Niddah

The same law  applies also to males. For it was taught:  'A man, a man',  what need was there for the repetition of 'man'? To include a male child one day old who also is to be subject to the uncleanness of zibah; so R. Judah. R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: This  is not necessary, for, surely, Scripture says, Whether it be a man or a woman,  'whether it be a man' implies any one who is man, whether adult or infant; 'or a woman' implies any one who is a female irrespective of whether she is adult or minor. If so, why was it expressly stated, 'a man, a man'?  The Torah used an ordinary form of speech.  Thus it is evident that in including a child Scripture included even an infant one day old. Does not, however, an incongruity arise: [If Scripture had only written]  'a man' I would only know [that the law applied to] a man, whence could it be derived that it also applies to a child who is nine years and one day old? Hence it was explicitly stated, And a man?  — Raba replied: These  are traditional laws but the Rabbis found props for them in Scriptural texts. Which one is only a traditional law and which can be deduced from the Scriptural text? If it be suggested that the law relating to an infant one day old is traditional and that relating to a child who is nine years and one day old is deduced from a Scriptural text, is not the text [it could be objected] written in general terms?  — Rather say: The law relating to a child who is nine years and one day old is traditional and the one relating to an infant one day old is derived from the Scriptural text. But, since the former is a traditional law, what was the purpose of the Scriptural text? — To exclude a woman from the uncleanness of a white discharge. What need was there for Scripture to write [an additional word  and letter]  as regards males and females respectively?  — These were necessary. For if the All Merciful had written the law in respect of males only it might have been presumed that it applied to them alone since they become unclean by [three] observations  [on the same day] as by [three observations on three successive] days,  but not to females who do not become unclean by [three] observations [on the same day] as by [three observations on three successive] days. And if the All Merciful had written the law in respect of females alone, it might have been presumed to apply to them only, since they become unclean even if a discharge was due to a mishap but not to males who do not become unclean when a discharge is due to a mishap.  [The additional letters and words were, therefore,] necessary. THE SAMARITANS IMPART UNCLEANNESS TO A COUCH UNDERNEATH AS TO A COVER ABOVE, What is meant by A COUCH UNDERNEATH AS A COVER ABOVE? If it be suggested to mean that if there were ten spreads  and he sat upon them they all become unclean, is not this [it could be retorted] obvious seeing that he exercised pressure upon them?  — The meaning rather is that a couch underneath one who had intercourse with a menstruant is subject to the same law of uncleanness as the cover above a zab.  As the cover above a zab imparts uncleanness to foods and drinks only so does the couch underneath one who had intercourse with a menstruant impart uncleanness to foods and drinks only. Whence is the law concerning the cover above a zab deduced? — From the Scriptural text, And whosoever toucheth any thing that was under him shall be unclean.  For what could be the meaning of 'under him'?