Niddah

AND THE DISCHARGES CONVEY UNCLEANNESS HOWEVER SMALL THE QUANTITY. Samuel ruled: [the discharge of] a zab  must be such a quantity as would stop the orifice of the membrum, for it is said in Scriptures Or his flesh be stopped from his issue.  But have we not learnt: AND THE DISCHARGES CONVEY UNCLEANNESS, HOWEVER SMALL THE QUANTITY? — He  maintains the same view as R. Nathan. For it was taught: R. Nathan citing R. Ishmael ruled, [the discharge of] a zab  must be such a quantity as would stop the orifice of the membrum; but [the Rabbis] did not agree with him.  What is R. Ishmael's reason? — Because Scripture said, Or his flesh be stopped from his issue.  And the Rabbis?  — That text  is required for the inference that the discharge conveys uncleanness only when in a state of fluidity  but not when it is dry.  And R. Ishmael?  — That  is inferred from run.  And the Rabbis?  — That text  serves the purpose of indicating the number:  His issue,  implies once; His flesh run,  implies twice; With his issue,  implies three times; thus it was taught that a zab who observed three discharges is under an obligation to bring a sacrifice; Or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his uncleanness,  implies that he is unclean even on account of a part of the number of his issues,  this teaches that a zab who observed only two discharges conveys uncleanness to his couch and seat. As to R. Ishmael, however,  whence does he deduce the number required?  — He derives it from an exposition of R. Simai; for it was taught: R. Simai stated, Scripture enumerated two issues and described the man as unclean  and it also enumerated three issues and described the man as unclean,  how is this to be reconciled? Two observations subject a man to the restrictions of uncleanness, and three observations render him liable to bring a sacrifice. But according to the Rabbis  who deduced both numbers from 'This shall be his uncleanness in his issue',  what deduction do they make from the text 'when any man hath an issue out of his flesh'?  — They require it for the deduction that uncleanness does not begin until the discharge emerged from one's flesh. What need, however, was there for 'His issue be unclean'?  — 'This teaches that the issue itself  is unclean. R. Hanilai citing R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon ruled: Semen conveys uncleanness to the man who emitted it,  however small its quantity, but as regards the man who touched it its quantity must be of the bulk of a lentil.  But did we not learn, AND THE DISCHARGES CONVEY UNCLEANNESS, HOWEVER SMALL THE QUANTITY, which applies, does it not, to the case of one who touched semen? — No, it applies only to one who emitted it. Come and hear: In one respect the law of semen is more restrictive than that of a dead creeping thing while in another respect the law of a dead creeping thing is more restrictive than that of semen. 'The law of a dead creeping thing is more restrictive' in that no distinction [of age] is made about its uncleanness,  which is not the case with semen.  'The law of semen is more restrictive' in that uncleanness is conveyed by its smallest quantity, which is not the case with a creeping thing.  Now does not this apply to one who touched the semen?  — No, it applies only to one who emitted it.  But was it not taught as being on a par with the creeping thing: As the latter is a case of touching so also the former?  — R. Adda b. Ahabah replied: The ruling referred to a creeping thing in general  and to semen in general.  But does a creeping thing convey no uncleanness even when it is of the smallest bulk? Have we not in fact learnt: Members of the body  have  no prescribed minimum size [and uncleanness is, therefore, conveyed] by less than the size of an olive of corpse,  by less than the size of an olive of nebelah or by less than the size of a lentil of a dead creeping thing?  — It is different with a member of the body  since the whole of it takes the place of the size of a lentil; for were any part of it  missing,  would the member  have conveyed any uncleanness?  What is meant by the 'distinction in uncleanness' in the case of semen? If it be suggested: The distinction between the semen of an Israelite and that of foreigners [it could be objected]: Is there not in this case also  a distinction between a sea-mouse and a land-mouse?  — The distinction rather is that between a minor and an adult. R. Papa stated: This ruling  is a point at issue between Tannas:  [For it was taught] whence do we derive the inclusion in uncleanness of one who touched semen? From Scripture which explicitly stated, Or whosoever;  and elsewhere Tannas differ on a relevant point,  for there are those who hold that a deduction is carried through in all respects  while others hold that a deduction is limited by its original basis.  Now according to those who hold that a deduction is carried through in all respects  it follows that as a dead creeping thing  conveys uncleanness through touch so does semen convey uncleanness by touch and, consequently,  as a dead creeping thing conveys uncleanness only when it is of the bulk of a lentil so does semen convey uncleanness only when it is of the bulk of a lentil; while according to him who maintained that a deduction is limited by its original basis  it also follows that as a dead creeping thing conveys uncleanness through touch so does semen convey uncleanness through touch, but then, limiting it to its original basis, as semen conveys uncleanness to the man who emitted it, however small its quantity, so does it also convey uncleanness to the man who touched it, however small its quantity.  Said  R. Huna son of R. Nathan to R. Papa: Whence the proof that the inclusion in uncleanness of one who touched semen is deduced from the expression of 'Or whosoever occurring in the context dealing with the creeping thing?  Is it not possible that the inclusion is derived from the expression of 'Or from whomsoever the flow of seed goeth out,  and  all may be of the opinion that a deduction is to be carried through in all respects?  The Tannas  were asked  Some recited as R. Papa while others recited in agreement with R. Huna son of R. Nathan. MISHNAH. A GIRL ONE DAY OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF MENSTRUATION. ONE WHO IS TEN DAYS OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF ZIBAH. A BOY ONE DAY OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF ZIBAH, AND TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY AND THAT OF CORPSEUNCLEANNESS; HE SUBJECTS [HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIDOW] TO THE DUTY OF LEVIRATE MARRIAGE;  HE EXEMPTS [HIS MOTHER] FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE,  HE ENABLES HER  TO EAT TERUMAH AND HE ALSO CAUSES HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED FROM EATING TERUMAH;