Niddah 55a (נה.) — the Talmud in English

A niddah renders the person carrying her impure. Similarly, menstrual blood renders the person carrying it impure.

The impurity caused by carrying does not arise only through actual carrying. Even if the niddah or her blood is upon an ordinary stone [which is ordinarily carried], and beneath the stone there are vessels or garments, they become impure with the impurity of carrying, as does one who carries a niddah or her blood—that is, with first-degree impurity. [The stone itself is not impure!] In the impurity of a zav, the Torah introduced a special law of “a covering stone.”

A covering stone is a large stone that 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 person carrying them impure, the garments and vessels beneath the stone would not become impure by the law of “carrying.”

The exception is the impurity of a zav, for which the Torah introduced that he imparts impurity even through a covering stone.

If she

the niddah or zava

imparts impurity through a covering stone,

to the vessels or garments beneath the large stone,

then her discharge

the discharge of the zava

also imparts impurity through a covering stone?

Rav Ashi said: The verse states

with regard to the zav’s bedding, which imparts impurity through a covering stone: “And the one who carries them.” “

“and the one who carries them.” “

Them”—

it is an exclusion 7.

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

And the flesh of a corpse

imparts impurity whether moist or dry.

And we raise the following question:

From where

do we know that the flesh of a corpse imparts impurity even when dry

? Reish Lakish said: The verse states

“for all its impurity.”

for all impurities that separate from it,

whether wet or dry.

Rabbi Yohanan said: “

Either in a human bone or in a grave

. A human being is compared to a bone: Just as a bone—

is dry, so too here—

it is dry.”

What is the practical difference between them?

The practical difference between them is

if it became so dry that

it crumbles into pieces.

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

The Gemara raises an objection: The flesh of a corpse that has crumbled—

is pure!

And we answer:

There, it is

reduced to dust,

having disintegrated until it became as fine as flour,

and it is considered dust.

The Gemara raises an objection

both according to Rabbi Yohanan and according to Resh Lakish.

As we learned:

Everything that is in a corpse

imparts impurity,

except for

the teeth, the hair, and the fingernail,

when they have separated from the body of the corpse.

But while they are attached

to the corpse,

everything is impure!

But a tooth is comparable to a bone, and nevertheless the teeth are pure?!

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: A bone is the comparison: Just as a bone

was created with him

at the time of his birth,

so too, anything

that was created with him.

A tooth was not created with him at the time of his birth.

And we challenge this:

But there are hair and fingernails, which were created with him—

and they are pure!?

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said: A bone is the comparison: Just as a bone

was created with him and its root is not replaced,

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

so too, anything that was created with him and whose root is not replaced.

The teeth are excluded—

as they were not created with him.

Hair and fingernails are excluded, for although they were created with him—

their roots are replaced.

And we challenge this:

But what of skin, whose root is replaced, and

the proof is:

that

we learned:

an animal

whose skin has been flayed,

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

Rabbi Meir—

declares it fit

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

But 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,

and therefore it is a tereifa,

but in any event its root is replaced.

And

in any event,

we learned: Those whose skins

impart impurity

like their flesh are

human skin!

And we answer:

It was stated about this:

Ulla said: By Torah law—

human skin is pure! And for what reason did they say

the Sages that it is

impure?

As 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 this in the reverse manner:

But what of skin, whose root is not replaced,

but rather the flesh merely hardens on top,

and we learned: The Sages declare it unfit!

And even Rabbi Meir declares it fit—

only

because

it cools,

as it hardens

the flesh

of the animal on top,

and it lives; but in any event, its root is not replaced.

And

nevertheless,

Ulla said: By Torah law—

human skin is pure!?

And we answer:

When Ulla’s statement was made,

it was stated with regard to the latter clause:

As we learned there in the latter clause:

And all of them,

all the skins that impart impurity like their flesh,

if they were tanned or one had walked on them the measure required for tanning—

are pure,

since they are no longer governed by the law of flesh,

except for human skin.

And

with regard to this,

Ulla said: By Torah law—

human skin, once tanned, is pure. And for what reason did they say

the Sages

it is impure—

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

And we challenge this further:

But what of flesh, whose root is replaced, and

nevertheless

it is impure!?

And we answer:

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Flesh

that is removed is considered to have a root that is not replaced, because it does not heal completely as it was before, but

its place becomes a scar.

We learned in the Mishna:

But the flux

imparts impurity only when it is wet.

And we inquire:

The flux—

from where do we know

in general that it imparts impurity?

And we answer:

As it was taught: “

His flux is impure”—

this teaches that the flux is impure.

But this can be derived logically

through a kal va-chomer, without the need for it to be written explicitly in the Torah.

For

others,

the person from whom the flux issues, is

a source of impurity; with regard to himself,

is it not all the more so?

The scapegoat sent away proves otherwise, for it causes impurity to others,

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

while it,

the goat itself,

is itself pure,

even though it is smashed and is not slaughtered, since its being pushed from the cliff, which is a mitzva, is considered a slaughtering that purifies it from the impurity of an unslaughtered animal [but does not permit it to be eaten].

If so,

you too should not be surprised by this: Although it causes

the flux

to impart impurity to others—

it itself is pure.

Therefore,

the verse states: “

His flux is impure”—

this teaches that the flux is impure.

And perhaps: This applies

when the flux imparts impurity

through contact, but through carrying—

not, just as with a creeping creature,

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

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said: A verse is not necessary for contact—

as the flux is not inferior

to

semen,

which imparts impurity through contact.