Niddah 56a — the Talmud in English

The urine

of a zav

that comes ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

from an impure place—

is it not logically derived that it should be impure?

Blood that emerges from the organ

of a confirmed zav

will prove otherwise, for it comes from an impure place—

yet it is pure.

You too should not be surprised about this, for although it comes from a place of impurity—

it will be pure.

The verse therefore says: “His discharge is impure, and this

will be his impurity”—

to include the urine

of a zav

as subject to impurity.

Blood that emerges from the organ

of a zav—

from where do we know that it is pure?

For it was taught in a beraita: One might have thought that blood emerging from the mouth

of a zav would be like spittle emerging from his mouth,

and

blood emerging

from the organ

of a zav would be like the discharge emerging from him, and they would be

impure?

The verse therefore says: “His discharge is impure, it is.”

It—

it is impure, but blood emerging from his mouth and from his organ is not impure; rather, it is pure.

And we raised the matter:

But let us reverse it,

and include the blood and exclude the urine!?

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: It is analogous to spittle.

Just as spittle that gathers

and accumulates

and emerges, so too everything that gathers and emerges

15. Blood is excluded—

for it does not gather and emerge,

but drips immediately.

And we object:

But what of a woman’s milk, which gathers and emerges?

And

nevertheless

the Master said: A woman’s milk—

conveys the impurity of liquids.

The impurity of liquids—

yes, but not severe impurity!

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: It is analogous to spittle. Just as spittle—

gathers and emerges, and returns and is reabsorbed

in the human body when he does not expel it,

so too everything—

gathers and emerges and returns and is reabsorbed.

Blood is excluded—

for it does not gather and emerge.

A woman’s milk is excluded—

for although it gathers and emerges, it does not return and become reabsorbed.

And we object:

Let us derive it from “his discharge”: Just as his discharge, which does not gather and emerge—

conveys impurity, so too everything

conveys impurity, even if it does not gather and emerge?

Rava said: It cannot be derived from “his discharge”—

for it causes impurity to others,

to a person who sees the discharge. Can you say this regarding all the other substances that emerge, which do not render him impure?

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the creeping creature.”

Resh Lakish said: A creeping creature that dried up, but whose skeleton remains—

is impure.

And we refute this:

But did we not learn in the Mishna: They convey impurity when moist, but do not convey impurity when dry!

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult; this

refers to all of them,

when the skeleton remains completely intact: they convey impurity even when dry.

This—

refers to some of them,

when the skeleton does not remain completely intact: they do not convey impurity when dry.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yitzhak son of Rabbi Bisna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: “

Whoever touches

them.”

One might have thought that this refers to all of them—

the verse therefore says: “of them.”

If “of them”—

one might have thought that it refers to some of them; the verse says—

“them.” How so?

Here,

with some of them—

when moist; here,

with all of them—

when dry.

Rava said: These turtles

of Mehoza,

when their skeleton remains—

are impure

when they are dry.

And Resh Lakish said: A creeping creature that was burned, but whose skeleton remains—

is impure.

We objected: A burned creeping creature was found on top of olives, and likewise a moth-eaten cloth [

worn and decaying]—

they are pure, for all impurities are judged according to the time of their discovery,

and we assume that the creeping creature and the cloth reached the olives in this condition. And it is proven that a burned creeping creature does not convey impurity!

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult; that

which Resh Lakish said, that a creeping creature that was burned and whose skeleton remains conveys impurity—

refers to all of it,

when its skeleton was intact.

That

which we learned, that it is pure—

refers to some of it.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yitzhak son of Rabbi Bisna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: “

Them.”

One might have thought that this refers to all of them—

the verse says: “of them.” If “of them”—

one might have thought that it refers to some of them; the verse says—

“them.”

How so? Here—

with a burned one,

it is necessary that he touch all of it, so that its entire skeleton remains.

Here,

with some of it—

with one that is not burned.

We learned in the Mishna:

“They convey impurity when moist.”

A zav: as it is written: “

His flesh runs.”

For this is an expression of moistness.

His phlegm, his discharge, and his spittle: as it is written: “

When the zav spits”—

like spittle.

A creeping creature: “

At their death,”

the Merciful One said, like death.

And at the time of death it is not dry.

Semen—

that is fit to produce seed

only when it is moist.

A carcass: as it is written: “

When it dies”—

like death

when it is not yet dry.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If they can be soaked”:

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question:

whether

we learned: at the beginning and at the end in lukewarm water,

or

perhaps at the beginning

in lukewarm water

even though it need not be so at the end

when the time of a twenty-four-hour period has elapsed in lukewarm water?

Come and hear: For it was taught in a beraita: How long is their soaking in lukewarm water?

Yehuda ben Nekosa says: A twenty-four-hour period.

And it is sufficient that its

beginning

be in lukewarm water,

even though its end need not be so

in lukewarm water .

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They must be in lukewarm water for a twenty-four-hour period.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Yose says: the flesh of a corpse.”

Shmuel said:

According to Rabbi Yose,

it is pure

the flesh of a corpse that has dried up

from conveying impurity in the measure of an olive, but it does convey impurity

the dry flesh of a corpse by the law of

the impurity of decay,

in the measure of the full volume of a ladle .

It was also taught so: Rabbi Yose says: The flesh of a corpse that has dried up and cannot be soaked and return to its former state—

is pure from conveying impurity in the measure of an olive, but is impure with the impurity of decay.

Mishna:

A creeping creature that is found in an alley—

conveys impurity retroactively, until he says

the one who says:

“I examined this alley and there was no creeping creature in it,” or until the time of sweeping

the alley.

And likewise a stain that is found on a garment—

conveys impurity retroactively, until he says: “I examined this garment and there was no stain on it,” or until the time of laundering 19.

And it conveys impurity

the stain or the creeping creature

whether moist or dry 20.

Rabbi Shimon says: The dry one—

conveys impurity retroactively,

until the time of laundering for a garment and until the time of sweeping for an alley.

And the moist one—

does not convey impurity

retroactively

except until the time when it could have been moist.

But retroactively at a time such as this, when, had it been there, it would already now have had to be dry, it does not convey impurity. For this proves that now it is moist, and it was not so at that time.

Gemara:

They raised a question before them:

whether

“until the time of sweeping”—

do we say that it has the presumption of having been examined, that at the time of sweeping they take care to examine the alley for impurity, and only for this reason do we deem pure the pure items that had been there before the sweeping.

as we say that at the time of sweeping people are careful to check the alley for impurity, and it is only for this reason that we deem pure the ritually pure items that were there before the sweeping?

Or perhaps

only

“it has the presumption of having been swept”

do we say, that we estimate that if a creeping creature had been there at the time of sweeping, it would have been swept away. And this is sufficient for us to deem pure the pure items that were found in it before the sweeping.

And what practical difference is there?

For it was said

by the one who swept the alley, or by one who saw him:

“He swept but did not examine!”

If you say that it has the presumption of having been examined—

he did not examine it.

If you say that it has the presumption of having been swept—

it was swept.