Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 3, 2019 | 讛壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Niddah 41

Is there really a proof from a braita for Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion that Rabbi Shimon would not consider a caesarean birth a birth regarding sacrifices? What is the status of blood that came with contractions three days before a caesarean birth? What about blood that came out during a caesarean section birth – is the issue relating to blood that came out the side with the baby or blood that came out vaginally? There are three differents interpretations regarding what blood it is referring to and what the issue is. In order for a woman to become a nidda or zava, the blood needs to come out to the “beit hachitzon” – what exactly is that area? If semen comes out a woman’s body for 3 das after sexual intercourse, she is impure – does it also make her impure if it hasn’t yet come out of her body or only after exiting her body (as in the case of semen by a man)?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗讞专 砖专讬讘讛 讛讻转讜讘 讜诪讬注讟 讗诪专转 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讛讬讛 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讚砖 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讚砖

Rabbi Shimon explains: After the verse both included some disqualified offerings in this principle and excluded others, you should say: I include in the items that should not be taken down if they had been placed on the altar those whose disqualification occurred in the sacred area, i.e., the Temple courtyard, in the course of the sacrificial service, e.g., an offering that was slaughtered at night, or whose blood spilled before sprinkling. And I exclude those whose disqualification was not in the sacred area, such as an animal that copulated with a person, as these animals were disqualified before their sacrificial process began. This concludes the baraita.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讚诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讚拽讚砖讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇讗 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讚讘讻讜专

The Gemara explains how this baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. The baraita teaches, in any event, that an animal born by caesarean section is not fit for sacrifice. What, is it not referring to one who consecrates an animal born by caesarean section and renders it a sacrificial animal? Evidently, although Rabbi Shimon maintains that a human birth by caesarean section has the halakhic status of a regular birth, he concedes that animals born in this manner are unfit for sacrifice. Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: No, the baraita is dealing with a firstborn animal born by caesarean section, and it is this animal that is disqualified as an offering. A firstborn animal is sacred only if it emerged from the womb.

讘讻讜专 诪驻讟专 专讞诐 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara objects to this interpretation of the baraita: How can it be referring to a firstborn animal? The halakha that firstborn status does not apply to an animal born by caesarean section is derived from the phrase 鈥渙pens the womb,鈥 which teaches that only animals born in the natural manner are endowed with the sanctity of firstborn animals and may be sacrificed on the altar. Since an animal born by caesarean section is not sacred at all, and it is clear that a non-sacred animal cannot be sacrificed upon the altar, it is obvious that the animal must be taken down if it was placed there in error.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚拽讚砖讬诐 诪讗诪讜 讗诪讜 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara responds to this objection: Rather, what would you say? Would you say that the baraita is referring to an ordinary animal, not a firstborn, that had been consecrated as a sacrificial animal? But this animal is not sacred either, as derived from the verbal analogy of the term 鈥渋ts mother鈥 stated with regard to the firstborn and the term 鈥渋ts mother鈥 stated in connection with consecrated animals, as Rabbi Yo岣nan taught earlier. If one seeks to consecrate as an offering an animal that was born by caesarean section, it is not rendered sacred at all. Accordingly, the same reasoning applies as before: It is evident that a non-sacred animal may not be placed on the altar, and it must be removed if placed there in error.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚拽讚砖讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗爪专讬讻讬 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讞讚 诇讘讛诪转 讞讜诇讬谉 讚讗讜诇讬讚 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讜讗拽讚砖讛

The Gemara rejects this response: What is this comparison between firstborn animals and consecrated animals? Granted, if you say that the baraita is referring to animals that are consecrated to be offerings, that is why two verses are necessary: One verse, the verbal analogy between consecrated animals and firstborn animals, teaches that a non-sacred animal whose mother gave birth to it by caesarean section and whose owner subsequently consecrated it as an offering is not sacred at all, and must therefore be removed from the altar if it was placed there in error.

讜讞讚 诇讘讛诪转 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讗讜诇讬讚 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讜拽住讘专 讜诇讚讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讛讜讬讬转谉 讛谉 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讘讻讜专 诪驻讟专 专讞诐 谞驻拽讗

And one verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering; that is the burnt offering that goes up on the pyre upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), teaches with regard to a sacrificial animal that gave birth by caesarean section, that although the offspring is sacred by virtue of its mother鈥檚 sanctity, it may not be sacrificed and must be removed from the altar if placed there in error. And the tanna of this baraita maintains that the offspring of sacrificial animals are automatically sacred upon their emergence from the womb. But if you say that the baraita is referring to a firstborn animal that was born by caesarean section, the halakha that this animal is not sacred is derived from the phrase 鈥渙pens the womb.鈥

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to interpret the baraita in this manner, that it is referring to an offspring born to a sacrificial animal by caesarean section, from the fact that the baraita teaches that an animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and an animal that was set aside for idol worship, and an animal that was worshipped as a deity, and an animal that is an offspring of diverse kinds, must all be removed from the altar if placed there in error.

讛谞讬 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 诪谉 讛讘拽专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞注讘讚 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞讜讙讞

The Gemara explains: Now are these disqualifications derived from here, from the verse adduced by the baraita? No, they are derived from elsewhere, as taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock鈥 (Leviticus 1:2). The expression 鈥渇rom the cattle鈥 serves to exclude from eligibility as an offering an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality. The expression 鈥渇rom the herd鈥 serves to exclude an animal that was worshipped as a deity. 鈥淔rom the flock鈥 serves to exclude an animal set aside for idol worship. The word 鈥渙r鈥 in the expression 鈥渙r from the flock鈥 serves to exclude an animal that gored a person, killing him. In all these cases the animal cannot be consecrated at all, and therefore it is not necessary for the Torah to teach that they must be removed from the altar if placed there in error.

讜转讜 讻诇讗讬诐 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 砖讜专 讗讜 讻砖讘 讗讜 注讝 砖讜专 驻专讟 诇讻诇讗讬诐 讗讜 注讝 驻专讟 诇谞讚诪讛

And furthermore, is the disqualification of an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds derived from here? No, it is derived from elsewhere, as taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淲hen a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days under its mother; but from the eighth day and onward it may be accepted for an offering鈥 (Leviticus 22:27). The term 鈥渁 bull鈥 serves to exclude an offspring of diverse kinds from being used as an offering, The phrase 鈥渙r a goat鈥 serves to exclude an animal that resembles another, i.e., a sheep that is the offspring of sheep but that looks like a goat, or vice versa. Once again, as these animals cannot be consecrated at all, it is not necessary for the Torah to teach that they must be removed from the altar if placed there in error.

讗诇讗 讗爪讟专讬讻讜 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讞讚 诇讘讛诪转 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讞讚 诇讘讛诪转 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 转专讬 拽专讗讬

Rather, it must be that two verses are necessary for each of these cases: One to teach that a non-sacred animal that is subject to any of these disqualifications cannot be consecrated, and the other one to teach that with regard to a sacrificial animal that was born with this status by virtue of its mother鈥檚 sanctity, if it is subject to one of these disqualifications it may not be sacrificed and must be removed from the altar if placed there in error. Accordingly, it stands to reason that here too, in the case of an animal born by caesarean section, two verses are necessary for the same reason: One for a non-sacred animal, to teach that it cannot be consecrated, and another for the offspring of a sacrificial animal.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪拽砖讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜讬爪讗 讜诇讚 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讛专讬 讝讜 讬讜诇讚转 讘讝讜讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讜 讬讜诇讚转 讘讝讜讘 讜讚诐 讛讬讜爪讗 诪砖诐 讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

The Sages taught in a baraita: Although a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period is rendered a zava and must count seven clean days before immersing and purifying herself, if a pregnant woman experiences birth pangs accompanied by bleeding for three days after her menstrual period, at the end of which she gives birth, she is not rendered a zava, as the bleeding is attributed to the childbirth. And if the offspring emerged by caesarean section, she is considered one who has given birth during a period of ziva. But Rabbi Shimon says: She is not considered one who has given birth during a period of ziva. And the blood that emerges from there is ritually impure, but Rabbi Shimon deems it pure.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 住讬驻讗 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讜诇讚 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Granted, the first clause of the baraita is clear: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, cited in the mishna, that birth via caesarean section has the halakhic status of childbirth; and the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, conform to their line of reasoning, that birth via caesarean section does not have the halakhic status of childbirth. But in the latter clause, with regard to what matter do they disagree? Ravina said: The latter clause is referring to a case where the offspring emerged by caesarean section,

讜讚诐 讚专讱 专讞诐 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜

and blood emerged through the womb, i.e., vaginally, during the three days preceding the birth. And Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, that a caesarean birth is a full-fledged birth, and therefore the blood that emerged prior to the birth is ritually pure, and the Rabbis conform to their line of reasoning, that a caesarean birth is not halakhically considered a birth, which means that the blood which emerged beforehand is considered the blood of ziva, and is ritually impure.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讞讚讗 讚讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讜注讜讚 诪砖诐 诪拽讜诐 讜诇讚 诪砖诪注

Rav Yosef objects to this explanation: One difficulty is that according to this interpretation, the latter clause of the baraita is superfluous, as the dispute recorded there is identical to that of the first clause. And furthermore, the words: From there, in the phrase: The blood that emerges from there, indicate that this is referring to a place already mentioned in the baraita, i.e., the place from which the offspring emerged, which is the abdominal incision of the caesarean section, not the vagina.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讜诇讚 讜讚诐 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉

Rather, Rav Yosef said that this is the explanation of the latter clause of the baraita: It is referring to a situation where both the offspring and blood emerged through the incision in the abdomen. It is in such a case that the first tanna deems the blood which emerged impure and Rabbi Shimon deems it pure.

讜讘诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟诪讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟诪讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟讛讜专

And the matter with regard to which they disagree is whether or not the location of a woman鈥檚 source, i.e., her uterus, is ritually impure. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that the location of a woman鈥檚 source is ritually impure, and therefore any blood that emerges from it, regardless of how it came out of her body, is impure as well. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that the location of a woman鈥檚 source is pure, and blood that emerges from there is also pure. Only uterine blood which emerges vaginally is impure.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讟诪讗 讘讚诐 诪讟诪讗 讘讗砖讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讟讛专 讘讚诐 诪讟讛专 讘讗砖讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讟诪讗 讘讚诐 诪讟讛专 讘讗砖讛

Reish Lakish says: According to the statement of the one who deems the blood impure, the first tanna, he deems the woman impure as well, as though it were blood of menstruation. Likewise, according to the statement of the one who deems the blood pure, Rabbi Shimon, he deems the woman pure as well. But Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even according to the statement of the one who deems the blood impure, the first tanna, he deems the woman pure.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讟诪讗讛 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诪讚讜讛 讚专讱 注专讜转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬砖讻讘 讗转 讗砖讛 讚讜讛 讜讙诇讛 讗转 注专讜转讛 讗转 诪拽讜专讛 讛注专讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讟诪讗讛 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诪讚讜讛 讚专讱 注专讜转讛

And Rabbi Yo岣nan follows his standard line of reasoning here, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: From where is it derived that a woman does not become impure due to menstruation unless the flow of blood emerges from her nakedness, i.e., genitalia? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd a man who lies with a woman having her flow, and shall uncover her nakedness, he has made naked her source鈥 (Leviticus 20:18) This teaches that a woman is not impure due to menstruation unless the flow emerges from her nakedness.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 诪拽讜专 砖谞注拽专 讜谞驻诇 诇讗专抓 讟诪讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讬注谉 讛砖驻讱 谞讞砖转讱 讜转讙诇讛 注专讜转讱

Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: If a woman鈥檚 source, i.e., her uterus, became dislodged and fell out of her body onto the ground, she is ritually impure, as it is stated: 鈥淏ecause your foundation was poured out, and your nakedness was uncovered鈥 (Ezekiel 16:36). The word 鈥渇oundation鈥 alludes to the uterus, and the verse is referring to it after it has been 鈥減oured out,鈥 i.e., detached, as an uncovering of nakedness, which indicates that it is still a source of impurity even after it has been detached from its place.

诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讚诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讞转讬讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗转 注专讘

The Gemara asks: To what kind of impurity is this woman subject in this situation? If we say that she is subject to the impurity of seven days of menstruating women, that is impossible, as the Merciful One states in the Torah that such impurity is caused by 鈥渂lood鈥 (Leviticus 15:19), and not a piece of flesh. Rather, she is subject to impurity that lasts until the evening, as a result of the surface of her body having come into contact with the uterus, which is a source of impurity.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪拽讜专 砖讛讝讬注 讻砖转讬 讟讬驻讬 诪专讙诇讬讜转 讟诪讗讛 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讞诪砖讛 讚诪讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗砖讛 讜转讜 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗转 注专讘 讜讚讜讜拽讗 转专转讬 讗讘诇 讞讚讗 讗讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讬讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of a woman鈥檚 source that discharged two whitish, clear, pearl-like [margaliyyot] drops, she is impure. The Gemara asks: To what kind of impurity is this woman subject in this situation? If we say that she is subject to the impurity of seven days of menstruating women, that is impossible, as the mishna (Nidda 19a) states that there are five distinct colors of ritually impure blood in a woman, but no more, and pearly white is not one of those colors. Rather, she is subject to impurity that lasts until the evening, as a result of her body having come into contact with a discharge from the uterus, which is a source of impurity. And this is the halakha specifically if there were two drops, but if there was only one such drop she is not impure, as I can say that the drop came from elsewhere, not from the uterus.

讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讘讬转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讛讬 谞讬讛讜 讘讬转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 砖转讬谞讜拽转 讬讜砖讘转 讜谞专讗转

搂 The mishna teaches: All women become ritually impure with the flow of blood from the uterus into the outer chamber, i.e., the vagina, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd her issue in her flesh shall be blood鈥 (Leviticus 15:19). The Gemara asks: What exactly is the outer chamber? Reish Lakish says: Any place which can be seen when a little girl sits with her legs spread. When the blood reaches that area in the vagina, the woman becomes ritually impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讙诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 砖专抓 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讚 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish in objection: That place is considered exposed even with regard to contact with the carcass of a creeping animal. If one comes into contact with the carcass of a creeping animal he becomes impure. This is the halakha only if the animal touches a part of the body that is exposed, not an internal cavity such as the inside of the mouth. Since the area of the vagina described by Reish Lakish is considered an exposed part of the body for the purposes of the impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal, it should not be necessary for the mishna to derive the halakha of her impurity from the expression 鈥渋n her flesh.鈥 Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The term outer chamber extends until the area between the teeth-like projections inside the vagina.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 讻诇驻谞讬诐 讗讜 讻诇讞讜抓 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 注讚 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 注爪诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬诐

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the area between the teeth-like projections itself considered as internal, which would mean that blood there would not render the woman impure, or as external? Come and hear a resolution, as Rabbi Zakkai teaches a baraita: The term outer chamber extends to the area between the teeth-like projections, but the area between the teeth-like projections themselves is considered as internal.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 诪拽讜诐 讚讬砖讛 诪讗讬 诪拽讜诐 讚讬砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖诪砖 讚砖

It was taught in a baraita that a woman becomes impure when the blood reaches the place of threshing, which is a euphemism. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this euphemism, the place of threshing? Rav Yehuda says: It is referring to the place in the vagina where the penis threshes, i.e., reaches, during intercourse.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讘砖专讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞讚讛 讝讘讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讘讛 讘讘砖专讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: It is written concerning a menstruating woman: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue, and her flow in her flesh shall be blood, she shall be in her menstruation seven days鈥 (Leviticus 15:19). The term 鈥渋n her flesh鈥 teaches that she becomes impure while the blood is still inside her flesh just as when the blood emerges outside her body. I have derived only that this applies in the case of a menstruating woman. From where is it derived that it applies to a zava as well? The same verse states: 鈥淗er flow [zovah] in her flesh.鈥

驻讜诇讟转 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讛讬讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讚讬讛 讻讘讜注诇讛 诪讛 讘讜注诇讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 注讚 砖转爪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞讜抓 讗祝 讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 注讚 砖转爪讗 讟讜诪讗转讛 诇讞讜抓

From where is it derived that this also applies to a woman who discharges semen after intercourse? The same verse states the apparently superfluous term 鈥渟hall be.鈥 And Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of discharging semen, it is sufficient for her to be like the man who engaged in intercourse with her: Just as the man who engaged in intercourse with her does not become impure until the source of impurity, the semen, emerges outside his body, so too, she does not become impure until her source of impurity, the semen, emerges outside her body. It does not render her impure while it is still inside her body.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讬讛 讻讘讜注诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜专讞爪讜 讘诪讬诐 讜讟诪讗讜 注讚 讛注专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜 讗诐 诇注谞讬谉 谞讜讙注 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇诪讟讛 讗讜 讗讬砖

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon in fact hold that it is sufficient for her to be like the man who engaged in intercourse with her? But isn鈥檛 it taught to the contrary in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭he woman also with whom a man shall lie carnally, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:18). Rabbi Shimon said: And what does this verse come to teach us? If it teaches with regard to one who comes into contact with semen that they are impure, it is already stated below (Leviticus 22:4): 鈥淥r a man from whom the flow of seed goes out,鈥 from which it is derived that coming into contact with semen renders one impure.

讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗诇讗 砖讙讝专转 讛讻转讜讘 讛讜讗

Rather, this verse is necessary because in the case of intercourse the contact with the source of impurity occurs in a concealed part of the body, and contact with impurity by a concealed part of the body generally does not render one impure. But here it is a Torah edict that the woman does become impure in this manner. This baraita proves that according to Rabbi Shimon a woman is rendered impure by semen even when it is inside her body.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪砖诪砖转 讻讗谉 讘驻讜诇讟转

The Gemara answers that this is not difficult. Here, this second baraita is dealing with a woman who engages in intercourse, whereas there, the first baraita is dealing with a woman who discharges semen after intercourse. It is only during the act of intercourse that a woman becomes impure due to the semen. If she later discharges semen, she does not become impure, according to Rabbi Shimon, until the semen leaves her body and touches her on the outside.

驻讜诇讟转 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讗 砖诪砖讛 讘砖讟讘诇讛 诇砖诪讜砖讛

The Gemara objects: But in the case of a woman who discharges semen, one can derive that she is impure due to the fact that she engaged in intercourse prior to the discharge. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon is referring to a case where she immersed herself, thereby purifying herself from the impurity from her intercourse, and she subsequently discharged semen.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪砖诪砖转 讘讟讜诪讗转 注专讘 住讙讬 诇讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖诪砖转 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 砖诇讗 转驻诇讜讟

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that in the case of a woman who engages in intercourse it is sufficient for her to simply immerse herself, and then she is in a state of impurity only until evening? But didn鈥檛 Rava say: A woman who engages in intercourse is prohibited from partaking of teruma, even if she is married to a priest, for the entire three days following the intercourse, as it is impossible for her not to discharge semen throughout this period, and teruma may not be consumed by one who is impure?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讛讟讘讬诇讜讛 讘诪讟讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讗讝诇讛 讗讬讛讬 讘讻专注讛 讜讟讘诇讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗讝诇讛 砖讚讬转讗

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where others immersed the woman while she was still in bed, and she remained there. If she remains lying down, it is possible for her not to discharge semen following intercourse, and the immersion after intercourse purifies her. The Gemara asks: By inference, one can conclude that when Rava said that a woman is in a constant state of impurity for three days after intercourse, he was referring to a case where she walked to the ritual bath by foot and immersed herself. But if so, perhaps while she was walking she released all the semen in her body even before the three days were over, and therefore will not subsequently become impure.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 41

讗讞专 砖专讬讘讛 讛讻转讜讘 讜诪讬注讟 讗诪专转 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讛讬讛 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讚砖 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讚砖

Rabbi Shimon explains: After the verse both included some disqualified offerings in this principle and excluded others, you should say: I include in the items that should not be taken down if they had been placed on the altar those whose disqualification occurred in the sacred area, i.e., the Temple courtyard, in the course of the sacrificial service, e.g., an offering that was slaughtered at night, or whose blood spilled before sprinkling. And I exclude those whose disqualification was not in the sacred area, such as an animal that copulated with a person, as these animals were disqualified before their sacrificial process began. This concludes the baraita.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讚诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讚拽讚砖讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇讗 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讚讘讻讜专

The Gemara explains how this baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. The baraita teaches, in any event, that an animal born by caesarean section is not fit for sacrifice. What, is it not referring to one who consecrates an animal born by caesarean section and renders it a sacrificial animal? Evidently, although Rabbi Shimon maintains that a human birth by caesarean section has the halakhic status of a regular birth, he concedes that animals born in this manner are unfit for sacrifice. Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: No, the baraita is dealing with a firstborn animal born by caesarean section, and it is this animal that is disqualified as an offering. A firstborn animal is sacred only if it emerged from the womb.

讘讻讜专 诪驻讟专 专讞诐 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara objects to this interpretation of the baraita: How can it be referring to a firstborn animal? The halakha that firstborn status does not apply to an animal born by caesarean section is derived from the phrase 鈥渙pens the womb,鈥 which teaches that only animals born in the natural manner are endowed with the sanctity of firstborn animals and may be sacrificed on the altar. Since an animal born by caesarean section is not sacred at all, and it is clear that a non-sacred animal cannot be sacrificed upon the altar, it is obvious that the animal must be taken down if it was placed there in error.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚拽讚砖讬诐 诪讗诪讜 讗诪讜 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara responds to this objection: Rather, what would you say? Would you say that the baraita is referring to an ordinary animal, not a firstborn, that had been consecrated as a sacrificial animal? But this animal is not sacred either, as derived from the verbal analogy of the term 鈥渋ts mother鈥 stated with regard to the firstborn and the term 鈥渋ts mother鈥 stated in connection with consecrated animals, as Rabbi Yo岣nan taught earlier. If one seeks to consecrate as an offering an animal that was born by caesarean section, it is not rendered sacred at all. Accordingly, the same reasoning applies as before: It is evident that a non-sacred animal may not be placed on the altar, and it must be removed if placed there in error.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚拽讚砖讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗爪专讬讻讬 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讞讚 诇讘讛诪转 讞讜诇讬谉 讚讗讜诇讬讚 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讜讗拽讚砖讛

The Gemara rejects this response: What is this comparison between firstborn animals and consecrated animals? Granted, if you say that the baraita is referring to animals that are consecrated to be offerings, that is why two verses are necessary: One verse, the verbal analogy between consecrated animals and firstborn animals, teaches that a non-sacred animal whose mother gave birth to it by caesarean section and whose owner subsequently consecrated it as an offering is not sacred at all, and must therefore be removed from the altar if it was placed there in error.

讜讞讚 诇讘讛诪转 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讗讜诇讬讚 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讜拽住讘专 讜诇讚讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讛讜讬讬转谉 讛谉 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讘讻讜专 诪驻讟专 专讞诐 谞驻拽讗

And one verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering; that is the burnt offering that goes up on the pyre upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), teaches with regard to a sacrificial animal that gave birth by caesarean section, that although the offspring is sacred by virtue of its mother鈥檚 sanctity, it may not be sacrificed and must be removed from the altar if placed there in error. And the tanna of this baraita maintains that the offspring of sacrificial animals are automatically sacred upon their emergence from the womb. But if you say that the baraita is referring to a firstborn animal that was born by caesarean section, the halakha that this animal is not sacred is derived from the phrase 鈥渙pens the womb.鈥

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to interpret the baraita in this manner, that it is referring to an offspring born to a sacrificial animal by caesarean section, from the fact that the baraita teaches that an animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and an animal that was set aside for idol worship, and an animal that was worshipped as a deity, and an animal that is an offspring of diverse kinds, must all be removed from the altar if placed there in error.

讛谞讬 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 诪谉 讛讘拽专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞注讘讚 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞讜讙讞

The Gemara explains: Now are these disqualifications derived from here, from the verse adduced by the baraita? No, they are derived from elsewhere, as taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock鈥 (Leviticus 1:2). The expression 鈥渇rom the cattle鈥 serves to exclude from eligibility as an offering an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality. The expression 鈥渇rom the herd鈥 serves to exclude an animal that was worshipped as a deity. 鈥淔rom the flock鈥 serves to exclude an animal set aside for idol worship. The word 鈥渙r鈥 in the expression 鈥渙r from the flock鈥 serves to exclude an animal that gored a person, killing him. In all these cases the animal cannot be consecrated at all, and therefore it is not necessary for the Torah to teach that they must be removed from the altar if placed there in error.

讜转讜 讻诇讗讬诐 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 砖讜专 讗讜 讻砖讘 讗讜 注讝 砖讜专 驻专讟 诇讻诇讗讬诐 讗讜 注讝 驻专讟 诇谞讚诪讛

And furthermore, is the disqualification of an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds derived from here? No, it is derived from elsewhere, as taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淲hen a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days under its mother; but from the eighth day and onward it may be accepted for an offering鈥 (Leviticus 22:27). The term 鈥渁 bull鈥 serves to exclude an offspring of diverse kinds from being used as an offering, The phrase 鈥渙r a goat鈥 serves to exclude an animal that resembles another, i.e., a sheep that is the offspring of sheep but that looks like a goat, or vice versa. Once again, as these animals cannot be consecrated at all, it is not necessary for the Torah to teach that they must be removed from the altar if placed there in error.

讗诇讗 讗爪讟专讬讻讜 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讞讚 诇讘讛诪转 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讞讚 诇讘讛诪转 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 转专讬 拽专讗讬

Rather, it must be that two verses are necessary for each of these cases: One to teach that a non-sacred animal that is subject to any of these disqualifications cannot be consecrated, and the other one to teach that with regard to a sacrificial animal that was born with this status by virtue of its mother鈥檚 sanctity, if it is subject to one of these disqualifications it may not be sacrificed and must be removed from the altar if placed there in error. Accordingly, it stands to reason that here too, in the case of an animal born by caesarean section, two verses are necessary for the same reason: One for a non-sacred animal, to teach that it cannot be consecrated, and another for the offspring of a sacrificial animal.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪拽砖讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜讬爪讗 讜诇讚 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讛专讬 讝讜 讬讜诇讚转 讘讝讜讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讝讜 讬讜诇讚转 讘讝讜讘 讜讚诐 讛讬讜爪讗 诪砖诐 讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

The Sages taught in a baraita: Although a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period is rendered a zava and must count seven clean days before immersing and purifying herself, if a pregnant woman experiences birth pangs accompanied by bleeding for three days after her menstrual period, at the end of which she gives birth, she is not rendered a zava, as the bleeding is attributed to the childbirth. And if the offspring emerged by caesarean section, she is considered one who has given birth during a period of ziva. But Rabbi Shimon says: She is not considered one who has given birth during a period of ziva. And the blood that emerges from there is ritually impure, but Rabbi Shimon deems it pure.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 住讬驻讗 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讜诇讚 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Granted, the first clause of the baraita is clear: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, cited in the mishna, that birth via caesarean section has the halakhic status of childbirth; and the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, conform to their line of reasoning, that birth via caesarean section does not have the halakhic status of childbirth. But in the latter clause, with regard to what matter do they disagree? Ravina said: The latter clause is referring to a case where the offspring emerged by caesarean section,

讜讚诐 讚专讱 专讞诐 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜

and blood emerged through the womb, i.e., vaginally, during the three days preceding the birth. And Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, that a caesarean birth is a full-fledged birth, and therefore the blood that emerged prior to the birth is ritually pure, and the Rabbis conform to their line of reasoning, that a caesarean birth is not halakhically considered a birth, which means that the blood which emerged beforehand is considered the blood of ziva, and is ritually impure.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讞讚讗 讚讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讜注讜讚 诪砖诐 诪拽讜诐 讜诇讚 诪砖诪注

Rav Yosef objects to this explanation: One difficulty is that according to this interpretation, the latter clause of the baraita is superfluous, as the dispute recorded there is identical to that of the first clause. And furthermore, the words: From there, in the phrase: The blood that emerges from there, indicate that this is referring to a place already mentioned in the baraita, i.e., the place from which the offspring emerged, which is the abdominal incision of the caesarean section, not the vagina.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讜诇讚 讜讚诐 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉

Rather, Rav Yosef said that this is the explanation of the latter clause of the baraita: It is referring to a situation where both the offspring and blood emerged through the incision in the abdomen. It is in such a case that the first tanna deems the blood which emerged impure and Rabbi Shimon deems it pure.

讜讘诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟诪讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟诪讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诪拽讜专 诪拽讜诪讜 讟讛讜专

And the matter with regard to which they disagree is whether or not the location of a woman鈥檚 source, i.e., her uterus, is ritually impure. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that the location of a woman鈥檚 source is ritually impure, and therefore any blood that emerges from it, regardless of how it came out of her body, is impure as well. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that the location of a woman鈥檚 source is pure, and blood that emerges from there is also pure. Only uterine blood which emerges vaginally is impure.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讟诪讗 讘讚诐 诪讟诪讗 讘讗砖讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讟讛专 讘讚诐 诪讟讛专 讘讗砖讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪讟诪讗 讘讚诐 诪讟讛专 讘讗砖讛

Reish Lakish says: According to the statement of the one who deems the blood impure, the first tanna, he deems the woman impure as well, as though it were blood of menstruation. Likewise, according to the statement of the one who deems the blood pure, Rabbi Shimon, he deems the woman pure as well. But Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even according to the statement of the one who deems the blood impure, the first tanna, he deems the woman pure.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讟诪讗讛 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诪讚讜讛 讚专讱 注专讜转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬砖讻讘 讗转 讗砖讛 讚讜讛 讜讙诇讛 讗转 注专讜转讛 讗转 诪拽讜专讛 讛注专讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讟诪讗讛 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诪讚讜讛 讚专讱 注专讜转讛

And Rabbi Yo岣nan follows his standard line of reasoning here, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: From where is it derived that a woman does not become impure due to menstruation unless the flow of blood emerges from her nakedness, i.e., genitalia? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd a man who lies with a woman having her flow, and shall uncover her nakedness, he has made naked her source鈥 (Leviticus 20:18) This teaches that a woman is not impure due to menstruation unless the flow emerges from her nakedness.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 诪拽讜专 砖谞注拽专 讜谞驻诇 诇讗专抓 讟诪讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讬注谉 讛砖驻讱 谞讞砖转讱 讜转讙诇讛 注专讜转讱

Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: If a woman鈥檚 source, i.e., her uterus, became dislodged and fell out of her body onto the ground, she is ritually impure, as it is stated: 鈥淏ecause your foundation was poured out, and your nakedness was uncovered鈥 (Ezekiel 16:36). The word 鈥渇oundation鈥 alludes to the uterus, and the verse is referring to it after it has been 鈥減oured out,鈥 i.e., detached, as an uncovering of nakedness, which indicates that it is still a source of impurity even after it has been detached from its place.

诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讚诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讞转讬讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗转 注专讘

The Gemara asks: To what kind of impurity is this woman subject in this situation? If we say that she is subject to the impurity of seven days of menstruating women, that is impossible, as the Merciful One states in the Torah that such impurity is caused by 鈥渂lood鈥 (Leviticus 15:19), and not a piece of flesh. Rather, she is subject to impurity that lasts until the evening, as a result of the surface of her body having come into contact with the uterus, which is a source of impurity.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪拽讜专 砖讛讝讬注 讻砖转讬 讟讬驻讬 诪专讙诇讬讜转 讟诪讗讛 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讞诪砖讛 讚诪讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗砖讛 讜转讜 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗转 注专讘 讜讚讜讜拽讗 转专转讬 讗讘诇 讞讚讗 讗讬诪讗 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讬讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of a woman鈥檚 source that discharged two whitish, clear, pearl-like [margaliyyot] drops, she is impure. The Gemara asks: To what kind of impurity is this woman subject in this situation? If we say that she is subject to the impurity of seven days of menstruating women, that is impossible, as the mishna (Nidda 19a) states that there are five distinct colors of ritually impure blood in a woman, but no more, and pearly white is not one of those colors. Rather, she is subject to impurity that lasts until the evening, as a result of her body having come into contact with a discharge from the uterus, which is a source of impurity. And this is the halakha specifically if there were two drops, but if there was only one such drop she is not impure, as I can say that the drop came from elsewhere, not from the uterus.

讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讘讬转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讛讬 谞讬讛讜 讘讬转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 砖转讬谞讜拽转 讬讜砖讘转 讜谞专讗转

搂 The mishna teaches: All women become ritually impure with the flow of blood from the uterus into the outer chamber, i.e., the vagina, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd her issue in her flesh shall be blood鈥 (Leviticus 15:19). The Gemara asks: What exactly is the outer chamber? Reish Lakish says: Any place which can be seen when a little girl sits with her legs spread. When the blood reaches that area in the vagina, the woman becomes ritually impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讙诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 砖专抓 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讚 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish in objection: That place is considered exposed even with regard to contact with the carcass of a creeping animal. If one comes into contact with the carcass of a creeping animal he becomes impure. This is the halakha only if the animal touches a part of the body that is exposed, not an internal cavity such as the inside of the mouth. Since the area of the vagina described by Reish Lakish is considered an exposed part of the body for the purposes of the impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal, it should not be necessary for the mishna to derive the halakha of her impurity from the expression 鈥渋n her flesh.鈥 Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The term outer chamber extends until the area between the teeth-like projections inside the vagina.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 讻诇驻谞讬诐 讗讜 讻诇讞讜抓 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 注讚 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 注爪诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬诐

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the area between the teeth-like projections itself considered as internal, which would mean that blood there would not render the woman impure, or as external? Come and hear a resolution, as Rabbi Zakkai teaches a baraita: The term outer chamber extends to the area between the teeth-like projections, but the area between the teeth-like projections themselves is considered as internal.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 诪拽讜诐 讚讬砖讛 诪讗讬 诪拽讜诐 讚讬砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖诪砖 讚砖

It was taught in a baraita that a woman becomes impure when the blood reaches the place of threshing, which is a euphemism. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this euphemism, the place of threshing? Rav Yehuda says: It is referring to the place in the vagina where the penis threshes, i.e., reaches, during intercourse.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讘砖专讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞讚讛 讝讘讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讘讛 讘讘砖专讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: It is written concerning a menstruating woman: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue, and her flow in her flesh shall be blood, she shall be in her menstruation seven days鈥 (Leviticus 15:19). The term 鈥渋n her flesh鈥 teaches that she becomes impure while the blood is still inside her flesh just as when the blood emerges outside her body. I have derived only that this applies in the case of a menstruating woman. From where is it derived that it applies to a zava as well? The same verse states: 鈥淗er flow [zovah] in her flesh.鈥

驻讜诇讟转 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讛讬讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讚讬讛 讻讘讜注诇讛 诪讛 讘讜注诇讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 注讚 砖转爪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讞讜抓 讗祝 讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 注讚 砖转爪讗 讟讜诪讗转讛 诇讞讜抓

From where is it derived that this also applies to a woman who discharges semen after intercourse? The same verse states the apparently superfluous term 鈥渟hall be.鈥 And Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of discharging semen, it is sufficient for her to be like the man who engaged in intercourse with her: Just as the man who engaged in intercourse with her does not become impure until the source of impurity, the semen, emerges outside his body, so too, she does not become impure until her source of impurity, the semen, emerges outside her body. It does not render her impure while it is still inside her body.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讬讛 讻讘讜注诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜专讞爪讜 讘诪讬诐 讜讟诪讗讜 注讚 讛注专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜 讗诐 诇注谞讬谉 谞讜讙注 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇诪讟讛 讗讜 讗讬砖

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon in fact hold that it is sufficient for her to be like the man who engaged in intercourse with her? But isn鈥檛 it taught to the contrary in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭he woman also with whom a man shall lie carnally, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:18). Rabbi Shimon said: And what does this verse come to teach us? If it teaches with regard to one who comes into contact with semen that they are impure, it is already stated below (Leviticus 22:4): 鈥淥r a man from whom the flow of seed goes out,鈥 from which it is derived that coming into contact with semen renders one impure.

讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗诇讗 砖讙讝专转 讛讻转讜讘 讛讜讗

Rather, this verse is necessary because in the case of intercourse the contact with the source of impurity occurs in a concealed part of the body, and contact with impurity by a concealed part of the body generally does not render one impure. But here it is a Torah edict that the woman does become impure in this manner. This baraita proves that according to Rabbi Shimon a woman is rendered impure by semen even when it is inside her body.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪砖诪砖转 讻讗谉 讘驻讜诇讟转

The Gemara answers that this is not difficult. Here, this second baraita is dealing with a woman who engages in intercourse, whereas there, the first baraita is dealing with a woman who discharges semen after intercourse. It is only during the act of intercourse that a woman becomes impure due to the semen. If she later discharges semen, she does not become impure, according to Rabbi Shimon, until the semen leaves her body and touches her on the outside.

驻讜诇讟转 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讗 砖诪砖讛 讘砖讟讘诇讛 诇砖诪讜砖讛

The Gemara objects: But in the case of a woman who discharges semen, one can derive that she is impure due to the fact that she engaged in intercourse prior to the discharge. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon is referring to a case where she immersed herself, thereby purifying herself from the impurity from her intercourse, and she subsequently discharged semen.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪砖诪砖转 讘讟讜诪讗转 注专讘 住讙讬 诇讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖诪砖转 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讗住讜专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 砖诇讗 转驻诇讜讟

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that in the case of a woman who engages in intercourse it is sufficient for her to simply immerse herself, and then she is in a state of impurity only until evening? But didn鈥檛 Rava say: A woman who engages in intercourse is prohibited from partaking of teruma, even if she is married to a priest, for the entire three days following the intercourse, as it is impossible for her not to discharge semen throughout this period, and teruma may not be consumed by one who is impure?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讛讟讘讬诇讜讛 讘诪讟讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讗讝诇讛 讗讬讛讬 讘讻专注讛 讜讟讘诇讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗讝诇讛 砖讚讬转讗

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where others immersed the woman while she was still in bed, and she remained there. If she remains lying down, it is possible for her not to discharge semen following intercourse, and the immersion after intercourse purifies her. The Gemara asks: By inference, one can conclude that when Rava said that a woman is in a constant state of impurity for three days after intercourse, he was referring to a case where she walked to the ritual bath by foot and immersed herself. But if so, perhaps while she was walking she released all the semen in her body even before the three days were over, and therefore will not subsequently become impure.

Scroll To Top