Niddah 55b (נה:) — the Talmud in English

Because the verse is necessary -

for carrying 10 .

And we examine this:

Perhaps, through carrying,

the discharge

imparts impurity to a person and to garments; but

if

it were

through contact,

only

a person

would become impure,

but

garments

worn by the one who comes into contact with it

would not become impure, just as is the case with contact with a carcass

which, through contact, imparts impurity only to the person who touches it and not to the garments he is wearing, whereas when a carcass is carried, it imparts impurity both to the one carrying it and to his garments. A zav himself, by contrast, imparts impurity even through contact, causing the one who touches him to render impure the garments he is wearing.

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind

to say so.

As it is taught in a beraita: Others

(Rabbi Meir)

say: “The zav and his discharge, for a male and for a female” -

The verse juxtaposes his discharge to him. Just as he,

the zav himself,

you made no distinction between his contact and his carrying with regard to imparting impurity to a person and imparting impurity to garments, so too his discharge 11 .

And now that we derive from “ the zav and his discharge” -

“His discharge is impure,”

from which we learned above the law of the discharge’s impurity -

why do I need

this verse?

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: It is necessary,

because

it might enter your mind to say: The scapegoat sent to Azazel proves otherwise,

as it causes impurity to others while it itself remains pure.

And if it is because of “the zav and his discharge,”

I might have said that this verse did not come to juxtapose the discharge to the zav, but rather

it came for enumeration,

to expound from it the order of the zav’s sightings:

“Discharge”

is one; “his discharge”

is two;

and afterward it is written “for a male,” to teach that with his first two sightings he does not become impure through an accidental sighting, and therefore does not become impure like a menstruating woman.

And with the third

the Merciful One juxtaposed him to a female,

to say that with the third sighting he becomes impure even through an accidental sighting and becomes liable to a sacrifice on its account.

Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “

His discharge is impure”.

And now that the Merciful One said, “His discharge is impure,”

and you have learned from it the essential impurity of the discharge,

expound this as well,

namely, the teaching from “the zav and his discharge,” that no distinction is made between contact with the discharge and carrying it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And saliva.

We examine this:

With regard to saliva,

from where do we know

that it imparts impurity?

And we answer:

As it is taught in a beraita: “When the zav spits

on a pure person.”

One might have thought

that it would be impure

even though it did not touch

the pure person.

The verse therefore states: “On a pure person” -

until it touches the pure person.

I have derived

that it imparts impurity only through

his saliva,

the saliva of a zav.

What is the status of his sputum and his phlegm,

that is, mucus emerging from his throat or chest [see

Tosafot],

and his nasal mucus -

from where

do we derive its status?

The verse states: “When he spits,”

and he expounds the extra letter vav.

The Master said: One might have thought, even though it did not touch.

And we ask:

From where could this have been inferred,

that the pure person would become impure without the saliva touching him?

And we answer:

It might enter your mind to derive

by means of a

gzera shava, “spitting” from the halakha of a levirate marriage:

Just as there, even though it did not touch, so too here, even though it did not touch.

The verse therefore teaches us otherwise.

We examine this:

But perhaps this statement applies only

to the saliva of a zav, which imparts impurity

through contact, but through carrying

it does not, just as is the case with a creeping creature!?

Reish Lakish said, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states, “On a pure person” -

whatever is in the hand of a pure person,

even if he does not touch it but merely carries it in his hand,

I have rendered impure for you.

But perhaps, through carrying,

it imparts impurity

to the saliva of a zav, to

a person and to garments.

Through contact,

a person becomes impure, but garments

do not become impure, just as is the case with contact with a carcass!?

Reish Lakish said, and likewise the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states, “On a pure person.”

And we expound from the word “on a pure person”:

The purity that I made pure for you elsewhere, I have rendered impure for you here!

And what is that

purity that I made pure for you elsewhere?

This is contact with a carcass,

where I made him exempt from garment impurity when he touches it, but rendered him impure through contact with the saliva of a zav.

We further examine this:

But perhaps

this is what the Merciful One said: The purity that I made pure for you elsewhere,

through carrying a creeping creature,

which does not impart impurity through carrying - I have rendered you impure here, through the saliva of a zav, which imparts impurity through carrying.

And in fact, the discharge should impart impurity only in a manner analogous to a carcass: It renders a person impure but does not render the garments he is wearing impure!?

And we answer:

If so, the verse should have written “upon a person,”

and we would expound it as referring to what is in a person’s hand, namely, carrying, from which a creeping creature was excluded, and which applies to a discharge.

What

then is the significance of “on a pure person”?

Derive from it two matters:

a. The impurity of carrying in the case of a discharge is derived from the letter bet in “on a pure person.” b. The impurity of contact that renders even the garments of the one who touches it impure is derived from the word “pure.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And nasal mucus.

What is nasal mucus? Rav said: That which is drawn out,

which a person draws out

through the mouth.

The reason for the impurity of nasal mucus is

that nasal mucus cannot exist without particles of saliva.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even that which is drawn out through the nose.

Apparently, he holds

that Rabbi Yohanan considers nasal mucus as well

to be a fluid.

And the Merciful One included it

through “when he spits” - anything resembling saliva .

And according to Rav, let us also consider the tears of his eye because

Rav said: One who wishes to blind his eye

[to become blind] -

should have it painted by a gentile. And Levi said: One who wishes to die -

should have it painted by a gentile.

The reason is that the gentile places poison in the substance with which he paints the eye.

And Rav Hiyya bar Gurya said: What is the reason Rav did not say

the same as Levi,

“

One who wishes to die” -

since he can draw it out

the poison

and expel it through his mouth!”

If so, the tears of the eye should also be considered a fluid, like nasal mucus, since they too can be drawn out through the mouth?

And

we answer:

Rav

held:

Granted that the poison

emerges

through the mouth when drawn out, but

the tear itself -

does not emerge

through the mouth, and therefore it is not considered a fluid.

Come and hear: There are nine liquids of a zav:

Sweat, foul mucus, and pus -

are pure with regard to everything.

Tears of his eye, blood from his wound,

his injury,

and a woman’s milk -

impart the impurity of liquids, when there is a quarter-log.

But his discharge, his saliva, and his urine -

impart severe impurity 13 .

But nasal mucus is not taught. Granted, according to Rav, it is not taught

make a person impure with severe impurity 13 .

because it is not definite enough for him

to teach it

as an absolute rule,

since

sometimes it comes through the mouth, and sometimes it comes through the nose.

But according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who says that it is impure even when drawn out through the nose,

let him teach it!?

And we answer:

And according to your reasoning,

is his sputum and phlegm taught?

Rather, the tanna taught saliva and everything that comes from an inclusion.

Here too,

the tanna taught his saliva and everything that comes from an inclusion.

His tears

-

as it is written: “

You watered it with a third measure of tears.”

Apparently, tears are a liquid.

And the blood from his wound

-

as it is written: “

And he shall drink the blood of the slain.”

Blood from a wound is also considered a liquid, for

what difference is there whether he killed him completely or killed him partially?

A woman’s milk

-

as it is written: “ And she opened the skin of milk and gave him to drink.” 14 .

His urine -

from where

His urine -

from where

do we derive that it imparts severe impurity?

As it is taught in a beraita: “

His discharge is impure” -

“And this shall be his impurity,” which indicates that the verse comes to add something further” -

to include his urine as imparting impurity.

Perhaps you will say: Why is a verse needed to include the urine of a zav as imparting severe impurity? Can this not be derived by means of a kal va-chomer?

Is this not a logical inference: Just as the saliva

of a zav,

which comes from

the mouth,

a place of purity, is impure.