Niddah

A DEAD CREEPING THING. Resh Lakish ruled: A dead creeping thing that dried up but whose shape was retained is unclean. But have we not learnt that they CONVEY UNCLEANNESS WHEN WET BUT NOT WHEN DRY? — R. Zera replied: This is no difficulty since the former  refers to a whole  while the latter  refers to a part;  for it was taught: R. Isaac son of R. Bisna citing R. Simeon b. Yohai stated, In them,  one might presume that it is necessary  to touch a whole, hence it was explicitly stated, Of them.  If only 'Of them' had been written it might have been presumed that it suffices  to touch a part, hence it was explicitly stated 'In them'.  How then are the two to be reconciled? The one  refers to a wet creeping thing while the other  refers to a dry one. Raba ruled: The lizards of Mahuza,  if their shapes are retained, are unclean. Resh Lakish further stated: If a dead creeping thing was burnt while its shape was retained it is unclean. An objection was raised: If a burnt creeping thing was found upon olives and so also if a tattered rag  was found upon them they are clean, because all questions of uncleanness are determined by the condition of the objects at the time they are found!  — R. Zera replied: This is no difficulty since the former  refers to a whole  while the latter  refers to a part; for it was taught: R. Isaac son of R. Bisna citing R. Simeon b. Yohai stated, In them',  one might presume that it is necessary  to touch a whole, hence it was explicitly stated, Of them.  If only 'of them' had been written it might have been presumed that it suffices  to touch a part, hence it was explicitly stated, 'in them'. How then are the two to be reconciled? The one  refers to a burnt creeping thing while the other refers to one that is not burnt. CONVEY UNCLEANNESS WHEN WET. The ISSUE?  Because it is written, His flesh run.  His mucus, PHLEGM AND SPITTLE?  Because it is written, If he that hath the issue spit  implying  any fluid like spittle. A DEAD CREEPING THING?  The All Merciful said, When they are dead,  implying when they have the appearance of being dead.  SEMEN?  Since it must be capable of causing fertilization. A CARCASS?  Since it is written, If … die  implying when they have the appearance of being dead. IF, HOWEVER, ON BEING SOAKED THEY ARE CAPABLE. R. Jeremiah enquired: Is the soaking to be from beginning to end  in LUKEWARM WATER,  or only at the beginning although it is not so at the end?  — Come and hear what was taught: For how long must they be soaked in lukewarm water? Judah b. Nakosa replied, For twenty-four hours, being lukewarm at the beginning though not at the end. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel replied, They must be lukewarm throughout the twenty-four hours. R. JOSE RULED: THE FLESH OF A CORPSE etc. Samuel explained: It is CLEAN in so far only as not to convey uncleanness if it is of the bulk of an olive, but it does convey the uncleanness of corpse mould.  So it was also taught: R. Jose ruled, The flesh of a corpse that is dry and, on being soaked, cannot return to its original condition is clean in so far only as not to convey uncleanness if it is of the bulk of an olive but it is subject to the uncleanness of corpse-mould. MISHNAH. IF A DEAD CREEPING THING WAS FOUND IN AN ALLEY IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY TO SUCH TIME AS ONE CAN TESTIFY, 'I EXAMINED THIS ALLEY AND THERE WAS NO CREEPING THING IN IT', OR TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST SWEPT. SO ALSO A BLOODSTAIN, IF IT WAS FOUND ON A SHIRT, CAUSES UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY TO SUCH TIME AS ONE CAN TESTIFY, 'I EXAMINED THIS SHIRT AND THERE WAS NO STAIN ON IT' OR TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST WASHED. AND IT  CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS  IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS WET OR DRY.  R. SIMEON RULED: IF IT IS DRY  IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY,  BUT IF IT IS WET  IT CAUSES UNCLEANNESS ONLY TO A TIME WHEN IT COULD STILL HAVE BEEN WET. GEMARA. The question was raised: Is the alley TO SUCH TIME AS IT WAS LAST SWEPT in the presumptive state of having been duly examined,  or is it possible that it is in the presumptive state of having been properly swept?  And in what case could this  matter? — In that where a person declared that he had swept the alley but did not examine it.  If you say that 'it is in the presumptive state of having been duly examined'  surely, he had not examined it;  but if you say, 'it is in the presumptive state of having been properly swept'  surely, at that time  it was properly swept.