## Niddah Daf 32b

###### Niddah 32b:1
[Niddah 32b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:1)

לְמַעוֹטֵי אִישׁ מֵאוֹדֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The verse serves **to exclude a man from** contracting ritual impurity due to **red** semen.


###### Niddah 32b:2
[Niddah 32b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:2)

וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: אִשָּׁה — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה, בַּת עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים לְזִיבָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְאִשָּׁה״. לְמָה לִי? לִיגְמַר מִנִּדָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** what about **that which is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [*zava*]: The verse states: “And if a woman has an issue of her blood many days” (Leviticus 15:25). From the word **“woman” I have** derived **only** that *ziva* applies to an adult **woman. From where** do I derive **that a ten-day-old** girl is included in the *halakhot* of ***ziva*? The verse states: “And** if **a woman.” Why do I** need the verse? **Let one derive** that a ten-day-old girl is included in the *halakhot* of *ziva* **from** the fact that a one-day-old girl is included in the *halakhot* of **a menstruating woman,** as a woman may become a *zava* only after seven days of menstruation and three subsequent days of experiencing uterine discharge.


###### Niddah 32b:3
[Niddah 32b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:3)

צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּנִדָּה — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: נִדָּה, מִשּׁוּם דְּכִי חֲזַאי חַד יוֹמָא בָּעֲיָא לְמֵיתַב שִׁבְעָה; אֲבָל זָבָה, דְּאִי חֲזַאי חַד יוֹמָא — בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם סַגִּי לַהּ, אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: It was **necessary** for the verse to teach that the *halakhot* of *ziva* apply to a ten-day-old girl. **As, if the Merciful One had written** only that a one-day-old girl is included **in** the *halakhot* of **a menstruating woman, I would say:** The *halakhot* of **a menstruating woman** apply to a one-day-old girl **because** of their stringency, **as when** a woman **sees blood** on only **one day she is required to sit** for the **seven** days of menstruation. **But** with regard to **a *zava*,** since the *halakha* is **that if** a woman **sees** blood on only **one day** she has the status of a lesser *zava*, and it is **enough for her** to **observe** a clean **day for a day** she experiences a discharge, one might **say** that the *halakhot* of *ziva* do **not** apply to a ten-day-old girl. It was therefore **necessary** for the verse to indicate otherwise.


###### Niddah 32b:4
[Niddah 32b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:4)

וְלִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּזָבָה, וְלָא בָּעֵי בְּנִדָּה, וַאֲנָא יָדַעְנָא דְּאֵין זָבָה בְּלֹא נִדָּה. אִין הָכִי נָמֵי! וְאֶלָּא קְרָא לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי אִישׁ מֵאוֹדֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **And let the Merciful One write** that a ten-day-old girl is included **in** the *halakhot* of **a *zava*, and** it would **not** be **required** to write that a one-day-old girl is included **in** the *halakhot* of a **menstruating woman, and I would know that** as a girl **cannot** become **a *zava* without** first assuming the status of **a menstruating woman,** she must also be included in the *halakhot* of a menstruating woman. The Gemara responds: **Yes, it is indeed so;** the fact that a one-day-old girl is included in the *halakhot* of a menstruating woman can be derived from the fact that a ten-day-old girl is included in the *halakhot* of a *zava*. **Rather, why do I** need the **verse:** “And if a woman,” that is stated with regard to a menstruating woman? The verse serves **to exclude a man from** contracting ritual impurity due to **red** semen.


###### Niddah 32b:5
[Niddah 32b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:5)

הָא מַיעֵטְתֵּיהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא? חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִשִּׁכְבַת זֶרַע, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִדָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** the Torah already **excluded this** case on **another occasion,** as stated earlier. The Gemara explains: **One** verse serves **to exclude** a man **from** contracting ritual impurity due to red **semen, and one** verse **serves to exclude** a man **from** being rendered a *zav* due to **blood** that emanates from his penis.


###### Niddah 32b:6
[Niddah 32b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:6)

וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן זְכָרִים. דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ — מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? לְרַבּוֹת תִּינוֹק בִּן יוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא בְּזִיבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses the *halakha* of *ziva* with regard to a male: **And so with regard to males,** the *halakhot* of a *zav* apply even to minor boys. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states concerning a *zav*: “When **any man** has an issue out of his flesh, his issue is impure” (Leviticus 15:2). **What** is the meaning when **the verse states “any man”?** The verse serves **to include a one-day-old baby,** teaching **that** even **he is susceptible to impurity of *ziva*.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Niddah 32b:7
[Niddah 32b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:7)

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לַזָּכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה״ — ״לַזָּכָר״ כֹּל שֶׁהוּא זָכָר, בֵּין שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל בֵּין שֶׁהוּא קָטָן, ״וְלַנְּקֵבָה״ כֹּל שֶׁהִיא נְקֵבָה, בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says:** This derivation **is not necessary, as** the verse **states:** “And of them that have an issue, **whether it be a male or a female”** (Leviticus 15:33). **“Whether it be a male”** includes **anyone who is a male, whether he is an adult** or **whether he is a minor; “or a female”** includes **anyone who is a female, whether** she is **an adult** or **whether** she is **a minor. If so, what** is the meaning when **the verse states “any man”? The Torah spoke in the language of people,** and one is not meant to derive anything from this verse.


###### Niddah 32b:8
[Niddah 32b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:8)

אַלְמָא, כִּי מְרַבֵּי קְרָא — בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד מְרַבֵּי. וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״אִישׁ״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ, בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִישׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Apparently, when the verse includes** a minor boy it **includes** even **a one-day-old. But raise a contradiction** from another *baraita*, which addresses the verse: “And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water and be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:16). From the word **“man” I have** derived **only** that **a man** is rendered ritually impure through a seminal emission. **From where** do I derive that the seminal emission of a boy **aged nine years and one day** renders him impure as well? **The verse states: “And a man.”** Evidently, the verse does not include a one-day-old boy.


###### Niddah 32b:9
[Niddah 32b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:9)

אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא נִינְהוּ, וְאַסְמְכִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן אַקְּרָאֵי. הֵי הִלְכְתָא וְהֵי קְרָא? אִילֵּימָא בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד — הִלְכְתָא, וּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — קְרָא, קְרָא סְתָמָא כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: These are *halakhot*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai, **and the Sages** merely **supported them with verses.** Therefore, there is no contradiction. The Gemara asks: **Which is a *halakha*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai, **and which** *halakha* **is** derived from **a verse? If we say** that the *halakha* that **a one-day-old** boy is included in the *halakhot* of a *zav* is **a *halakha*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai, **and** the *halakha* that the seminal emission of a boy **aged nine years and one day** renders him impure is derived from **a verse,** then one may object: But **the verse is written** in **an unspecified** manner; consequently, even a one-day-old boy should be included in the verse.


###### Niddah 32b:10
[Niddah 32b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:10)

אֶלָּא בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — הִלְכְתָא, וּבֶן יוֹם אֶחָד — קְרָא. וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּהִלְכְתָא הִיא, קְרָא לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי אִשָּׁה מִלּוֹבֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *halakha* with regard to the seminal emission of a boy **aged nine years and one day** is **a *halakha*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai, **and** the *halakha* that **a one-day-old** boy is included in the *halakhot* of a *zav* is derived from **a verse.** The Gemara asks: **And now that** the *halakha* with regard to the seminal emission of a boy aged nine years and one day renders **is a *halakha*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai, **why do I** need **a verse?** The Gemara answers: The verse serves **to exclude a woman from** contracting the impurity of a *zava* due to **a white** discharge.


###### Niddah 32b:11
[Niddah 32b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:11)

לְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב בִּזְכָרִים, וּלְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב בִּנְקֵבוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need for the Merciful One **to write** that a one-day-old is included in the *halakhot* of *ziva* **with regard to males, and why do I** need for the Merciful One **to write** that a one-day-old is included in the *halakhot* of a menstruating woman and a ten-day-old is included in the *halakhot* of *ziva* **with regard to females?**


###### Niddah 32b:12
[Niddah 32b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:12)

צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בִּזְכָרִים — מִשּׁוּם דִּמְטַמּוּ בִּרְאִיּוֹת כִּבְיָמִים, אֲבָל נְקֵבוֹת דְּלָא מְטַמּוּ בִּרְאִיּוֹת כִּבְיָמִים — אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that both verses **are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written** only **concerning males,** one might say: A one-day-old boy is included in the *halakhot* of *ziva* **because** the *halakha* is more stringent with regard to males, **as they are rendered impure through** three **sightings** of *ziva* on one day just **like through** sightings on three consecutive **days. But** with regard to **females, who are not rendered impure through** three **sightings** on one day **as** they are **through** sightings on three consecutive **days,** one might **say** that the *halakhot* of *ziva* do **not** apply to ten-day-old girls.


###### Niddah 32b:13
[Niddah 32b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:13)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בִּנְקֵבוֹת — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָמְטַמּוּ בְּאוֹנֶס, אֲבָל זְכָרִים דְּלָא מְטַמּוּ בְּאוֹנֶס — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** by contrast, **if the Merciful One had written** only **with regard to females,** one might say: The *halakhot* of *ziva* apply to ten-day-old girls, **because** of the fact that **they are rendered impure** even on account of sightings that occur **due to circumstances beyond** their **control. But** with regard to **males, who are not rendered impure** on account of sightings that occur **due to circumstances beyond** their **control,** one might **say** that one-day-old boys are **not** included in the *halakhot* of *ziva*. Therefore, both verses are **necessary.**


###### Niddah 32b:14
[Niddah 32b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:14)

הַכּוּתִים מְטַמְּאִין מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כָּעֶלְיוֹן. מַאי ״מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כָּעֶלְיוֹן״? אִילֵּימָא דְּאִי אִיכָּא עֲשָׂרָה מַצָּעוֹת וְיָתֵיב עֲלַיְיהוּ (מְטַמּוּ) [מְטַמֵּי] לְהוּ, פְּשִׁיטָא! דְּהָא דָּרֵס לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And the Samaritan** men **impart ritual impurity** to the **lower bedding like** the **upper** bedding. The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the clause: The **lower bedding like** the **upper** bedding? **If we say** it means **that if there are ten mattresses** stacked one upon the other **and** a Samaritan man **sat upon them,** the lowest mattress, like the upper mattresses, is **rendered impure,** this *halakha* is **obvious, since he presses** on all of **them** when he sits on them. In other words, since Samaritan men impart impurity to the bedding beneath them because they are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, there is no reason to distinguish between the lowest mattress and the other mattresses above it.


###### Niddah 32b:15
[Niddah 32b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:15)

אֶלָּא, שֶׁיְּהֵא תַּחְתּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה כְּעֶלְיוֹנוֹ שֶׁל זָב, מָה עֶלְיוֹנוֹ שֶׁל זָב אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא אוֹכְלִין וּמַשְׁקִין, אַף תַּחְתּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא אֳוכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna means **that** the status of the lowest mattress **beneath** a man who **engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman is like** that of the bedding **above a *zav*,** i.e., the bedding beneath a Samaritan man assumes first-degree ritual impurity and does not become a primary source of impurity like the bedding beneath a *zav*. That is, **just as** the **upper** bedding **of a *zav*** is not a primary source of impurity and **imparts impurity only** to **food and drink** but not people or vessels, **so too,** the bedding **beneath** a man who **engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman imparts ritual impurity only** to **food and drink.**


###### Niddah 32b:16
[Niddah 32b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32b:16)

עֶלְיוֹנוֹ שֶׁל זָב מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה תַחְתָּיו יִטְמָא״, מַאי ״תַּחְתָּיו״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that the bedding **above a *zav*** imparts ritual impurity only to food and drink? **As it is written** with regard to a *zav*: **“And whoever touches any thing that was under him shall be impure”** (Leviticus 15:10). **What** is the meaning of the expression **“under him”?**