Niddah 55a — the Talmud in English

A menstruant renders the one who carries her impure. And menstrual blood likewise renders the one who carries it impure.

The impurity through carrying does not arise only through actual carrying; rather, even if the menstruant or her blood is located on an ordinary stone [which is ordinarily carried], and beneath the stone there are vessels or garments, they become impure with the impurity of carrying, according to the law of one who carries a menstruant or her blood—as a first degree of impurity. [The stone itself is not impure!] In the impurity of a man with a discharge, a special law of “a covering stone” was introduced.

A covering stone is a large stone, which is not ordinarily carried because of its weight. Therefore, if there were vessels or garments beneath it, and above it were objects that render the one who carries them impure, the garments and vessels beneath the stone do not become impure by the law of “carrying.”

Except for the impurity of a man with a discharge, concerning which the Torah introduced that he renders impure even through a covering stone.

If she

the menstruant or the woman with a discharge

renders impure through a covering stone,

the vessels or garments beneath the large stone,

then the ill thing

of the woman with a discharge

also renders impure through a covering stone?

Rav Ashi said: The verse says

regarding the couch of a man with a discharge, which renders impure through a covering stone:

“and the one who carries them.” “

Them” —

it is an exclusion. 7

We learned in the Mishna:

And the flesh of the corpse

renders moist and dry [things] impure.

And we raised the matter:

from where

From where

that the flesh of a corpse renders impure even when it is dry?

Resh Lakish said: The verse says “

for all its impurity”

for all impurities that emanate from it,

whether moist or dry.

Rabbi Yohanan said: “

Either on a human bone or in a grave

. A human [being] is analogous to a bone: just as a bone —

is dry, so here too —

it is dry.”

What is the difference between them?

There is a difference between them —

that it became very dry, until

it crumbles into fragments.

For Rabbi Yohanan it is pure, since it does not resemble a bone, which does not crumble. For Resh Lakish it is impure, because even something completely dry is included by “for all its impurity”.”

An objection was raised: The flesh of a corpse that has crumbled into fragments —

is pure!

And we answer:

There —

when it has become like flour,

having crumbled until it became fine like flour,

and it is dust.

An objection was raised

both according to Rabbi Yohanan and according to Resh Lakish .

For we learned:

Everything that is in a corpse —

imparts impurity.

Except for —

the teeth, the hair, and the nail,

when they have separated from the body of the corpse.

And at the time of their attachment

to the corpse —

everything is impure!

Yet a tooth is analogous to a bone, and nevertheless they are pure?!

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is analogous to a bone: just as a bone —

was created with it,

at the time of its birth,

so, too, everything —

that was created with it.

But a tooth was not created with it at the time of its birth.

And we challenge this:

But there are hair and a nail, which were created with it —

and they are pure!?

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is analogous to a bone: just as a bone —

was created with it and its root does not regenerate,

for if the bone is removed, another bone does not again return and grow in its place,

so, too, everything that was created with it and whose root does not regenerate.

The teeth are excluded —

because they were not created with it.

Hair and a nail are excluded, for although they were created with it —

their root regenerates.

And we challenge this:

But what of skin, whose root regenerates, and

the proof is:

for

we learned:

An animal

that has been flayed,

from which the skin was removed and new skin grew in its place,

Rabbi Meir —

declares fit,

to eat it, since it does not become a tereifa when its skin is removed, because it can return to its former state.

And the Sages —

declare it unfit.

And even the Sages disqualify it only

because

in the meantime,

until the new skin appears,

the air prevails over it, and it dies,

afterward, and therefore it is a tereifa,

but in any event its root regenerates.

And

in any event

we learned: These are those whose skins

impart impurity

like their flesh —

the skin of a person!

And we answer:

It was said concerning it:

Ulla said: By Torah law —

the skin of a person is pure! And for what reason did they say

the Sages that it is

impure?

A decree, lest a person make the skins of his father and mother into rugs

[a saddlecloth]

for a donkey 9 .

Some say

that we challenge it in the opposite manner:

But what of skin, whose root does not regenerate,

but only the flesh hardens above,

and we learned: And the Sages declare it unfit!

And even Rabbi Meir does not declare it fit —

except

because

it cools,

that it hardens

the flesh

of the animal above,

and it lives, but in any event its root does not regenerate.

And

nevertheless

Ulla said: By Torah law —

the skin of a person is pure!?

And we answer:

When Ulla’s statement was said —

it was said concerning the final clause:

For we learned there in the final clause:

And all of them,

all the skins that impart impurity like their flesh,

if one has tanned them or walked on them the measure required for tanning —

are pure,

because they have ceased to have the status of flesh,

except for the skin of a person.

And

concerning this

Ulla said: By Torah law —

the skin of a person, when tanned, is pure. And for what reason did they say

the Sages

it is impure —

a decree lest a person make the skin of his father and mother into rugs.

And we challenge further:

But what of flesh, whose root regenerates, and

nevertheless

it is impure!?

And we answer:

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Flesh

that was removed is considered to be something whose root does not regenerate, because it does not heal completely as before; rather,

its place becomes a scar.

We learned in the Mishna:

But the discharge

does not impart impurity except when it is moist.

And we inquire about it:

The discharge —

from where do we know

in general that it imparts impurity?

And we answer:

For it was taught: “

Its discharge is impure” —

this teaches concerning the discharge that it is impure.

But is this not a logical inference

that it should impart impurity by a kal va-chomer, without the need for it to be written explicitly in the Torah?

For if

to others,

the person from whom the discharge emerges is

a cause of impurity,

all the more so to himself!

The goat that is sent away proves this, for it causes impurity to others,

to the one who sends it to the wilderness, to Azazel,

while it

the goat itself

is itself pure,

even though it is smashed and is not slaughtered, because its being pushed from the cliff, which is a mitzva, is considered slaughter that purifies it from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass [but does not permit it for eating].

If so,

you too should not be surprised at this, that although it causes

the discharge

to impart impurity to others —

it itself is pure.

And therefore,

the verse states: “

Its discharge is impure” —

this teaches concerning the discharge that it is impure.

But perhaps: These words apply

when the discharge imparts impurity

through contact, but through carrying —

no, just as is the case with a creeping creature,

which imparts impurity through contact but does not impart impurity through carrying!?

Rav Beיבי bar Abaye said: For contact, a verse was not necessary —

for it is not inferior

the discharge

to semen,

which imparts impurity through contact.