Niddah

AND SPITTLE. Whence do we deduce [the uncleanness of] spittle? — It was taught And if he  … spit.  As this might be presumed to apply even if the spittle did not touch,  it was explicitly stated, upon him that is clean,  only if it touched him that is clean.  Thus I know the law concerning his spittle only,  whence could I deduce the uncleanness of his mucus, phlegm and nasal discharge? From the explicit statement, And  if he … spit. The Master said, 'As this might be presumed to apply even if the spittle did not touch',  but whence could this uncleanness  be deduced? — It might have been presumed that the expression of 'spit' here  may be inferred from that of 'spit'  mentioned in the case of a yebamah, as there the act  is valid though the spittle does not touch [the yabam] so is the act  valid here also even though the spittle did not touch the clean person, hence we were informed [that actual contact is essential]. But might it not be suggested that this  applies only to touch  but not to carriage, the law being similar to that of a dead creeping thing?  — Resh Lakish replied: The school of R. Ishmael taught, Scripture said, 'upon that  which is with the clean',  implying, whatever is in the hand of him that is clean,  I have declared it to be unclean to you.  But might it not be suggested that by carriage it conveys uncleanness to the man and his garments while by contact it conveys uncleanness to man only but not to his garments, this law being similar to that of the touch of nebelah? — Resh Lakish replied and so it was also taught at the school of R. Ishmael: Scripture said, 'upon that which is with the clean'  implying that that which I have declared to you as clean elsewhere I have declared to you as unclean here, and what is this? It is the touch of nebelah.  But might it not be suggested that this  refers to  the carrying of a dead creeping thing?  — If that were so, Scripture should have written, 'upon that which is with a man',  why then did it write 'upon that which is with the clean'?  Consequently the two deductions may be made. 'And nasal discharge'. What [uncleanness] is [there in a] nasal discharge?  — Rab replied: This is the case where it was drawn and discharged through the mouth,  since in the circumstances it is impossible for the nasal secretion to be free from particles of spittle. R. Johanan, however, stated that it is unclean even if it is drawn and discharged through the nose. It is thus clear that he is of the opinion that the nose is a source,  the All Merciful  having included it.  As to Rab,  why should not the tears of a zab's eyes  be enumerated?  For  has not Rab stated, He who wishes to blind his eye shall have it painted by an idolater,  and Levi stated, He who wishes to die shall have his eyes painted by an idolater, and in connection with this R. Hiyya b. Goria explained, 'What is Rab's reason for not saying "He who wishes to die [etc.]"? Because one might sniff them up and discharge them, through the mouth'.  Now  what is Rab's explanation?  — Granted that the poison is discharged,  the tears themselves are not so discharged. Come and hear: 'There are nine fluids of  a zab. His sweat, foul secretion and excrement are free from all uncleanness of zibah; the tears of his eye, the blood of his wound and the milk of a woman convey the uncleanness of liquids  if they consist of a minimum quantity of a quarter of a log; but his zibah, his spittle and his urine  convey major uncleanness';  but nasal discharge was not mentioned. Now according to Rab  one can well see why this was not mentioned, since it was not definite enough to be mentioned, for it is only sometimes that it is discharged through the mouth while at other times it is discharged through the nose;  but according to R. Johanan  why was it not mentioned? — But according to your view,  was his mucus and phlegm  mentioned?  But the fact is that spittle was mentioned and the same law applies to all other secretions the law of whose uncleanness was derived from the Pentateuchal amplification,  and so also here  spittle was mentioned and all other secretions the law of whose uncleanness was derived from the amplification are also included. 'The tears of his eye' [is legally a fluid] since it is written in Scripture, And given them tears to drink in large measure,  'the blood of his wound', since it is written, And drink the blood of the slain,  and there is no difference  between striking one down outright or striking one down in part;  'the milk of a woman', since it is written, And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink.  Whence do we derive the law that 'his urine' [is legally a fluid]? — It was taught: His issue is unclean, and this  includes his urine in respect of uncleanness. But may not this  be arrived at by a logical argument? If spittle, that emanates from a region of cleanness, is unclean how much more so his urine that emanates