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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 4, 2019 | 讜壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Niddah 42

Is a woman who has semen exit her uterus or her body, is it impure because of “seeing”, like blood of niddah or zava or is it because of touching (like a dead animal)? What is the relevance? A woman in childbirth becomes impure from the inside like the outside – to what is this referring? If the beit hachitzon considered an encapsulated area or a hidden area? What is the differnece? The same question is asked about the area in throat where one has impurity if one is swallowing a dead kosher bird.


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

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗砖转讬讬专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 谞砖转讬讬专 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛

And if you would say that it is certainly possible that she released all the semen, but Rava鈥檚 concern was that perhaps some of it might have remained, if so, he should have said: We are concerned that perhaps some semen remained and will be discharged, rather than: It is impossible for her not to discharge semen throughout this period.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 谞诪讬 砖讛讟讘讬诇讜讛 讘诪讟讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪转讛驻讻转 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谞讛 诪转讛驻讻转

Rather, according to Rava too, this is referring even to a case where others immersed her while she was still in bed and she remained there for three days. And the contradiction is not difficult: Here, in the statement of Rava, he is referring to a woman who turns around in bed from side to side. It is therefore certain that she will discharge semen over the course of three days. There, in the statement of Rabbi Shimon, he is speaking of a woman lying in bed who does not turn around from side to side. Such a woman will not discharge semen at all.

讜专讘讗 讗拽专讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜专讞爪讜 讘诪讬诐 讜讟诪讗讜 注讚 讛注专讘 讘砖讗讬谞讛 诪转讛驻讻转 讗讘诇 讘诪转讛驻讻转 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

And the statement of Rava is referring to a verse in the Torah, and this is what he is saying: When the Merciful One writes in the Torah, with regard to a man and woman who engaged in intercourse: 鈥淭hey shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:18), which indicates that when evening comes the woman鈥檚 purification is complete, it is dealing with a case where she is in bed and does not turn around from side to side. But in a case where she does turn around, she is prohibited from partaking of teruma for the entire three days following the intercourse, as it is impossible for her not to discharge semen throughout this period.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 诪讗讘讬讬 驻讜诇讟转 砖讻讘转 讝专注 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讗讜 谞讜讙注转 讛讜讬讗

Rav Shmuel bar Bisna asked Abaye: With regard to a woman who discharges semen, is her status that of one who experienced an emission of an impure substance, or is her status that of one who came into contact with an impure substance?

谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇住转讜专 讜诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讛讜 讜诇讟诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓

The practical difference between these two possibilities is threefold: Whether or not the discharge negates her counting of seven clean days at the end of the ziva period, whether or not it renders her impure by any amount, and whether or not it renders her impure while still inside her body as it would after emerging out of her body. If it is considered an emission of an impure substance, it negates her count of seven clean days, and it renders her impure even in the slightest amount, and it renders her impure even before it emerges from her body. If it renders her impure because she came into contact with it, it does not negate her count, it renders her impure only if a certain minimum amount emerges, and it renders her impure only after touching the outside of her body.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞讜讙注转 讛讜讬讗

Before addressing the dilemma, the Gemara raises a difficulty with Rav Shmuel bar Bisna鈥檚 question itself: Whichever way you look at it, the question is problematic. If he had heard the baraita cited above, the answer is obvious: According to the Rabbis, her status is that of one who experienced an emission of an impure substance, as the baraita clearly states that in the Rabbis鈥 opinion the woman is rendered impure even before the semen emerges from her body. And according to Rabbi Shimon, her status is that of one who came into contact with the impure substance, as Rabbi Shimon states that the woman is impure only when the semen emerges from her body.

讜讗讬 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪住转讘专讗 谞讜讙注转 讛讜讬讗

And if Rav Shmuel bar Bisna did not hear the baraita and was unaware of it, it is certainly more reasonable to assume that her status should be that of one who came into contact with the semen. Why would he think otherwise, as after all, the emitted substance did not originate in her body?

诇注讜诇诐 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav Shmuel bar Bisna had heard the baraita, and he did not raise the dilemma according to the opinion of the Rabbis. According to their opinion it is clear that the woman has the status of one who experienced an emission of an impure bodily substance. Rather, when he raises the dilemma, it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讜诇讟诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇住转讜专 讜诇讟诪讗 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讬

And he does not raise the dilemma with regard to the question of whether or not the semen renders her impure when it is inside the body as it would after emerging outside the body, as Rabbi Shimon states explicitly that the woman is impure only when the semen leaves her body. Rather, when he raises the dilemma, it is only with regard to the other two issues mentioned above: Whether or not the discharge negates her counting of seven clean days at the end of the ziva period, and whether or not it renders her impure in any amount. He therefore asked: What is the status of her discharge of semen with respect to these two matters?

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讬讛 讻讘讜注诇讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讟诪讜讬讬 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗讘诇 诇住转讜专 讜诇讟诪讗 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: It is possible that when Rabbi Shimon says: It is sufficient for her to be like the man who engaged in intercourse with her, this statement applies only with regard to the question of whether or not the semen renders her impure when it is inside the body as it would after emerging outside the body. It does not render her impure unless it touches her body on the outside. But with regard to the question of whether or not the discharge negates her counting of seven clean days at the end of the ziva period and whether or not it renders her impure in any amount, perhaps she is considered impure as one who experienced an emission of an impure substance. Or perhaps there is no difference. Rather, with regard to all three issues she has the status of one who came into contact with an impure substance.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讗 讜讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讚讗讞诪讬专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讘注诇讬 拽专讬讬谉 讘住讬谞讬 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗

There are those who say a different explanation of Rav Shmuel bar Bisna鈥檚 dilemma: Actually, he did not hear the baraita and was unaware of it. And as for the question of why he would think that the woman should have the status of one who experienced an emission of an impure bodily substance, this was his dilemma: Since the Merciful One was stringent before the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai with regard to men who had experienced a seminal emission, in that they were prohibited from attending that event, as it is stated: 鈥淏e ready on the third day; do not come near a woman鈥 (Exodus 19:15), whereas those who had come into contact with other impure items were not prohibited from attending, perhaps the stringency of this particular source of impurity should likewise be applied to a woman who discharges semen. If so, her status should be like one who experienced a seminal emission, rather than one who merely came into contact with semen.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪住讬谞讬 讚讞讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 讝讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜专注讬诐 讚讞诪讬专讬 讜诇讗 讗讞诪讬专 讘讛讜 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara explains the other side of the dilemma: Or perhaps we should not derive any halakhot from the instructions given before the revelation at Sinai, as that was a novelty. The Gemara cites a proof for this claim: As that was the case with regard to zavin and lepers, whose impurity is even more stringent than that of one who experiences a seminal emission, but nevertheless the Merciful One was not stringent with regard to them, as He permitted them to attend the ceremony of the giving of the Torah.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讗转讗 砖讬讬诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讛讚专 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讻讜 讘专讜拽讗 讞讚讗 转驻讬转讜

After clarifying Rav Shmuel bar Bisna鈥檚 dilemma, the Gemara cites Abaye鈥檚 answer to him. Abaye said to him: The woman鈥檚 status is that of one who experienced an emission of semen. Rav Shmuel bar Bisna came and asked Rava the same question, and he too said to him: The woman鈥檚 status is that of one who experienced an emission. He came before Rav Yosef, and he too said to him: Her status is that of one who experienced an emission. Rav Shmuel bar Bisna came back to Abaye and said to him: You are all spewing the same saliva. None of you are teaching anything new, as you all repeat the same unsatisfactory answer.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讗诪专讬 诇讱 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讬讛 讻讘讜注诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讟诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗讘诇 诇住转讜专 讜诇讟诪讗 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗

Abaye said to him: I said well to you, i.e., my response was correct. Rabbi Shimon says that it is sufficient for the woman to be like the man who engaged in intercourse with her only with regard to the question of whether or not the semen renders her impure while still inside her body as it would after emerging out of her body. Rabbi Shimon rules that it does not render her impure until it touches her on the outside. But with regard to the other two issues, i.e., negating the woman鈥檚 count of seven clean days at the end of a ziva period and rendering her impure in any amount, Rabbi Shimon maintains that the woman鈥檚 status is that of one who experienced an emission. Therefore, the discharge negates her count and renders her impure by any amount.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讚讛 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讜诇讚转 讻讜诇谉 诪讟诪讗讜转 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss types of ritual impurity that apply whether the impure substance is still inside the body or has been discharged from it. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a menstruating woman, a zava, a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge, and a woman after childbirth, they all become impure while the blood is still inside their bodies just as they would be when the blood emerges outside their bodies.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讞讬讬 讗诇讗 讬讜诇讚转 讗讬 讘讬诪讬 谞讚讛 谞讚讛 讗讬 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘讛 讝讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to all those other cases, it is well, i.e., one can understand this ruling with regard to blood that has not left the body. But the halakha of a woman after childbirth is puzzling, since if this is referring to blood that she discharges in her days of menstruation, then she is a menstruating woman, and she is included in the earlier category. Likewise, if the baraita is referring to blood that she discharges in her days of ziva, she has the status of ziva, and once again is included in a previously mentioned category.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讬专讚讛 诇讟讘讜诇 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诇讟讛专讛

The Gemara answers: No, the mention of a woman after childbirth is necessary only in a case where the days of ritual impurity after childbirth, which are seven for a male and fourteen for a female, have passed, and the woman descended to immerse in a ritual bath in order to emerge from her status of impurity to purity.

讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜诇讚转 砖讬专讚讛 诇讟讘讜诇 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诇讟讛专讛 讜谞注拽专 诪诪谞讛 讚诐 讘讬专讬讚讛 讟诪讗讛 讘注诇讬讬讛 讟讛讜专讛

And the halakha here is like that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: In the case of a woman after childbirth who descended to immerse in a ritual bath in order to emerge from her status of impurity to purity, and blood was uprooted from her uterus but it did not leave her body, her status is as follows: If this occurred on her descent to the ritual bath, she remains impure, as the immersion is ineffective. If it happened on her ascent from the bath, she is pure, as her period of purity, which is thirty-three days for a male and sixty-six for a female, has commenced.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘讬专讬讚讛 讗诪讗讬 讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讜注讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖讬讬诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讚讗住讘专讬转 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讻专讻讬砖 诇讬 讘专讬砖讬讛 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira, with regard to this halakha: If the blood emerged on her descent to immerse, why is she impure? After all, the blood is a substance of impurity that is encapsulated inside a body, and there is a halakha that an encapsulated source of impurity does not impart impurity to other items (see 岣llin 71a). Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Go and ask Rabbi Avin, as I explained to him the reason for this halakha, and he nodded [vekharkish] his head to me in the study hall, in affirmation of my explanation.

讗讝诇 砖讬讬诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注砖讗讜讛 讻谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 诪讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya indeed went and asked Rabbi Avin the reason, and Rabbi Avin said to Rabbi Yirmeya: The Sages rendered this blood like the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, which imparts impurity even to the garments of the one who eats it, when there is an olive-bulk of it in his throat, despite the fact that this source of impurity is encapsulated in his body. Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Avin: Are these cases comparable? How can one compare the impurity of a woman after childbirth to the impurity of one who eats the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird?

讛转诐 讗讬谉 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讜抓 讛讻讗 讻讬 谞驻讬拽 诇讘专讗讬 诇讬讟诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖讬爪讗 诇讞讜抓

Rabbi Yirmeya elaborates: There, with regard to the impurity contracted by swallowing an unslaughtered bird carcass, this unusual type of impurity does not have an equivalent form of impurity outside, since if one merely touches an unslaughtered bird carcass, he and his garments remain pure. By contrast, here, with regard to the blood of a woman after childbirth, let it become impure only when it emerges outside her body, like all other items that impart impurity by contact once they are no longer encapsulated. Rather, due to this difficulty one must explain that here too, Rabbi Zeira is referring to a case where the blood emerged outside her body after her immersion; otherwise she remains pure.

讗讬 讬爪讗 诇讞讜抓 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讙讜 讚诪讛谞讬 讟讘讬诇讛 诇讚诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讜讗讬 转讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讛讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If the reason that the woman is pure is that the blood emerged outside her body, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? Certainly, this blood renders the woman impure upon contact. The Gemara answers that this ruling is necessary, lest you say: Since the woman鈥檚 immersion is effective for any blood that is inside her, i.e., it prevents that blood from rendering her impure, let it also be effective for this blood, which did not leave her body until after the immersion. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira teaches us that this is not the halakha.

砖诪注转讬谉 讗讬驻专讬拽 讗诇讗 讬讜诇讚转 讗讬 讘讬诪讬 谞讚讛 谞讚讛 讗讬 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘讛 讝讬讘讛

The Gemara objects: We have resolved our halakha, the statement of Rabbi Zeira, but the difficulty remains with regard to the case of a woman after childbirth. In light of the explanation of Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 opinion, the baraita cited at the beginning of the discussion, which states that a woman after childbirth becomes impure by blood that is still inside her body, cannot be interpreted in accordance with his opinion, as Rabbi Zeira maintains that the blood does not render her impure unless it emerges outside her body. Accordingly, the original difficulty remains: If the baraita is referring to blood that she discharges in her days of menstruation, then she is a menstruating woman, and if the baraita is referring to her days of ziva, it has the status of ziva, both are which are already listed in the baraita.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诇讬讚讛 讬讘砖转讗 诇讬讚讛 讬讘砖转讗 诪讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara explains: Here we are dealing with a dry birth, without the emission of blood, and the baraita is teaching that the woman is rendered impure despite the fact that no blood emerged. The Gemara asks: If the baraita is referring to a dry birth, what blood is there that becomes impure while still inside the woman鈥檚 body just as it would when emerging outside her body? There is no blood at all in the case of a dry birth.

讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜爪讬讗 讜诇讚 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇驻专讜讝讚讜专 讜讻讚专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讛讜诇讚 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇驻专讜讝讚讜专

The Gemara answers that this clause is not referring to blood; rather, this is a situation where the offspring put his head out of the corridor, in which case it is considered born and renders its mother impure, despite the fact that the rest of its body has not emerged. And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Oshaya, as Rav Oshaya said: If a midwife inserted her hand into the womb of a woman whose fetus is dead, she is rendered impure due to contact with a corpse. This is a rabbinic decree lest the midwife touch it after the offspring puts his head out of the corridor and it dies afterward, in which case the fetus is considered born and therefore she would be ritually impure by Torah law.

讜讻讬 讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇诪诪讛诇 讘砖讘转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讘转专 讚谞驻拽 讗诪专 专讘讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诇讗 讬讚注 讚砖专讬 诇诪诪讛诇 讘砖讘转讗 讗讝诇 讘转专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讗讬讝讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛

The Gemara adds: And this is similar to an incident involving a certain man who came before Rava and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to whether one may circumcise on Shabbat? Rava said to him: One may well do so. After that man left, Rava said to himself, perplexed: Can it enter your mind that that man did not know that it is permitted to circumcise on Shabbat, and he approached me to inquire about such a basic matter? There must be an unstated aspect to his question. Rava therefore went after him and said to him: Say to me, my friend [izi], how did the incident itself happen?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪注讬转 讜诇讚 讚爪讜讬抓 讗驻谞讬讗 讚诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬诇讬讚 注讚 砖讘转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讛讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇驻专讜讝讚讜专 讛讜讗 讜讛讜讬 诪讬诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讜讻诇 诪讬诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

The man said to Rava: I heard the child making a noise at nightfall on Shabbat eve, before Shabbat began, but it was not born until Shabbat. Rava said to him: This is a baby who put his head out of the corridor, as otherwise his voice would not have been heard. Consequently, it is considered born already on Friday, which means that it should be circumcised on the following Friday, the eighth day after its birth. And if it is circumcised afterward, this is a circumcision performed not at its appointed time, and there is a halakha that although circumcision on the eighth day overrides Shabbat, nevertheless, with regard to any circumcision performed not at its appointed time, one does not desecrate Shabbat for its performance.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 砖诇 讗砖讛 讘诇讜注 讛讜讬 讗讜 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讜讬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to that place in a woman, i.e., her vagina, how is it defined? Is an impure substance located there considered encapsulated, or is it considered to be located in a concealed part of the body?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖转讞讘讛 诇讛 讞讘讬专转讛 讻讝讬转 谞讘诇讛 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘诇讜注 讛讜讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讜注讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讜讬 谞讛讬 讚讘诪讙注 诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗 讘诪砖讗 诪讬讛讗 诪讟诪讬讗

The Gemara explains: What is the practical difference as to whether it is considered encapsulated or concealed? The difference is in a case where another woman inserted an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, which is the size that imparts impurity, into that place. If you say that it is considered encapsulated, an encapsulated source of impurity does not impart impurity. But if you say that it is considered located in a concealed part of the body, although the woman does not become impure by contact, she at least becomes impure by carrying the olive-bulk of the carcass.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘诇讜注 讛讜讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 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

Abaye said: It is considered encapsulated. Rava said: It is considered located in a concealed part of the body. Rava further said: From where do I say this? As it is taught 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: Now what does this verse teach? If it teaches that one who touches semen is rendered impure, this is derived from the verse: 鈥淥r a man from whom the flow of seed goes out鈥 (Leviticus 22:4). Rather, it must be teaching that a woman who engages in intercourse is rendered impure by the man鈥檚 semen, despite the fact that the semen did not touch her on the outside of her body.

讜讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗诇讗 砖讙讝专转 讛讻转讜讘 讛讬讗

The baraita continues: This is a novelty because the semen is a source of impurity located in a concealed part of the body, and ordinarily contact with a source of impurity by a concealed part of the body does not render one impure. But here it is a Torah edict that the woman does become impure in this manner. Evidently, an impure substance in the vagina is considered located in a concealed part of the body.

讜讗讘讬讬 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 讚讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讜注讛 讛讬讗 讜注讜讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗诇讗 砖讙讝专转 讛讻转讜讘 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And Abaye, how does he respond to Rava鈥檚 proof? The Gemara answers that Abaye would explain that the tanna of this baraita, Rabbi Shimon, states one reason and adds another: One reason that this halakha is a novelty is that semen in the vagina is an encapsulated substance of impurity, and another reason is that even if you were to say that the semen is considered located in a concealed part of the body, which ordinarily does not render one impure, but here, it is a Torah edict that the woman does become impure in this manner.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪拽讜诐 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讘诇讜注 讛讜讬 讗讜 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讜讬

搂 A similar dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the place in a person鈥檚 throat where an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird renders him ritually impure, how is it defined? Is the meat of the carcass considered encapsulated, or is it considered located in a concealed part of the body?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖转讞讘 诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 讻讝讬转 谞讘诇讛 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘诇讜注 讛讜讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讜注讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗 (讗诇讗 讗讬) 讗诪专转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讜讬 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚讘诪讙注 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诪讬讛讗 诪讟诪讗

The Gemara explains: What is the practical difference? The difference is in a case where another individual inserted an olive-bulk of an animal carcass into his mouth. If you say that an impure item located in one鈥檚 throat is considered encapsulated, an encapsulated source of impurity does not impart impurity. But if you say that it is considered located in a concealed part of the body, although the one swallowing the meat of the carcass indeed does not become impure by contact, he at least becomes impure by carrying the meat.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘诇讜注 讛讜讬 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讜讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讟诪讗讛 讘讛

Abaye and Rava disagree with regard to this issue as well. Abaye said: It is considered encapsulated, and Rava said: It is considered located in a concealed part of the body. Abaye further said: From where do I say that it is considered encapsulated? As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that an animal carcass should impart impurity to garments when it is in one鈥檚 throat, like an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat which dies of itself, or is torn of animals, he shall not eat to render himself impure through it鈥 (Leviticus 22:8).

诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 讗讻讬诇转讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讟诪讗讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讗讻诇谞讛

The baraita continues: This verse, which is dealing with impurity through eating, applies to that which has impurity only by means of its consumption, i.e., an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, which imparts impurity solely when it is in one鈥檚 throat. Therefore, the verse excludes this animal carcass from impurity by consumption, as it is impure, i.e., it imparts impurity, even before one eats it, by touch and carrying. This ruling, that other sources of impurity do not impart impurity in the throat, supports Abaye鈥檚 opinion that an item located in the throat is considered encapsulated, which is why it does not impart impurity.

讜转讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讜诪讛 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讜抓 讬砖 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讝讜 砖讬砖 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讜抓 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘驻谞讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the baraita: And let it be derived that an animal carcass imparts impurity to garments when it is in one鈥檚 throat by an a fortiori inference from the halakha of an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, in the following manner: If an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, whose status is relatively lenient, as it does not have impurity outside the body, since if one touched it or carried it he is not rendered impure, and yet it has impurity inside the throat, then with regard to this animal carcass, whose status is more stringent, as it does have impurity outside the body, is it not right that it should have impurity inside the throat?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讛 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讗讞专转

The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淭hat which dies of itself, or is torn of animals, he shall not eat to become impure through it,鈥 which indicates that one becomes impure when the item is in the throat only through it, i.e., an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, and not through another, i.e., an animal carcass.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讗讻诇

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states with regard to an animal carcass: 鈥淎nd he who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:40), which indicates that an animal carcass does impart impurity by means of consumption?

诇讬转谉 砖讬注讜专 诇谞讜讙注 讜诇谞讜砖讗 讻讗讜讻诇 诪讛 讗讜讻诇 讘讻讝讬转 讗祝 谞讜讙注 讜谞讜砖讗 讘讻讝讬转

The Gemara explains that this verse is written to provide a measure for the impurity of an animal carcass, but this measure applies only to one who touches and to one who carries it, not to one who eats the carcass. This measure is like the amount that one eats. Just as the minimum amount that one eats is an olive-bulk, i.e., this is the minimum measure that has the halakhic status of consumption, so too, the minimum measure of an animal carcass that imparts impurity to one who touches or carries it is an olive-bulk.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖专抓 讘拽讜诪讟讜 讟讛讜专 谞讘诇讛 讘拽讜诪讟讜 讟诪讗

搂 The Gemara further discusses the impurity of a concealed part of the body. Rava says: If the carcass of a creeping animal is found in the folds [bekometo] of one鈥檚 body, e.g., the armpit, he is ritually pure. If the flesh of an animal carcass is found in the folds of one鈥檚 body, he is impure.

砖专抓 讘拽讜诪讟讜 讟讛讜专 砖专抓 讘谞讙讬注讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讟诪讗 讜讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 诇讗讜 讘专 诪讙注 讛讜讗 谞讘诇讛 讘拽讜诪讟讜 讟诪讗 谞讛讬 讚讘诪讙注 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诪讬讛讗 诪讟诪讗

Rava elaborates: If the carcass of a creeping animal is found in the folds of one鈥檚 body he is ritually pure, as it is through contact that a creeping animal imparts impurity, and a concealed part of the body is not susceptible to impurity through contact. By contrast, if the flesh of an animal carcass is found in the folds of one鈥檚 body he is impure, as although it does not impart impurity through contact, since it is in a concealed part of the body, it at least imparts impurity by carrying, and he is considered to be carrying the animal carcass.

砖专抓 讘拽讜诪讟讜 讜讛讻谞讬住讜 诇讗讜讬专 讛转谞讜专 讟诪讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 转讜讻讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

Rava further said: If there was the carcass of a creeping animal in the folds of one鈥檚 body, and he brought the creeping animal that was in the fold into the airspace of a large earthenware vessel, such as an oven, the oven is thereby rendered impure, as is the halakha when a creeping animal is placed in its airspace. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that as the Merciful One states with regard to the impurity of creeping animals: 鈥淎nd any earthenware vessel into whose interior any of them fall, whatever is in it shall be impure, and it you shall break鈥 (Leviticus 11:33), this teaches that impurity applies only if the creeping animal fell inside the vessel itself,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 42

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗砖转讬讬专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 谞砖转讬讬专 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛

And if you would say that it is certainly possible that she released all the semen, but Rava鈥檚 concern was that perhaps some of it might have remained, if so, he should have said: We are concerned that perhaps some semen remained and will be discharged, rather than: It is impossible for her not to discharge semen throughout this period.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 谞诪讬 砖讛讟讘讬诇讜讛 讘诪讟讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪转讛驻讻转 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谞讛 诪转讛驻讻转

Rather, according to Rava too, this is referring even to a case where others immersed her while she was still in bed and she remained there for three days. And the contradiction is not difficult: Here, in the statement of Rava, he is referring to a woman who turns around in bed from side to side. It is therefore certain that she will discharge semen over the course of three days. There, in the statement of Rabbi Shimon, he is speaking of a woman lying in bed who does not turn around from side to side. Such a woman will not discharge semen at all.

讜专讘讗 讗拽专讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜专讞爪讜 讘诪讬诐 讜讟诪讗讜 注讚 讛注专讘 讘砖讗讬谞讛 诪转讛驻讻转 讗讘诇 讘诪转讛驻讻转 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

And the statement of Rava is referring to a verse in the Torah, and this is what he is saying: When the Merciful One writes in the Torah, with regard to a man and woman who engaged in intercourse: 鈥淭hey shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 15:18), which indicates that when evening comes the woman鈥檚 purification is complete, it is dealing with a case where she is in bed and does not turn around from side to side. But in a case where she does turn around, she is prohibited from partaking of teruma for the entire three days following the intercourse, as it is impossible for her not to discharge semen throughout this period.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 诪讗讘讬讬 驻讜诇讟转 砖讻讘转 讝专注 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讗讜 谞讜讙注转 讛讜讬讗

Rav Shmuel bar Bisna asked Abaye: With regard to a woman who discharges semen, is her status that of one who experienced an emission of an impure substance, or is her status that of one who came into contact with an impure substance?

谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇住转讜专 讜诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讛讜 讜诇讟诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓

The practical difference between these two possibilities is threefold: Whether or not the discharge negates her counting of seven clean days at the end of the ziva period, whether or not it renders her impure by any amount, and whether or not it renders her impure while still inside her body as it would after emerging out of her body. If it is considered an emission of an impure substance, it negates her count of seven clean days, and it renders her impure even in the slightest amount, and it renders her impure even before it emerges from her body. If it renders her impure because she came into contact with it, it does not negate her count, it renders her impure only if a certain minimum amount emerges, and it renders her impure only after touching the outside of her body.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞讜讙注转 讛讜讬讗

Before addressing the dilemma, the Gemara raises a difficulty with Rav Shmuel bar Bisna鈥檚 question itself: Whichever way you look at it, the question is problematic. If he had heard the baraita cited above, the answer is obvious: According to the Rabbis, her status is that of one who experienced an emission of an impure substance, as the baraita clearly states that in the Rabbis鈥 opinion the woman is rendered impure even before the semen emerges from her body. And according to Rabbi Shimon, her status is that of one who came into contact with the impure substance, as Rabbi Shimon states that the woman is impure only when the semen emerges from her body.

讜讗讬 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪住转讘专讗 谞讜讙注转 讛讜讬讗

And if Rav Shmuel bar Bisna did not hear the baraita and was unaware of it, it is certainly more reasonable to assume that her status should be that of one who came into contact with the semen. Why would he think otherwise, as after all, the emitted substance did not originate in her body?

诇注讜诇诐 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav Shmuel bar Bisna had heard the baraita, and he did not raise the dilemma according to the opinion of the Rabbis. According to their opinion it is clear that the woman has the status of one who experienced an emission of an impure bodily substance. Rather, when he raises the dilemma, it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讜诇讟诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇住转讜专 讜诇讟诪讗 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讬

And he does not raise the dilemma with regard to the question of whether or not the semen renders her impure when it is inside the body as it would after emerging outside the body, as Rabbi Shimon states explicitly that the woman is impure only when the semen leaves her body. Rather, when he raises the dilemma, it is only with regard to the other two issues mentioned above: Whether or not the discharge negates her counting of seven clean days at the end of the ziva period, and whether or not it renders her impure in any amount. He therefore asked: What is the status of her discharge of semen with respect to these two matters?

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讬讛 讻讘讜注诇讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讟诪讜讬讬 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗讘诇 诇住转讜专 讜诇讟诪讗 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: It is possible that when Rabbi Shimon says: It is sufficient for her to be like the man who engaged in intercourse with her, this statement applies only with regard to the question of whether or not the semen renders her impure when it is inside the body as it would after emerging outside the body. It does not render her impure unless it touches her body on the outside. But with regard to the question of whether or not the discharge negates her counting of seven clean days at the end of the ziva period and whether or not it renders her impure in any amount, perhaps she is considered impure as one who experienced an emission of an impure substance. Or perhaps there is no difference. Rather, with regard to all three issues she has the status of one who came into contact with an impure substance.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讗 讜讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讚讗讞诪讬专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讘注诇讬 拽专讬讬谉 讘住讬谞讬 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗

There are those who say a different explanation of Rav Shmuel bar Bisna鈥檚 dilemma: Actually, he did not hear the baraita and was unaware of it. And as for the question of why he would think that the woman should have the status of one who experienced an emission of an impure bodily substance, this was his dilemma: Since the Merciful One was stringent before the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai with regard to men who had experienced a seminal emission, in that they were prohibited from attending that event, as it is stated: 鈥淏e ready on the third day; do not come near a woman鈥 (Exodus 19:15), whereas those who had come into contact with other impure items were not prohibited from attending, perhaps the stringency of this particular source of impurity should likewise be applied to a woman who discharges semen. If so, her status should be like one who experienced a seminal emission, rather than one who merely came into contact with semen.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪住讬谞讬 讚讞讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 讝讘讬谉 讜诪爪讜专注讬诐 讚讞诪讬专讬 讜诇讗 讗讞诪讬专 讘讛讜 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara explains the other side of the dilemma: Or perhaps we should not derive any halakhot from the instructions given before the revelation at Sinai, as that was a novelty. The Gemara cites a proof for this claim: As that was the case with regard to zavin and lepers, whose impurity is even more stringent than that of one who experiences a seminal emission, but nevertheless the Merciful One was not stringent with regard to them, as He permitted them to attend the ceremony of the giving of the Torah.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讗转讗 砖讬讬诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讛讚专 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讻讜 讘专讜拽讗 讞讚讗 转驻讬转讜

After clarifying Rav Shmuel bar Bisna鈥檚 dilemma, the Gemara cites Abaye鈥檚 answer to him. Abaye said to him: The woman鈥檚 status is that of one who experienced an emission of semen. Rav Shmuel bar Bisna came and asked Rava the same question, and he too said to him: The woman鈥檚 status is that of one who experienced an emission. He came before Rav Yosef, and he too said to him: Her status is that of one who experienced an emission. Rav Shmuel bar Bisna came back to Abaye and said to him: You are all spewing the same saliva. None of you are teaching anything new, as you all repeat the same unsatisfactory answer.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讗诪专讬 诇讱 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讬讛 讻讘讜注诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讟诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗讘诇 诇住转讜专 讜诇讟诪讗 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讜讗讛 讛讜讬讗

Abaye said to him: I said well to you, i.e., my response was correct. Rabbi Shimon says that it is sufficient for the woman to be like the man who engaged in intercourse with her only with regard to the question of whether or not the semen renders her impure while still inside her body as it would after emerging out of her body. Rabbi Shimon rules that it does not render her impure until it touches her on the outside. But with regard to the other two issues, i.e., negating the woman鈥檚 count of seven clean days at the end of a ziva period and rendering her impure in any amount, Rabbi Shimon maintains that the woman鈥檚 status is that of one who experienced an emission. Therefore, the discharge negates her count and renders her impure by any amount.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讚讛 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讜诇讚转 讻讜诇谉 诪讟诪讗讜转 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss types of ritual impurity that apply whether the impure substance is still inside the body or has been discharged from it. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a menstruating woman, a zava, a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge, and a woman after childbirth, they all become impure while the blood is still inside their bodies just as they would be when the blood emerges outside their bodies.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讞讬讬 讗诇讗 讬讜诇讚转 讗讬 讘讬诪讬 谞讚讛 谞讚讛 讗讬 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘讛 讝讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to all those other cases, it is well, i.e., one can understand this ruling with regard to blood that has not left the body. But the halakha of a woman after childbirth is puzzling, since if this is referring to blood that she discharges in her days of menstruation, then she is a menstruating woman, and she is included in the earlier category. Likewise, if the baraita is referring to blood that she discharges in her days of ziva, she has the status of ziva, and once again is included in a previously mentioned category.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讬专讚讛 诇讟讘讜诇 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诇讟讛专讛

The Gemara answers: No, the mention of a woman after childbirth is necessary only in a case where the days of ritual impurity after childbirth, which are seven for a male and fourteen for a female, have passed, and the woman descended to immerse in a ritual bath in order to emerge from her status of impurity to purity.

讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜诇讚转 砖讬专讚讛 诇讟讘讜诇 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诇讟讛专讛 讜谞注拽专 诪诪谞讛 讚诐 讘讬专讬讚讛 讟诪讗讛 讘注诇讬讬讛 讟讛讜专讛

And the halakha here is like that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: In the case of a woman after childbirth who descended to immerse in a ritual bath in order to emerge from her status of impurity to purity, and blood was uprooted from her uterus but it did not leave her body, her status is as follows: If this occurred on her descent to the ritual bath, she remains impure, as the immersion is ineffective. If it happened on her ascent from the bath, she is pure, as her period of purity, which is thirty-three days for a male and sixty-six for a female, has commenced.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘讬专讬讚讛 讗诪讗讬 讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讜注讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖讬讬诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讚讗住讘专讬转 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讻专讻讬砖 诇讬 讘专讬砖讬讛 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira, with regard to this halakha: If the blood emerged on her descent to immerse, why is she impure? After all, the blood is a substance of impurity that is encapsulated inside a body, and there is a halakha that an encapsulated source of impurity does not impart impurity to other items (see 岣llin 71a). Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Go and ask Rabbi Avin, as I explained to him the reason for this halakha, and he nodded [vekharkish] his head to me in the study hall, in affirmation of my explanation.

讗讝诇 砖讬讬诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注砖讗讜讛 讻谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 诪讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya indeed went and asked Rabbi Avin the reason, and Rabbi Avin said to Rabbi Yirmeya: The Sages rendered this blood like the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, which imparts impurity even to the garments of the one who eats it, when there is an olive-bulk of it in his throat, despite the fact that this source of impurity is encapsulated in his body. Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Avin: Are these cases comparable? How can one compare the impurity of a woman after childbirth to the impurity of one who eats the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird?

讛转诐 讗讬谉 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讜抓 讛讻讗 讻讬 谞驻讬拽 诇讘专讗讬 诇讬讟诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖讬爪讗 诇讞讜抓

Rabbi Yirmeya elaborates: There, with regard to the impurity contracted by swallowing an unslaughtered bird carcass, this unusual type of impurity does not have an equivalent form of impurity outside, since if one merely touches an unslaughtered bird carcass, he and his garments remain pure. By contrast, here, with regard to the blood of a woman after childbirth, let it become impure only when it emerges outside her body, like all other items that impart impurity by contact once they are no longer encapsulated. Rather, due to this difficulty one must explain that here too, Rabbi Zeira is referring to a case where the blood emerged outside her body after her immersion; otherwise she remains pure.

讗讬 讬爪讗 诇讞讜抓 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讙讜 讚诪讛谞讬 讟讘讬诇讛 诇讚诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讜讗讬 转讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讛讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If the reason that the woman is pure is that the blood emerged outside her body, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? Certainly, this blood renders the woman impure upon contact. The Gemara answers that this ruling is necessary, lest you say: Since the woman鈥檚 immersion is effective for any blood that is inside her, i.e., it prevents that blood from rendering her impure, let it also be effective for this blood, which did not leave her body until after the immersion. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira teaches us that this is not the halakha.

砖诪注转讬谉 讗讬驻专讬拽 讗诇讗 讬讜诇讚转 讗讬 讘讬诪讬 谞讚讛 谞讚讛 讗讬 讘讬诪讬 讝讬讘讛 讝讬讘讛

The Gemara objects: We have resolved our halakha, the statement of Rabbi Zeira, but the difficulty remains with regard to the case of a woman after childbirth. In light of the explanation of Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 opinion, the baraita cited at the beginning of the discussion, which states that a woman after childbirth becomes impure by blood that is still inside her body, cannot be interpreted in accordance with his opinion, as Rabbi Zeira maintains that the blood does not render her impure unless it emerges outside her body. Accordingly, the original difficulty remains: If the baraita is referring to blood that she discharges in her days of menstruation, then she is a menstruating woman, and if the baraita is referring to her days of ziva, it has the status of ziva, both are which are already listed in the baraita.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诇讬讚讛 讬讘砖转讗 诇讬讚讛 讬讘砖转讗 诪讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讘讞讜抓 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara explains: Here we are dealing with a dry birth, without the emission of blood, and the baraita is teaching that the woman is rendered impure despite the fact that no blood emerged. The Gemara asks: If the baraita is referring to a dry birth, what blood is there that becomes impure while still inside the woman鈥檚 body just as it would when emerging outside her body? There is no blood at all in the case of a dry birth.

讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜爪讬讗 讜诇讚 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇驻专讜讝讚讜专 讜讻讚专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讛讜诇讚 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇驻专讜讝讚讜专

The Gemara answers that this clause is not referring to blood; rather, this is a situation where the offspring put his head out of the corridor, in which case it is considered born and renders its mother impure, despite the fact that the rest of its body has not emerged. And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Oshaya, as Rav Oshaya said: If a midwife inserted her hand into the womb of a woman whose fetus is dead, she is rendered impure due to contact with a corpse. This is a rabbinic decree lest the midwife touch it after the offspring puts his head out of the corridor and it dies afterward, in which case the fetus is considered born and therefore she would be ritually impure by Torah law.

讜讻讬 讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇诪诪讛诇 讘砖讘转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讘转专 讚谞驻拽 讗诪专 专讘讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诇讗 讬讚注 讚砖专讬 诇诪诪讛诇 讘砖讘转讗 讗讝诇 讘转专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讗讬讝讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛

The Gemara adds: And this is similar to an incident involving a certain man who came before Rava and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to whether one may circumcise on Shabbat? Rava said to him: One may well do so. After that man left, Rava said to himself, perplexed: Can it enter your mind that that man did not know that it is permitted to circumcise on Shabbat, and he approached me to inquire about such a basic matter? There must be an unstated aspect to his question. Rava therefore went after him and said to him: Say to me, my friend [izi], how did the incident itself happen?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪注讬转 讜诇讚 讚爪讜讬抓 讗驻谞讬讗 讚诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讜诇讗 讗转讬诇讬讚 注讚 砖讘转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讛讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇驻专讜讝讚讜专 讛讜讗 讜讛讜讬 诪讬诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讜讻诇 诪讬诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

The man said to Rava: I heard the child making a noise at nightfall on Shabbat eve, before Shabbat began, but it was not born until Shabbat. Rava said to him: This is a baby who put his head out of the corridor, as otherwise his voice would not have been heard. Consequently, it is considered born already on Friday, which means that it should be circumcised on the following Friday, the eighth day after its birth. And if it is circumcised afterward, this is a circumcision performed not at its appointed time, and there is a halakha that although circumcision on the eighth day overrides Shabbat, nevertheless, with regard to any circumcision performed not at its appointed time, one does not desecrate Shabbat for its performance.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 砖诇 讗砖讛 讘诇讜注 讛讜讬 讗讜 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讜讬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to that place in a woman, i.e., her vagina, how is it defined? Is an impure substance located there considered encapsulated, or is it considered to be located in a concealed part of the body?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖转讞讘讛 诇讛 讞讘讬专转讛 讻讝讬转 谞讘诇讛 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘诇讜注 讛讜讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讜注讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讜讬 谞讛讬 讚讘诪讙注 诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗 讘诪砖讗 诪讬讛讗 诪讟诪讬讗

The Gemara explains: What is the practical difference as to whether it is considered encapsulated or concealed? The difference is in a case where another woman inserted an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, which is the size that imparts impurity, into that place. If you say that it is considered encapsulated, an encapsulated source of impurity does not impart impurity. But if you say that it is considered located in a concealed part of the body, although the woman does not become impure by contact, she at least becomes impure by carrying the olive-bulk of the carcass.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘诇讜注 讛讜讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 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

Abaye said: It is considered encapsulated. Rava said: It is considered located in a concealed part of the body. Rava further said: From where do I say this? As it is taught 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: Now what does this verse teach? If it teaches that one who touches semen is rendered impure, this is derived from the verse: 鈥淥r a man from whom the flow of seed goes out鈥 (Leviticus 22:4). Rather, it must be teaching that a woman who engages in intercourse is rendered impure by the man鈥檚 semen, despite the fact that the semen did not touch her on the outside of her body.

讜讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗诇讗 砖讙讝专转 讛讻转讜讘 讛讬讗

The baraita continues: This is a novelty because the semen is a source of impurity located in a concealed part of the body, and ordinarily contact with a source of impurity by a concealed part of the body does not render one impure. But here it is a Torah edict that the woman does become impure in this manner. Evidently, an impure substance in the vagina is considered located in a concealed part of the body.

讜讗讘讬讬 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 讚讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讜注讛 讛讬讗 讜注讜讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗诇讗 砖讙讝专转 讛讻转讜讘 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And Abaye, how does he respond to Rava鈥檚 proof? The Gemara answers that Abaye would explain that the tanna of this baraita, Rabbi Shimon, states one reason and adds another: One reason that this halakha is a novelty is that semen in the vagina is an encapsulated substance of impurity, and another reason is that even if you were to say that the semen is considered located in a concealed part of the body, which ordinarily does not render one impure, but here, it is a Torah edict that the woman does become impure in this manner.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪拽讜诐 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讘诇讜注 讛讜讬 讗讜 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讜讬

搂 A similar dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the place in a person鈥檚 throat where an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird renders him ritually impure, how is it defined? Is the meat of the carcass considered encapsulated, or is it considered located in a concealed part of the body?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖转讞讘 诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 讻讝讬转 谞讘诇讛 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘诇讜注 讛讜讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讜注讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗 (讗诇讗 讗讬) 讗诪专转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讜讬 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚讘诪讙注 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诪讬讛讗 诪讟诪讗

The Gemara explains: What is the practical difference? The difference is in a case where another individual inserted an olive-bulk of an animal carcass into his mouth. If you say that an impure item located in one鈥檚 throat is considered encapsulated, an encapsulated source of impurity does not impart impurity. But if you say that it is considered located in a concealed part of the body, although the one swallowing the meat of the carcass indeed does not become impure by contact, he at least becomes impure by carrying the meat.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘诇讜注 讛讜讬 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讜讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讟诪讗讛 讘讛

Abaye and Rava disagree with regard to this issue as well. Abaye said: It is considered encapsulated, and Rava said: It is considered located in a concealed part of the body. Abaye further said: From where do I say that it is considered encapsulated? As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that an animal carcass should impart impurity to garments when it is in one鈥檚 throat, like an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat which dies of itself, or is torn of animals, he shall not eat to render himself impure through it鈥 (Leviticus 22:8).

诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 讗讻讬诇转讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讟诪讗讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讗讻诇谞讛

The baraita continues: This verse, which is dealing with impurity through eating, applies to that which has impurity only by means of its consumption, i.e., an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, which imparts impurity solely when it is in one鈥檚 throat. Therefore, the verse excludes this animal carcass from impurity by consumption, as it is impure, i.e., it imparts impurity, even before one eats it, by touch and carrying. This ruling, that other sources of impurity do not impart impurity in the throat, supports Abaye鈥檚 opinion that an item located in the throat is considered encapsulated, which is why it does not impart impurity.

讜转讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 讜诪讛 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讜抓 讬砖 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讝讜 砖讬砖 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讞讜抓 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬砖 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘驻谞讬诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the baraita: And let it be derived that an animal carcass imparts impurity to garments when it is in one鈥檚 throat by an a fortiori inference from the halakha of an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, in the following manner: If an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, whose status is relatively lenient, as it does not have impurity outside the body, since if one touched it or carried it he is not rendered impure, and yet it has impurity inside the throat, then with regard to this animal carcass, whose status is more stringent, as it does have impurity outside the body, is it not right that it should have impurity inside the throat?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讛 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讗讞专转

The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淭hat which dies of itself, or is torn of animals, he shall not eat to become impure through it,鈥 which indicates that one becomes impure when the item is in the throat only through it, i.e., an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, and not through another, i.e., an animal carcass.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讗讻诇

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states with regard to an animal carcass: 鈥淎nd he who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:40), which indicates that an animal carcass does impart impurity by means of consumption?

诇讬转谉 砖讬注讜专 诇谞讜讙注 讜诇谞讜砖讗 讻讗讜讻诇 诪讛 讗讜讻诇 讘讻讝讬转 讗祝 谞讜讙注 讜谞讜砖讗 讘讻讝讬转

The Gemara explains that this verse is written to provide a measure for the impurity of an animal carcass, but this measure applies only to one who touches and to one who carries it, not to one who eats the carcass. This measure is like the amount that one eats. Just as the minimum amount that one eats is an olive-bulk, i.e., this is the minimum measure that has the halakhic status of consumption, so too, the minimum measure of an animal carcass that imparts impurity to one who touches or carries it is an olive-bulk.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖专抓 讘拽讜诪讟讜 讟讛讜专 谞讘诇讛 讘拽讜诪讟讜 讟诪讗

搂 The Gemara further discusses the impurity of a concealed part of the body. Rava says: If the carcass of a creeping animal is found in the folds [bekometo] of one鈥檚 body, e.g., the armpit, he is ritually pure. If the flesh of an animal carcass is found in the folds of one鈥檚 body, he is impure.

砖专抓 讘拽讜诪讟讜 讟讛讜专 砖专抓 讘谞讙讬注讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讟诪讗 讜讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 诇讗讜 讘专 诪讙注 讛讜讗 谞讘诇讛 讘拽讜诪讟讜 讟诪讗 谞讛讬 讚讘诪讙注 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 诪讬讛讗 诪讟诪讗

Rava elaborates: If the carcass of a creeping animal is found in the folds of one鈥檚 body he is ritually pure, as it is through contact that a creeping animal imparts impurity, and a concealed part of the body is not susceptible to impurity through contact. By contrast, if the flesh of an animal carcass is found in the folds of one鈥檚 body he is impure, as although it does not impart impurity through contact, since it is in a concealed part of the body, it at least imparts impurity by carrying, and he is considered to be carrying the animal carcass.

砖专抓 讘拽讜诪讟讜 讜讛讻谞讬住讜 诇讗讜讬专 讛转谞讜专 讟诪讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 转讜讻讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

Rava further said: If there was the carcass of a creeping animal in the folds of one鈥檚 body, and he brought the creeping animal that was in the fold into the airspace of a large earthenware vessel, such as an oven, the oven is thereby rendered impure, as is the halakha when a creeping animal is placed in its airspace. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that as the Merciful One states with regard to the impurity of creeping animals: 鈥淎nd any earthenware vessel into whose interior any of them fall, whatever is in it shall be impure, and it you shall break鈥 (Leviticus 11:33), this teaches that impurity applies only if the creeping animal fell inside the vessel itself,

Scroll To Top