## Niddah Daf 22b

###### Niddah 22b:1
[Niddah 22b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:1)

אִם נִמּוֹחוּ טְמֵאָה. אִי הָכִי, בְּלֹא נִמּוֹחוּ נָמֵי? אָמַר רַבָּה: כִּי לֹא נִמּוֹחוּ — בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If they dissolved,** it is blood, and the woman **is impure;** and if not, she is ritually pure. Evidently, dry blood is impure, as these items are all dry until they are soaked in water. The Gemara asks: **If so,** that dry blood is impure, these items are impure **also in** a case where **they do not dissolve** in water. Why is this examination necessary at all? **Rabba says:** In a case **where they do not dissolve,** this indicates that the item is not blood at all; rather, **it is a distinct entity.**


###### Niddah 22b:2
[Niddah 22b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:2)

וּמִי אִיכָּא כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק: שְׁנֵי מַעֲשִׂים הֶעֱלָה אַבָּא מִטִּבְעִין לְיַבְנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to these instances discussed in the mishna: **But are there** actually **cases like this?** The Gemara answers: **Yes** there are, **and it is taught** likewise in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: My father raised two incidents from Tivin to** the Sages in **Yavne** for discussion.


###### Niddah 22b:3
[Niddah 22b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:3)

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיְתָה מַפֶּלֶת כְּמִין קְלִיפּוֹת אֲדוּמּוֹת, וּבָאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אֶת אַבָּא, וְאַבָּא שָׁאַל לַחֲכָמִים, וַחֲכָמִים שָׁאֲלוּ לָרוֹפְאִים, וְאָמְרוּ לָהֶם: אִשָּׁה זוֹ מַכָּה יֵשׁ לָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ, שֶׁמִּמֶּנָּה מַפֶּלֶת כְּמִין קְלִיפּוֹת. תָּטִיל לַמַּיִם, אִם נִמּוֹחוּ — טְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The first was **an incident involving a woman who would** repeatedly **discharge** items **similar to red shells, and** the local residents **came and asked my father** whether this rendered the woman impure. **And my father asked the** other **Sages, and the Sages asked the doctors** what causes this to happen. **And** the doctors **said to them: This woman has a wound in her womb from which she discharges** red items **similar to shells.** The Sages therefore ruled that the woman **should cast** them **into water** to ascertain their nature. **If they dissolved,** it is blood and the woman **is impure.**


###### Niddah 22b:4
[Niddah 22b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:4)

וְשׁוּב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיְתָה מַפֶּלֶת כְּמִין שְׂעָרוֹת אֲדוּמּוֹת, וּבָאָה וְשָׁאֲלָה אֶת אַבָּא, וְאַבָּא שָׁאַל לַחֲכָמִים, וַחֲכָמִים לָרוֹפְאִים, וְאָמְרוּ לָהֶם: שׁוּמָא יֵשׁ לָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ, שֶׁמִּמֶּנָּה מַפֶּלֶת כְּמִין שְׂעָרוֹת אֲדוּמּוֹת. תָּטִיל לַמַּיִם, אִם נִמּוֹחוּ — טְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And again** there was a similar **incident involving a woman who would discharge** items **similar to red hairs, and she came and asked my father** whether she was impure. **And my father asked the** other **Sages, and the Sages asked the doctors, and** the doctors **said to them:** The woman **has a mole in her womb from which she discharges** items **similar to red hairs.** The Sages therefore ruled that the woman **should cast** them **into water,** and **if they dissolved, she is impure.**


###### Niddah 22b:5
[Niddah 22b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:5)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: וּבְפוֹשְׁרִין. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: תָּטִיל לְמַיִם, וּבְפוֹשְׁרִין. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מְמַעַכְתּוֹ בְּרוֹק עַל גַּבֵּי הַצִּפּוֹרֶן. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רָבִינָא: מָעוּךְ עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Reish Lakish says: And** this examination is conducted only **with lukewarm [*uvefoshrin*]** water. **This is also taught** in a *baraita*: The woman **should cast** the item **into water, and** this examination is conducted only **with lukewarm** water. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** The woman **mashes** the item **with saliva,** using the fingers of one hand **on a fingernail** of her other hand. The Gemara asks: **What** is the difference **between** the two opinions? **Ravina says:** The difference **between them is** whether an item is considered blood if it can be **mashed by pressing** on it, or only if the item dissolves by itself.


###### Niddah 22b:6
[Niddah 22b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:6)

הָתָם תְּנַן: כַּמָּה הִיא שְׁרִיָּיתָן בְּפוֹשְׁרִין? מֵעֵת לְעֵת. הָכָא מַאי? מִי בָּעֵינָא מֵעֵת לְעֵת, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna **there** (54b) with regard to an animal carcass or the carcass of a creeping animal that dried up, which is examined by soaking it in water to determine whether or not it still imparts impurity: For **how long is its soaking in lukewarm** water necessary? It is **for** a twenty-four-hour **period.** The Gemara asks: **Here,** with regard to the examination of an item discharged by a woman, **what** is the *halakha*? **Do I need** it to be soaked in lukewarm water **for** a twenty-four-hour **period, or not?**


###### Niddah 22b:7
[Niddah 22b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:7)

שֶׁרֶץ וּנְבֵלָה, דַּאֲקוֹשֵׁי — בָּעֵינַן מֵעֵת לְעֵת, אֲבָל דַּם דְּרַכִּיךְ — לָא. אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the question: Perhaps with regard to a carcass of **a creeping animal and an unslaughtered animal carcass, which are hard** when they dry up, **we require** soaking **for** a twenty-four-hour **period, but blood, which is** relatively **soft** after it dries up, does **not** need to be soaked for that long. In other words, if the item did not dissolve after even a shorter period of time, it is not blood. **Or perhaps** the examination of a discharged item **is no different,** and it also must be soaked for twenty-four hours. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Niddah 22b:8
[Niddah 22b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:8)

הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין דָּגִים. וְלִיפְלוֹג נָמֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּהָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: In the case of a woman **who discharges** an item **similar to fish** or to grasshoppers, repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, if blood emerges with it, the woman is impure, and if not, she is pure. The Gemara asks: **But let Rabbi Yehuda disagree** with the Rabbis **with regard to this** *halakha* **as well,** just as he disagrees with them in the first clause of the mishna, in the case where a woman discharges an amorphous piece of tissue, as he maintains that she is impure whether or not blood emerges with it.


###### Niddah 22b:9
[Niddah 22b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:9)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת שְׁנוּיָה, וְרַבָּנַן הִיא. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, עַד כַּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָתָם אֶלָּא גַּבֵּי חֲתִיכָה, דְּעָבֵיד דָּם דְּקָרֵישׁ וְהָוֵי חֲתִיכָה, אֲבָל בְּרִיָּה — לָא הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish says:** This case is also **subject to** the **dispute** between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, **and** the opinion cited in the mishna **is** that of **the Rabbis. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: You** may **even say** that the ruling of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** as when **Rabbi Yehuda says** that the woman is impure even if blood does not emerge, it is **only there, in** the case of an amorphous **piece** of tissue, **as** the **blood is likely to dry and turn into** the form of **a piece** of tissue. **But** blood is **not** likely to **become** the form of **a creature,** such as a fish or a grasshopper.


###### Niddah 22b:10
[Niddah 22b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:10)

וּלְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, בְּאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִפְתִיחַת הַקֶּבֶר בְּלֹא דָּם קָמִיפַּלְגִי, לִפְלוֹג נָמֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּהָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** this is difficult **according to that version** in **which Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis **disagree with regard to** whether **opening of the womb is impossible without** a discharge of **blood** (see 21b). Since **Rabbi Yehuda** holds that blood automatically emerges whenever the womb opens, and therefore the woman is impure even if she did not notice any blood, he **should disagree** with the Rabbis **in this** case **too,** i.e., if a woman discharges an item similar to a fish or one of the other creatures.


###### Niddah 22b:11
[Niddah 22b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:11)

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי הָךְ לִישָּׁנָא, מַתְנֵי הָכִי: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ, בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת שְׁנוּיָה, וְרַבָּנַן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The one who teaches that version** of the above discussion **teaches** an alternative version of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion here as well, **like this:** With regard to a woman who discharges an item similar to fish, or to grasshoppers, repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say** that this case is **subject to a dispute** between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, **and** the opinion stated in the mishna **is** that of **the Rabbis.**


###### Niddah 22b:12
[Niddah 22b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:12)

הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה [וְכוּ׳].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: In the case of a woman **who discharges** tissue in the form of **a type of domesticated animal,** undomesticated animal, or bird, whether of a kosher or non-kosher species, if it is male, the woman observes the periods of impurity and purity for a woman who gives birth to a male. If it is female, the woman observes the periods of impurity and purity for a woman who gives birth to a female. And if its sex is unknown, the woman observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth to both a male and a female. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


###### Niddah 22b:13
[Niddah 22b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:13)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶמְרָה בּוֹ יְצִירָה כְּאָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Meir,** that a woman who discharges a fetus in the form of an animal has the same status as one who discharges a fetus with human form or gives birth to a human? It is **since** the Torah uses a similar formulation in the two cases, as a term of **formation is stated with regard to** the creation of these types of animals, in the verse: “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field, and every fowl of the air” (Genesis 2:19), **just as** it is stated with regard to the creation of **man:** “And the Lord God formed man” (Genesis 2:7).


###### Niddah 22b:14
[Niddah 22b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:14)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הַמַּפֶּלֶת דְּמוּת תַּנִּין, תְּהֵא אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, הוֹאִיל (ונאמר) [וְנֶאֶמְרָה] בּוֹ יְצִירָה כְּאָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַתַּנִּינִים הַגְּדוֹלִים״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** then with regard to a woman **who discharges** an item with **the form of a sea monster, its mother should be impure** with the impurity of a woman after **childbirth, since** the concept of **formation is stated with regard to** its creation, **just as** it is stated with regard to the creation of **man. As it is stated: “And God created the great sea monsters”** (Genesis 1:21).


###### Niddah 22b:15
[Niddah 22b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:15)

אָמְרִי: דָּנִין יְצִירָה מִיצִירָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין בְּרִיאָה מִיצִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: **One derives** *halakhot* of a matter with regard to which **formation** is stated by means of a verbal analogy **from** another matter with regard to which **formation** is stated, **but one does not derive** *halakhot* of a matter with regard to which **creation** is stated **from** a matter with regard to which **formation** is stated.


###### Niddah 22b:16
[Niddah 22b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:16)

מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? הָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן״ ״וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן״ — זוֹ הִיא שִׁיבָה זוֹ הִיא בִּיאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What difference is** there between formation and creation? A verbal analogy can be drawn between different words with similar meanings. For example, **the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught** a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses. The verse states: **“And the priest shall return [*veshav*]** on the seventh day” (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest’s visit seven days later states: **“And the priest shall come [*uva*]** and look” (Leviticus 14:44). **This returning** and **this coming** have the same meaning, and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the *halakha* that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week.


###### Niddah 22b:17
[Niddah 22b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:17)

וְעוֹד, נִגְמַר בְּרִיאָה מִבְּרִיאָה, דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** the *halakha* of a woman who discharges an item similar to a sea monster, with regard to which **creation** is stated, can be **derived** by a different verbal analogy **from** the *halakha* of human offspring, since here it also states **creation, as it is written: “And God created man in His own image”** (Genesis 1:27).


###### Niddah 22b:18
[Niddah 22b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:18)

אָמְרִי: ״וַיִּבְרָא״ לְגוּפֵיהּ, ״וַיִּיצֶר״ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי, וְדָנִין יְצִירָה מִיצִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: The verse **“And** God **created** man” is necessary **to** teach the matter **itself,** i.e., the creation of man. By contrast, the term **“And** the Lord God **formed** man,” serves **to render it free,** i.e., the mention of the formation of man is superfluous in its context and was stated for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. **And** therefore **one derives** the *halakhot* of animals, with regard to which **formation** is stated, **from** the *halakhot* of man, with regard to which **formation** is stated.


###### Niddah 22b:19
[Niddah 22b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:19)

אַדְּרַבָּה: ״וַיִּיצֶר״ לְגוּפֵיהּ, ״וַיִּבְרָא״ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי, וְדָנִין בְּרִיאָה מִבְּרִיאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **On the contrary,** one can say that the verse **“And** the Lord God **formed** man” was stated **to** teach the matter **itself,** whereas the term **“And** God **created** man” serves **to render it free; and** therefore **one derives** the *halakhot* of sea monsters, with regard to which **creation** is stated, **from** the *halakhot* of man, with regard to which **creation** is stated.


###### Niddah 22b:20
[Niddah 22b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:20)

אֶלָּא: ״וַיִּיצֶר״ מוּפְנֶה מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין, מוּפְנֶה גַּבֵּי אָדָם וּמוּפְנֶה גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה, ״וַיִּבְרָא״ גַּבֵּי אָדָם מוּפְנֶה, גַּבֵּי תַּנִּינִים אֵינוֹ מוּפְנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the reason it is animals and not sea monsters that are compared to man is that the term **“and…formed”** is **free on both sides,** i.e., **it is free with regard to man and it is free with regard to animals.** By contrast, the term **“and…created” is free with regard to man,** but **it is not free with regard to sea monsters.**


###### Niddah 22b:21
[Niddah 22b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:21)

מַאי מוּפְנֶה גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּכְתִיב ״וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ״, וּכְתִיב ״וַיִּיצֶר [ה׳] אֱלֹהִים מִן הָאֲדָמָה כׇּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה״, גַּבֵּי תַּנִּין נָמֵי אִפְּנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֶה, דִּכְתִיב ״וְאֵת כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה״, וּכְתִיב ״וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַתַּנִּינִים הַגְּדוֹלִים״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the reason that the term “and…formed” that appears **with regard to animals** is considered **free? If we say** it is due to the fact **that it is written: “And God made the animals of the earth** after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind” (Genesis 1:25), **and it is** similarly **written: “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field”** (Genesis 2:19), and therefore this verse is superfluous, but **with regard to** the **sea monster as well,** the expression “and…created” is **free, as it is written:** “And God made…**and everything that creeps on the ground** after its kind” (Genesis 1:25), **and it is** also **written: “And God created the great sea monsters.”** Consequently, the term “and…created” is also free on both sides of the verbal analogy.


###### Niddah 22b:22
[Niddah 22b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:22)

״רֶמֶשׂ״ דִּכְתִיב הָתָם, דְּיַבָּשָׁה הוּא. וּמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ בֵּין מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד לְמוּפְנֶה מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The **creeping animal that is written there is** referring to creeping animals **of the land,** not of the sea. Therefore, the term: “And…created,” stated with regard to sea monsters is not superfluous. The Gemara asks: **But what difference is** there **between** a verbal analogy that is **free on one side and** a verbal analogy that is **free on both sides?**


###### Niddah 22b:23
[Niddah 22b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:23)

נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כׇּל גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּפְנָה כׇּל עִיקָּר — אֵין לְמֵדִין הֵימֶנָּה. מוּפְנָה מִצַּד אֶחָד, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל — לְמֵדִין וְאֵין מְשִׁיבִין, לְרַבָּנַן — לְמֵדִין וּמְשִׁיבִין. מוּפְנָה מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל — לְמֵדִין וְאֵין מְשִׁיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The **difference** is with regard to that **which Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael,** with regard to the exegetical principle of verbal analogy: With regard to **any verbal analogy that is not free at all, one cannot derive** *halakhot* **from it.** If the verbal analogy is **free on one side, according to Rabbi Yishmael one can derive** *halakhot* from it, **and one cannot refute** it through logic, even if there are valid counterarguments. **According to the Rabbis, one can derive** *halakhot* from it, **but one can** also **refute** it logically if there are grounds to distinguish between the two cases. If a verbal analogy is **free on both sides, everyone agrees** that **one can derive** *halakhot* from it **and one cannot refute** it logically.


###### Niddah 22b:24
[Niddah 22b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22b:24)

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין מוּפְנָה מִצַּד אֶחָד לְמוּפְנָה מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין? נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ, דְּהֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא מוּפְנָה מִצַּד אֶחָד וּמוּפְנָה מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין — שָׁבְקִינַן מוּפְנָה מִצַּד אֶחָד

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Rabbi Yishmael, what** difference **is there between** a verbal analogy that is **free on one side and** a verbal analogy that is **free on both sides?** In both cases, he holds that one can derive *halakhot* from it and one cannot refute it. The Gemara answers: He holds that the **difference** is **that** in a case **where there** are two mutually exclusive verbal analogies, one that is **free on one side and** one that is **free on both sides, we disregard** the analogy that is **free on one side,**