Niddah

The question was raised: Is that region in a woman  regarded as an absorbed place or as a concealed one? — In what respect could this matter? — In the case, for instance, where her friend inserted in her in that region a piece of nebelah of the size of an olive. If you say that it is regarded as an absorbed place, this nebelah being now an absorbed uncleanness  would convey no uncleanness to the woman,  but if you say that it is a concealed place, granted that no uncleanness could be conveyed by means of contact  uncleanness would be conveyed by means of carriage?  — Abaye replied: It is regarded as an absorbed place. Raba replied: It is regarded as a concealed one. Said Raba: Whence do I derive this? From what was taught: Since the uncleanness arises in a concealed region, and since an uncleanness in a concealed region is elsewhere ineffective, a special Scriptural ordinance was required [to give it effect in this particular case].  And Abaye?  — The meaning  is this: There is one reason and there is yet another.  In the first place the woman should be clean since the uncleanness is an absorbed one; and, furthermore, even if you were to find some ground for saying that it is a concealed uncleanness and an uncleanness in a concealed region is ineffective, this  is a specific Scriptural ordinance. The question was raised: Is the region through which the nebelah of a clean bird conveys uncleanness to a human being  regarded as an absorbed place or as a concealed one? In what respect can this matter? — In a case, for instance, where his friend pushed a piece of nebelah of the size of an olive into his mouth.  If you regard it as an absorbent place, this nebelah being now an absorbed uncleanness would convey no uncleanness, but if  you say that it is a concealed one, granted that no uncleanness is conveyed by means of contact,  uncleanness would be conveyed by means of carriage?  — Abaye replied: It is an absorbed place, but Raba replied: It is a concealed one. Whence, said Abaye, do I derive this? From what was taught: As it might have been presumed that the nebelah of a beast conveys uncleanness to a person's garments by way of his oesophagus,  it was explicitly stated in Scripture, That which dieth of itself,  or is torn of beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith,  which implies: Only that  which has no other form of uncleanness but that which is conveyed through the eating thereof  [conveys uncleanness by way of the oesophagus],  but this  is excluded since it conveys uncleanness even before one had eaten of it. But why should not this  be inferred a minori ad majus from the nebelah of a clean bird: If the nebelah of a clean bird which is not subject to uncleanness externally is subject to uncleanness internally  how much more then should this,  which is subject to uncleanness externally, be subject to uncleanness internally? — Scripture said, 'therewith'  which implies: Only therewith  but not with any other.  If so, why was it stated in Scripture, And he that eateth?  To prescribe for one who touches or carries it the same size as that which was prescribed for one who eats of it: As one who eats of it incurs guilt on consuming the full size of an olive so also one who touches or carries it contracts uncleanness only if it is of the size of an olive. Raba ruled: A man holding a dead creeping thing in a fold of his body  is clean, but if he holds nebelah in a fold of his body he is unclean. 'A man holding a dead creeping thing in a fold of his body is clean', since a dead creeping thing conveys uncleanness by means of touch, while a concealed region of the body  is not susceptible to the uncleanness of touch. 'If he holds nebelah in a fold of his body he is unclean' for, granted that he contracts no uncleanness through touch, he contracts it, at any rate, through carriage. If a man held a dead creeping thing in the fold of his body  and he thus brought it into the air spaces  of an oven  the latter is unclean. Is not this obvious?  — It might have been presumed that the All Merciful said, Into the inside of which,  implying: