1) (Vayikra 15:19) ("And a woman, if she will have a flow, (if) blood shall be her flow in her flesh, seven days shall she be in her niddah state, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.") "And a woman": This tells me only of a woman. Whence do we derive that even a one-day-old child (is included in this context of niddah)? From "And a woman" — whence they ruled: A one-day-old child for niddah; a ten-day-old child for zivah (seven days of niddah flow and three additional days of zivah flow). 2) "if she will have": from the pronouncement on. "a flow": I might think even if she flows from any place she is tamei; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 20:18) "and she has revealed the source of her blood." This teaches us about (her) blood that (it causes uncleanliness) only if it comes from the source. 3) I might think any color of flow is tamei; it is, therefore, written "blood." If "blood," I would think one color of blood (i.e., red), (but) ("and she shall be cleansed from the source of her) bloods" (Vayikra 12:7) teaches us that many bloods are tamei in her: red, black, bright-colored crocus, (and the color of) earth-water, and mixed wine. Beth Shammai say: Even like that of fenugrec and roast flesh extract. Beth Hillel rule the latter to be tahor. 4) "in her flesh": We are hereby taught that she confers tumah internally (by her blood issuing from her source and being contained within her) as well as externally (by appearing on the outside.) For (without this verse) would it not follow that she does not confer tumah internally as well as externally, viz.: If a zav, who requires running water (for his cleansing, viz. Vayikra 15:13), does not confer tumah internally as well as externally, then a niddah, who does not require running water, how much more so should she not confer tumah internally as well as externally! It must, therefore, be written "in her flesh," to teach that she does confer tumah internally as well as externally. This tells me only of a niddah. Whence do I derive the same for a zavah? From "her flow," (implying any flow). Whence do I derive the same for a woman who discharges semen (which is contained by the outer wall)? From "shall be" (connoting extension of inclusion). R. Shimon says: It suffices that she be as he who cohabits with her. Just as he does not confer (semen) tumah internally as well as externally, she, too, does not confer (semen) tumah internally as well as externally. 5) "seven days shall she be in her state of niddah": and not in her state of zivah, (the blood of these seven days being accounted niddah blood and not zivah blood). I might think that (to be in this state) she must see blood all seven days; it is, therefore, written "shall she be" — even though she does not see (all seven but only one). 6) This tells me only of "days." Whence do I derive the nights (for inclusion)? From "shall she be" — to include the nights. 7) I might think (any seven days), whether consecutive of scattered; it is, therefore, written "shall she be" — their being shall be one (consecutive unit). 8) Whence is it derived that she does not immerse while it is still day? From "seven days shall she be in her state of niddah" — she shall be in that state all of the seven days (and she immerses on the night preceding the eighth day). 9) "whoever touches her shall be unclean": I might think that one who touches her does not confer tumah upon garments by touching (them) — Now if she confers tumah upon mishkav (a couch) to confer tumah upon men and to confer tumah upon garments, (then if one touches) her herself, should he not confer tumah on garments thereby? If so, why is it written "whoever touches her shall be tamei until the evening"? I might think that one who touches her confers tumah upon men and earthen vessels — Now would this follow? One who touches a zav confers tumah, and one who touches a niddah confers tumah. Just as one who touches a zav does not confer tumah upon men and earthen vessels, so, one who touches a niddah! (Why, then, is the verse necessary?) 10) No! — This may be true of a zav, who does not confer tumah upon a person to confer tumah upon a different person, (i.e., If a woman cohabits with a zav, she does not confer tumah upon a different person and upon earthen vessels) — as opposed to a niddah, who confers tumah upon a person to confer tumah upon a different person (i.e., If a niddah cohabits with someone, she does confer tumah upon him to confer tumah upon a different person and upon earthen vessels (viz. Vayikra 15:24, "then her state of niddah shall be upon him.") And since she confers tumah upon a person to confer tumah upon a different person, I would think (without a verse) that if one touched her, he would confer tumah upon a different person and upon earthen vessels. It is, therefore written "whoever touches her shall (himself) be unclean until the evening"; but he who touches her does not confer tumah upon a (different person) and upon earthen vessels. 11) (Vayikra 15:20) "And all that she lies upon in her niddah state shall be unclean, and all that she sits upon shall be unclean": I might think that she confers tumah upon a mishkav that is not distinctive for reclining upon and upon a moshav (a seat) that is not distinctive for sitting upon. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:21) "And whoever touches her (distinctive) mishkav shall wash his clothes." 12) (Vayikra 15:22) "And whoever touches any object that she sits upon shall wash his clothes": Just as below (i.e., Vayikra 15 verse 21, which elucidates verse 20), she confers tumah only upon a mishkav that is distinctive for lying upon and a moshav that is distinctive for sitting upon, here, too, she confers tumah only upon a mishkav that is distinctive for lying upon and a moshav that is distinctive for sitting upon. 13) I might think that as far as conferring tumah is concerned, she confers tumah only upon a mishkav that is distinctive for lying upon and upon a moshav that is distinctive for sitting upon; but as far as becoming tamei is concerned, all kinds (of moshav and mishkav, even non-distinctive) are susceptible of this. For there are many things which become tamei and yet do not confer tumah (upon other things). It is, therefore written "upon it" - "upon it." "Upon it" is written in respect to becoming tamei (Vayikra 15 verse 22, lit., "that she sits upon it"), and "upon it" is written in respect to conferring tumah (Vayikra 15 verse 20). Just as with "upon it" in respect to conferring tumah, only a mishkav distinctive for lying upon and a mishkav distinctive for sitting upon confer tumah, so with "upon it" in respect to becoming tamei, only a mishkav distinctive for lying upon and a mishkav distinctive for sitting upon become tamei. 14) (Vayikra 15:23) ("And if on the bed [mishkav] he be, or on the object that she sits upon, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until the evening.") "And if on the mishkav," even only part of it "he be (even without directly touching it)," so that most of him is borne by it, "or on the object," even only part of it," that she sits upon." From here they ruled: If most of the tamei were over the (object that is) tahor, or over part of it; or if most of the tahor were over the tamei or over part of it — whether zav or mishkav — (the ruling is) tamei. If part of the tamei were over the tahor or over part of it, or part of the tahor over the tamei or over part of it — with a zav (vis-à-vis a man), he is tamei; with (a zav vis-à-vis) a mishkav, (the mishkav is) tahor. R. Shimon says: Even with part tamei over tahor, even with zav, (the ruling is) tahor. 15) (Vayikra 15 verse 23) "mishkav": This is mishkav (itself); "which she sits upon": This is moshav; "object": This is merkav ( a saddle), it being written "when he touches it." Respecting which object was a distinction made between touching it and carrying it, (the former rendering one tamei; the latter, not)? A saddle.
Sifra Metzora Zavim Section 4
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.