings as through days,

for if a man with a flux saw three separate sightings of flux on the same day, he becomes impure through flux as though he had seen on three consecutive days, and he must count seven clean days.

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

for only if they see over three separate [but consecutive] days do they thereby become women with a flux. But if they see only for one or two days, even many sightings, they do not become impure with impurity requiring seven days; rather, they observe one day corresponding to one day. If so, I would have said,

let us say no,

the verse did not impose upon them the stringency of rendering them impure even in their minority. Therefore the verse must inform us that minors too become impure through nidda and flux .

And if the Merciful One had written concerning females

that they become women with nidda and women with a flux from their minority, I would have said that only in their case did the verse impose the stringency

because they become impure

even

through accident.

But males, who do not become impure through accident

[if the flux was caused without their intention],

let us say no,

the verse imposed upon them the stringency of rendering them impure through flux in their minority. Therefore

it is necessary

for the verse to teach us, concerning both males and females, that they too become impure through flux like adults.

We learned in the Mishna:

The Kutim render the lower bedding impure like the upper bedding.

The Gemara discusses this:

What is “lower bedding

like upper”?

If you say—

that if there are ten coverings, and he sits upon them

from above,

they render them impure

all of them, including the lowest one.

It is obvious, for he treads upon them,

and everything beneath him is considered an object upon which he treads, whether he touches it or not?!

Rather—

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

[like the Kutim]

should be like the upper bedding of a man with a flux!

[That is: the level of impurity of one who has intercourse with a woman with nidda will be a light impurity, such that even the things beneath him, such as his seat and bedding, do not render impure with severe impurity like the lower bedding of a man with a flux, which renders severe impurity; rather, they are only “like the upper bedding of a man with a flux,” namely things carried by the man with a flux without his touching them] .

What,

the upper bedding

of a man with a flux does not render impure

a person and vessels

but

only

food and drink—

even

the lower bedding

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

The Gemara explains the law of “the upper bedding of a man with a flux”:

“The upper bedding

of a man with a flux”—from where

is it impure only with a light impurity?

For it is written,

[Leviticus 15:10]

“And whoever touches anything that will be beneath him

[of the man with a flux]

shall become impure”!

What—

“beneath him”?