Niddah 55b — the Talmud in English

For the verse is needed -

for carrying 10 .

And we examine it: And say: Through carrying -

it imparts impurity to

the emission,

a person and garments;

and

if

through contact,

only

a person -

it imparts impurity,

but

garments

that are upon the one who touches it -

it does not impart impurity, just as is the case with contact with a carcass,

which through its contact imparts impurity only to the person who touches it and not to the garments upon him, whereas when a carcass is carried it imparts impurity to the one who carries it and also to his garments. While the zav himself, even through contact, imparts impurity to the one who touches him, to impart impurity to the garments upon him.

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind

to say so.

For it was taught in a beraita: Others

Rabbi Meir

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

It compares his emission to him. Just as he,

the zav himself,

you did not distinguish between his contact and his carrying, to impart impurity to a person and to impart impurity to garments, so too his emission 11 .

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

And now that we have derived from “‘

the zav his emission’” -

“His emission is impure”

from which we learned above the law of the impurity of the emission,

why do I need it?

Rav Yehuda of Madasqarta said: It is needed,

because

it might enter your mind to say: The sent goat proves it -

that it causes impurity to others while it itself is pure.

And if it were because of “the zav his emission” -

we might have said that that verse did not come for a comparison of the emission to the zav, but rather

it came for counting,

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

An emission -

one; his emission -

two,

and it is written afterward “for a male,” to teach that in the first two sightings he does not become impure through a sighting caused by accident, for he does not impart impurity like a woman.

And at the third -

the Merciful One compared him to a female,

to say that at the third sighting he becomes impure even through a sighting caused by accident, and by virtue of it becomes obligated in an offering.

Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “

His emission is impure”.

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

and you learned from it the fundamental impurity of the emission -

expound in it also this

exposition from “the zav his emission,” that there is no distinction between contact with the emission and carrying it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the saliva.

And we examine it:

Saliva -

from where do we know

that it imparts impurity?

And we answer:

For it was taught: “And when the zav spits

upon the pure one.”

One might

say that it is impure

even though it did not touch

the pure one?

The verse states: “Upon the pure one” -

until it touches the pure one.

I have only

that it imparts impurity

to his saliva,

that of a zav.

His phlegm and his nasal discharge,

that is, moisture issuing from his throat or from the chest [see Tosafot s.v.], and

his nasal fluids -

from where?

The verse states: “And when he spits,”

and he expounds from the superfluous vav.

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

And we wonder:

From where would you derive

that the pure one should become impure without the saliva touching him?

And we answer:

It might enter your mind to say: Let us derive

by a gzera shava,

“saliva, saliva”

from a levirate wife; just as there -

even though it did not touch, so here too, even though it did not touch.

It teaches us this.

And we examine it:

And say: These matters

that the saliva of a zav imparts impurity

through contact, but through carrying -

no, just as is the case with a creeping animal!?

Reish Lakish said, and the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: The verse states, “Upon the pure one” -

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 made impure for you.

And say: Through carrying -

it imparts impurity to

the saliva of a zav,

a person and garments.

Through contact -

a person to become impure; garments -

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

Reish Lakish said, and likewise the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: The verse states, “Upon the pure one.”

And we expound from “upon the pure one” -

the purity that I made pure for you elsewhere, I made impure for you here!

And what is this,

the purity that I made pure for you elsewhere?

This is contact with a carcass,

from which I made you pure with regard to the impurity of the garments of one who touches it, but made you impure through contact with the saliva of a zav.

And we examine it further:

And say

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

through carrying a creeping animal,

which does not impart impurity through carrying—I made impure for you here, through the saliva of a zav, so that it should impart impurity through carrying.

And in reality, the emission imparts impurity only in a manner analogous to a carcass, to impart impurity to a person but not to impart impurity to the garments upon him!?

And we answer:

If so, the verse should write “upon a person,”

and we would expound: whatever is in the hand of a person—that is, the impurity of carrying, from which a creeping animal was excluded—applies to an emission.

What is “

upon the pure one”? -

We learn from it two things:

a. The impurity of carrying with an emission is learned from the letter bet in “upon the pure one.” b. The impurity through contact, to impart impurity even to the garments of the one who touches it, is learned from the word “pure one.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And the nasal fluids.

What are the nasal fluids? Rav said: When they are drawn out,

which a person draws out by dragging them

through the mouth.

And the impurity of the nasal fluids is

because it is impossible for nasal fluids not to contain particles of saliva.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even when they are drawn out through the nostrils.

It is evident that he holds

Rabbi Yohanan that the nasal fluids too

are a spring.

And the Merciful One included it

from “when he spits”—everything that resembles saliva.

And Rav, should we also consider the tear of his eye

because

Rav said: One who wishes to blind his eye

[to become blind] -

let him apply eye paint from a gentile. And Levi said: One who wishes to die -

let him apply eye paint from a gentile.

Because the gentile places a deadly poison in the substance with which he paints the eye.

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

like Levi,

“One who wishes to die” -

since he can draw them out

the deadly poison

and bring them out through the mouth!

And if so, the tear of the eye should also be considered a spring, like the nasal fluids, since it can be drawn out through the mouth?

And

we answer:

Rav

held:

Granted that the poison

the deadly drug,

issues

by being drawn through his mouth, but

the tear itself -

does not issue

through his mouth, and therefore it is not considered a spring.

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

Sweat, foul moisture, and pus -

pure of everything.

The tear of his eye, and the blood of his wound,

his injury,

and a woman’s milk -

impart the impurity of liquids, in the measure of a quarter-log.

But his emission, his saliva, and his urine -

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

impart severe impurity 13 .

But nasal fluids are not taught. Granted, according to Rav they are not taught -

for it is not definite for him

absolutely

to teach it,

because

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

But according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who says even when they are drawn out through the nostrils -

let him teach it!?

And we answer:

And according to your reasoning -

are phlegm and nasal discharge taught?

Rather: He taught saliva and everything that comes from an inclusion.

Here too -

he taught his saliva, and everything that comes from an inclusion.

The tear of his eye -

as it is written,

“You drenched me with tears threefold.”

It is evident that tears are liquids.

And the blood of his wound -

as it is written,

“And he shall drink the blood of the slain.”

And the blood of a wound is also considered a liquid, because

what difference is there to me if he killed him entirely, and what difference is there to me if he killed him partially.

A woman’s milk -

as it is written,

“And she opened the skin of milk and gave him to drink” 14 .

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

His urine -

from where

does it impart severe impurity?

For it was taught: “

His emission is impure” -

and this

“shall be his impurity,” which implies that the verse came to add another matter -

to include his urine for impurity.

And perhaps you will say: For what purpose is a verse needed to include the urine of a zav for severe impurity? Behold, it could be learned by means of a kal va-chomer:

Is this not an inference? For if the saliva

of a zav,

which comes from

the mouth, which is a

place of purity, is impure.

a place of purity, is impure.