## Niddah Daf 55a

###### Niddah 55a:1
[Niddah 55a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:1)

אִי מָה הִיא מְטַמְּאָה בְּאֶבֶן מְסָמָא, אַף מַדְוֶהָ נָמֵי מְטַמְּאָה בְּאֶבֶן מְסָמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: There is a unique *halakha* with regard to the impurity of a *zav* and a menstruating woman: In a case where one of them sits on an item, including one that cannot become ritually impure, e.g., a stone, and beneath that item is a vessel, that vessel becomes impure, even if their weight has no effect on the vessel, as in the case of a very heavy stone. **If** the verse compares the status of the menstrual blood to the status of the menstruating woman, as derived above, one can infer as follows: **Just as** a menstruating woman **transmits impurity to** items that lie beneath **a very heavy stone, so too, her menstrual flow also transmits impurity to** items that lie beneath **a very heavy stone.**


###### Niddah 55a:2
[Niddah 55a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:2)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא אוֹתָם״ — ״אוֹתָם״ מִיעוּטָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** in response: Items designated for lying or sitting also transmit impurity to items that lie beneath a very heavy stone. **The verse states** with regard to an item of this kind, which was rendered impure by a *zav*: “And whoever touches anything that was under him shall be impure until the evening, **and he that carries them** shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and he shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:10). The term **“them” is an exclusion,** indicating that items designated for lying or sitting transmit impurity to items that lie beneath a very heavy stone, but menstrual blood does not.


###### Niddah 55a:3
[Niddah 55a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:3)

וּבְשַׂר הַמֵּת, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָמַר קְרָא ״לְכֹל טֻמְאָתוֹ״ — לְכׇל טְמָאוֹת הַפּוֹרְשׁוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And the flesh of a corpse** transmits impurity both when moist and when dry. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? **Reish Lakish said** that this is as **the verse states:** “Or whoever touches any creeping thing by which he may be made impure, or a man from whom he may be made impure, **from any impurity that he has”** (Leviticus 22:5). The term “from any” is an amplification, indicating that one may become impure **from any impurities that come from** a dead person, whether they are moist or dry.


###### Niddah 55a:4
[Niddah 55a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:4)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״אוֹ בְעֶצֶם אָדָם אוֹ בְקָבֶר״ — אָדָם דּוּמְיָא דְּעֶצֶם: מָה עֶצֶם יָבֵשׁ, אַף כָּאן יָבֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that this *halakha* is derived from the verse: “And whoever touches in the open field one who is slain with a sword, or one who died, **or the bone of a man, or a grave,** shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:16). The verse indicates that the impurity of a dead **man** is **similar to** the impurity of **a bone: Just as a bone** is **dry, so too here,** with regard to the impurity of a corpse, it transmits impurity even when it is **dry.**


###### Niddah 55a:5
[Niddah 55a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:5)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאִפְּרִיךְ אִפְּרוֹכֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical difference **between** the inferences of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers that the practical difference **between them** is the case of a corpse which is so dry **that it crumbles.** Reish Lakish maintains it is impure, as the term “from any” indicates that a corpse transmits impurity in any form, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains it is ritually pure, as it is unlike a bone, which does not crumble.


###### Niddah 55a:6
[Niddah 55a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:6)

מֵיתִיבִי: בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁהוּפְרַךְ טָהוֹר! הָתָם דְּאַקְמַח וְהָוֵי עַפְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a *baraita*: **The flesh of a corpse that crumbled** is **ritually pure.** The Gemara answers that this is not difficult, as the *baraita* **there** is referring to where the flesh is so dry **that it has become** like **flour and is** therefore classified as **dust.**


###### Niddah 55a:7
[Niddah 55a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:7)

מֵיתִיבִי: כֹּל שֶׁבַּמֵּת מְטַמֵּא, חוּץ מִן הַשִּׁינַּיִם, וְהַשֵּׂעָר, וְהַצִּפּוֹרֶן, וּבִשְׁעַת חִבּוּרָן — הַכֹּל טָמֵא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinions of both Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna (*Oholot* 3:3): **Everything that is in a corpse transmits impurity, except for the teeth, and the hair, and the nails.** This is the *halakha* only when these items are separated from the body, **but when they are attached** to the corpse they are **all impure.** According to Rabbi Yoḥanan teeth should transmit impurity because they are similar to bones, while according to Reish Lakish they should be included in the term “from any.”


###### Niddah 55a:8
[Niddah 55a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:8)

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: דּוּמְיָא דְּעֶצֶם, מָה עֶצֶם שֶׁנִּבְרָא עִמּוֹ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁנִּבְרָא עִמּוֹ. וְהָאִיכָּא שֵׂעָר וְצִפּוֹרֶן, שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ עִמּוֹ וּטְהוֹרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava said:** Only items that are **similar to a bone** transmit impurity: **Just as a bone** is an item **that was created with him** at the time of birth, **so too, all** items that transmit impurity are those **that were created with him,** whereas teeth are not present at the time of birth. The Gemara asks: **But are there not** the cases of **hair and nails, which were created with him, and** yet the mishna states that **they are ritually pure?**


###### Niddah 55a:9
[Niddah 55a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:9)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: דּוּמְיָא דְּעֶצֶם, מָה עֶצֶם שֶׁנִּבְרָא עִמּוֹ וְאֵין גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף, אַף כֹּל שֶׁנִּבְרָא עִמּוֹ וְאֵין גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף. יָצְאוּ הַשִּׁינַּיִם — שֶׁלֹּא נִבְרְאוּ עִמּוֹ, יָצְאוּ שֵׂעָר וְצִפּוֹרֶן — שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ עִמּוֹ, גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said** a different explanation: Only those items that are **similar to a bone** transmit impurity: **Just as a bone** is an item **that was created with him and its root does not renew** itself, i.e., if a bone is removed a new bone does not grow in its place, **so too, any item that was created with him and whose root does not renew** itself transmits impurity. **The teeth were excluded** from this category, **as they were not created with him.** The **hair and nails were excluded, as even though they were created with him** their **roots renew** themselves, since they grow again after they are cut off.


###### Niddah 55a:10
[Niddah 55a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:10)

וַהֲרֵי עוֹר, דְּגִזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף, וּתְנַן: הַגְּלוּדָה — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן לָא קָפָסְלִי אֶלָּא דְּאַדְּהָכֵי וְהָכֵי שָׁלֵיט בַּהּ אַוֵּירָא וּמִתָה, וּלְעוֹלָם גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף. וּתְנֵינַן: אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶם כִּבְשָׂרָן — עוֹר הָאָדָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But isn’t there** the case of **skin, whose root renews** itself, **and** this is as **we learned** in a mishna (*Ḥullin* 54a): In the case of an animal **whose hide was removed [*hageluda*], Rabbi Meir deems** it **kosher,** as the skin renews itself, **and the Rabbis deem** it an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*] and **unfit** for consumption. The Gemara explains: **And even the Rabbis deem** it **unfit only** due to the fact **that in the meantime,** between the removal of the old hide and the growth of the new one, **the air affects it and** as a result **it** will **die, but** they concede that **actually** the skin’s **root renews** itself. **And** nevertheless **we learned** in a mishna (*Ḥullin* 122a): **These** are the entities **whose skin** has the same halakhic status **as their flesh: The skin of a** dead **person,** and the skin of a domesticated pig…and the skin of the hump of a young camel, etc.


###### Niddah 55a:11
[Niddah 55a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:11)

הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה — עוֹר אָדָם טָהוֹר, וּמַאי טַעְמָא אָמְרוּ טָמֵא? גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עוֹרוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שְׁטִיחִין לַחֲמוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **it was stated with regard to that** mishna that **Ulla said: By Torah law, the skin of** a dead **person is ritually pure. And what is the reason** the Sages **said** that it is **impure?** It is a rabbinic **decree lest a person should fashion rugs for a donkey** out of **the skins of his** deceased **father and mother.**


###### Niddah 55a:12
[Niddah 55a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:12)

וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הֲרֵי עוֹר, דְּאֵין גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף, וּתְנַן: וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קָא מַכְשַׁר אֶלָּא דְּקָרִיר בִּשְׂרָא וְחָיֵיא, וּלְעוֹלָם אֵין גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף. וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה עוֹר אָדָם טָהוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And some say** a different version of the above discussion: **Isn’t there** the case of **skin, whose root does not renew** itself, **and** this is as **we learned** in a mishna (*Ḥullin* 54a): In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, **and the Rabbis deem** it a *tereifa* and **unfit** for consumption, as its skin does not regrow? The Gemara explains: **And even Rabbi Meir deems** it **fit only because the flesh cools and** the animal **heals, but** he concedes that **actually** the skin’s **root does not renew** itself. Accordingly, the skin of a corpse should be impure. **But Ulla said: By Torah law, the skin of** a dead **person is ritually pure.**


###### Niddah 55a:13
[Niddah 55a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:13)

כִּי אִיתְּמַר דְּעוּלָּא אַסֵּיפָא אִיתְּמַר, ״וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִבְּדָן אוֹ שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָה טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מֵעוֹר אָדָם״, וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה עוֹר אָדָם כִּי עִבְּדּוֹ טָהוֹר, וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ טָמֵא? גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עוֹר אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שְׁטִיחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **when** the opinion **of Ulla was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause** of that mishna: **And** for **all of** these skins, in a case **where one tanned them or where one** spread them on the ground and **trod on them** for the same amount of time it takes **for tanning,** they are no longer classified as flesh and **are ritually pure, except for the skin of** a dead **person,** which maintains the status of flesh. **And** with regard to this **Ulla said** that **by Torah law the skin of** a dead **person, when one tanned it, is ritually pure. And what is the reason** the Sages **said** it is **impure?** It is a rabbinic **decree lest a person should fashion rugs** out of **the skin of his** deceased **father and mother.**


###### Niddah 55a:14
[Niddah 55a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:14)

וַהֲרֵי בָּשָׂר, דְּגִזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף, וְטָמֵא! אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: בָּשָׂר נַעֲשֶׂה מְקוֹמוֹ צַלֶּקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t there** the case of **flesh, whose root renews** itself, as when one’s flesh is cut it regrows and heals, **and** yet it is **impure? Mar bar Rav Ashi says: Flesh** does not renew itself, as although when someone is cut his flesh regrows and heals, **a scar is formed** in **its place.**


###### Niddah 55a:15
[Niddah 55a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:15)

אֲבָל הַזּוֹב. זוֹב מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא״ — לִימֵּד עַל הַזּוֹב שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **But *ziva*** transmits impurity when moist, although not when dry. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that ***ziva*** transmits impurity? **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that discusses the verse: “When any man has an issue out of his flesh, **his issue,** it is **impure”** (Leviticus 15:2). This **taught with regard to *ziva* that it is impure.**


###### Niddah 55a:16
[Niddah 55a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:16)

וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא: לַאֲחֵרִים גּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה, לְעַצְמוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁגּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה לַאֲחֵרִים, וְהוּא עַצְמוֹ טָהוֹר. אַף אַתָּה אַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל זֶה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה לַאֲחֵרִים — הוּא עַצְמוֹ טָהוֹר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא״ — לִימֵּד עַל הַזּוֹב שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: Why is this derivation necessary? **Could this not** be derived through an *a fortiori* **inference?** Since *ziva* **causes impurity to others,** i.e., to the one who emitted the discharge, is it **not all the more so** that *ziva* **itself** is impure? The *baraita* replies that the case of the **scapegoat** brought on Yom Kippur **may prove** that this inference is not valid, **as it causes impurity to others,** i.e., the dispatcher of the scapegoat is rendered impure, **and** yet the goat **itself is pure. So too, you should not be surprised about this,** the discharge of *ziva*, **that even though it causes impurity to others,** *ziva* **itself is pure.** Therefore, **the verse states: “His issue,** it is **impure.”** This **taught with regard to *ziva* that it is impure.**


###### Niddah 55a:17
[Niddah 55a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/55a:17)

וְאֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמַגָּע, אֲבָל בְּמַשָּׂא לָא, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַשֶּׁרֶץ! אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמַגָּע לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, דְּלָא גָּרַע מִשִּׁכְבַת זֶרַע,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** one **may say** that **this statement,** that the discharge of *ziva* transmits impurity, applies only to transmitting impurity **by contact. But** with regard to transmitting impurity **by carrying** it does **not** transmit impurity, **just as it is with regard to** the carcass of **a creeping animal,** which transmits impurity by contact but not by carrying. **Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: A verse was not necessary** to teach that *ziva* transmits ritual impurity **by contact, as** the *halakha* with regard to *ziva* is **no less** stringent **than** with regard to **semen,** which transmits impurity by contact.