Niddah 56a (נו.) — the Talmud in English

The urine

of a zav

that comes

from an impure place—

is it not logically derived that it should be impure?

The blood that emerges from the penis

of a complete zav

proves otherwise, for it comes from an impure place—

yet it is pure.

You too should not be surprised by this: although it comes from a place of impurity—

it is pure.

The verse states: “His discharge is impure, and this

will be his impurity”—

to include the urine

of a zav

as a source of impurity.

The blood that emerges from the penis

of a zav—

from where do we know that it is pure?

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

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

and

the blood emerging

from the penis

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

impure?

The verse states: “His discharge is impure.”

His—

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

And we raised a difficulty:

But perhaps I should reverse the inference—

and include the blood and exclude the urine!?

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: The comparison is to spittle.

Just as spittle gathers

and accumulates

and then emerges, so too, anything that gathers and then emerges

—blood is excluded—

for it does not gather and then emerge,

but drips immediately.

And we challenge this:

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

And

nevertheless

the Master said: A woman’s milk—

imparts 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: The comparison is to spittle. Just as spittle—

gathers and emerges, and returns and is reabsorbed

in the human body when one does not expel it,

so too, anything—

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 challenge this:

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

imparts impurity, so too, everything

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

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

because it causes impurity to others,

to the person who encounters the discharge. Can you say the same of all other substances that emerge, which do not render him impure?

We learned in the Mishna:

And the creeping creature.

Reish Lakish said: A creeping creature that has dried but whose skeleton remains intact—

is impure.

And we refute this:

But we learned in the Mishna: They impart impurity when moist, but do not impart impurity when dry!

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. This—

concerns all of them,

when the skeleton remains completely intact, in which case they impart impurity even when dry.

That—

concerns some of them,

when the skeleton does not remain completely intact, in which case they do not impart impurity when dry.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yitzhak bar Rabbi Bisna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: “Anyone who touches

them

.”

One might have thought that this means all of them—

the verse states: “from them.”

If “from them”—

one might have thought that it means some of them; the verse therefore states—

“them.” How is this to be understood?

Here,

with some of them—

when moist; here,

with all of them—

when dry.

Rava said: These turtles

of Mehoza,

when their skeleton remains intact—

are impure

when dry.

And Reish Lakish said: A creeping creature that was burned but whose skeleton remains intact—

is impure.

The following objection was raised: If a burned creeping creature is found on olives, and likewise a tattered cloth

[worn-out and decaying]—

they are pure, for all impurities are considered according to their condition when found,

and we presume that the creeping creature and the cloth reached the olives in this condition. This proves that a burned creeping creature does not impart impurity!

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. That

which Reish Lakish said—that a burned creeping creature whose skeleton remains intact imparts impurity—

concerns all of it,

where the skeleton was intact.

That

which we learned, that it is pure—

concerns some of it.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yitzhak bar Rabbi Bisna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai:

“Them.”

One might have thought that this means all of them—

the verse states: “from them.” If “from them”—

one might have thought that it means some of them; the verse therefore states—

“them.”

How is this to be understood? Here—

in the case of a burned creature,

it must touch all of it, so that its entire skeleton remains intact.

Here,

in the case of some of it—

in the case of one that was not burned.

We learned in the Mishna:

They impart impurity when moist.

A zav: as it is written,

“His flesh flows”,

which is an expression of moistness.

His phlegm, nasal discharge, and spittle: as it is written,

“When the zav spits”—

like spittle.

A creeping creature:

“At their death,”

the Merciful One states, like death.

And at the time of death it is not dry.

Semen—

that is capable of producing offspring

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 restored by soaking:

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question:

Did we learn that

both the beginning and the end must be in lukewarm water,

or perhaps the beginning

in lukewarm water

is sufficient, even though the end is not

when, after the period of twenty-four hours has elapsed, it is no longer in lukewarm water?

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

Yehuda ben Nekosa says: Twenty-four hours.

It is sufficient that

the beginning

be in lukewarm water

even though the end is not

in lukewarm water .

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They must remain in lukewarm water for twenty-four hours.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says: The flesh of a corpse.

Shmuel said:

According to Rabbi Yosei,

it is pure

the dried flesh of a corpse

from imparting impurity by the measure of an olive-bulk, but it does impart impurity

the dried flesh of a corpse by the law of

the impurity of dust from a corpse,

at the measure of a full ladleful .

It was taught likewise: Rabbi Yosei says: Dried flesh of a corpse that cannot be restored by soaking and return to its original state—

is pure from imparting impurity by the measure of an olive-bulk, but it is impure with the impurity of dust from a corpse.

Mishna:

A creeping creature found in an alley—

imparts impurity retroactively, until one says

the person who says:

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

.

And likewise, a bloodstain found on a garment—

imparts impurity retroactively, until one says: “I examined this garment and there was no bloodstain on it,” or until the time when it was laundered 19.

And it imparts impurity

the bloodstain or the creeping creature

whether moist or dry 20.

Rabbi Shimon says: The dry—

imparts impurity retroactively,

until the time of laundering in the case of a garment, and until the time of sweeping in the case of an alley.

But the moist—

does not impart impurity

retroactively

except until the time when it could still have been moist.

But it does not impart impurity retroactively at a time such that, had it been there then, it would by now necessarily have become dry. For this proves that it is moist now and was not present at that earlier time.

Gemara:

They raised a dilemma:

Does

“until the time when the alley was swept” mean that

it has the presumptive status of having been checked,

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 presumptive status of having been swept”

do we say: We assume that if a creeping creature had been there at the time of sweeping, it would have been swept away. This is sufficient for us to deem pure the ritually pure items found there before the sweeping.

And what practical difference does it make?

As would be the case if

the person who swept the alley, or one who saw him, said:

“He swept it but did not check it!”

If you say that it has the presumptive status of having been checked—

he did not check it.

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

it was swept.