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

Daf Yomi

December 5, 2019 | 讝壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

Niddah 43

From where do we derive that a zav and one who has a seminal emission are impure only after it leaves their body? How does the mishna recommend to someone eating truma who feels an emission coming on that he should hold his penis to prevent the semen from coming out before he swallows his food – isn’t it forbidden to hold one’s聽penis as it may cause an ejaculation? Do we consider the moment when the semen is ready to come out significant halachically? Rava brings a few examples where there could be halachic ramifications. Does semen cause one to be impure even if only a tiny amount comes out? Is there a different in the requisite amount for impurifying a person when it comes out of his body and for a person who comes in contact with the semen directly?


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

讜诇讗 转讜讱 转讜讻讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


and not if it was in the interior of its interior, i.e., contained within something else, such as a fold, which is inside the vessel, therefore Rava teaches us that a fold in one鈥檚 body is not considered like the interior of the interior of a vessel. Rather, this definition applies only when the carcass of the creeping animal was actually inside another vessel whose opening was outside the oven.


讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽谞讛 讘拽讜诪讟讜 砖诇 讝讘 讜讛住讬讟 讘讜 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讟讛讜专 拽谞讛 讘拽讜诪讟讜 砖诇 讟讛讜专 讜讛住讬讟 讘讜 讗转 讛讝讘 讟诪讗


搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the folds in the body with regard to ritual impurity. Reish Lakish says: If there was a pole or a stick placed in the folds of an individual impure with the impurity of a zav, and he moved a ritually pure person with it, that individual is pure, despite the fact that a zav imparts impurity by moving an item. If the pole was placed in the folds of one who is pure, and he moved the zav with it, the pure individual is thereby rendered impure, as is the halakha of one who carries a zav.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讜 讛讝讘 讜讬讚讬讜 诇讗 砖讟祝 讘诪讬诐 讝讛讜 讛住讬讟讜 砖诇 讝讘 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛


The Gemara explains: What is the reason that if a zav moved another with a pole in his own folds he does not render the other person impure? As the verse states: 鈥淎nd whoever a zav touches, without having rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water鈥 (Leviticus 15:11). This is referring to the impurity imparted by the movement of a zav, as we have not found an impurity similar to it in the entire Torah. Only a zav imparts impurity to items by moving them.


讜讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 谞讙讬注讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讛讬住讟 讜谞讙讬注讛 讻讬讚讬讜 诪讛 讛转诐 诪讗讘专讗讬 讗祝 讛讻讗 诪讗讘专讗讬


And the Merciful One expresses this impurity imparted by movement using the language of touch, in order to say that the moving and touch of a zav are like his hands: Just as there, with regard to the impurity imparted by contact with the hands, it occurs external to the body, so too here, impurity by means of movement applies only to moving an item with the external portions of the body of the zav.


讗讘诇 讛讝讘 讜讘注诇 拽专讬 讗讬谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讝讘 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讝讘 诪讘砖专讜 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讝讜讘讜 诪讘砖专讜 讘注诇 拽专讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 转爪讗 诪诪谞讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注


搂 The mishna teaches that a woman becomes ritually impure with the flow of blood from the uterus into the vagina, even if it did not leave the woman鈥檚 body. But the zav and one who experiences a seminal emission do not become ritually impure until their emission of impurity emerges outside the body. The Gemara explains: This is the halakha with regard to a zav, as it is written: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). The verse teaches that a zav is not impure until his issue emerges out of his flesh. With regard to one who experiences a seminal emission, the reason is that it is written: 鈥淎nd if the flow of seed goes out from a man鈥 (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that the flow must exit his body.


讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讛专讙讬砖 讜讻讜壮 讗讜讞讝 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讗讜讞讝 讘讗诪讛 讜诪砖转讬谉 讻讗讬诇讜 诪讘讬讗 诪讘讜诇 诇注讜诇诐


搂 The mishna further states that if a priest was partaking of teruma and sensed a quaking in his limbs, indicating that a seminal emission was imminent, he should firmly hold his penis to prevent the emission from leaving his body, and swallow the teruma while ritually pure. The Gemara asks: May one hold his penis? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who holds his penis and urinates is considered as though he is bringing a deluge to the world, as masturbation was one of the sins that led to the flood?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讟诇讬转 注讘讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘诪讟诇讬转 专讻讛 讻讬讜谉 讚注拽专 注拽专 讜讗讘讬讬 讞讬讬砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 讜专讘讗 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖


Abaye said, in resolution of this difficulty, that the mishna is referring to one who holds his penis with a coarse cloth. Rava said: You may even say that the mishna is referring to a priest who holds his penis with a soft cloth, and the reason it is permitted is that once the semen has already been uprooted from his body, it is uprooted, and his subsequent holding of the penis, even with a soft cloth, does not increase the flow of semen. And Abaye prohibits the use of a soft cloth, as he is concerned that perhaps one might come to increase the emission of semen, due to the contact of this cloth. But Rava is not concerned that one might come to increase the emission.


讜讛转谞讬讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 砖讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 诪讚诪注转 讜讞讜讝专转 讜诪讚诪注转


The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rava. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: To what is this holding of a penis comparable? It is comparable to one who places a finger in his eye, in that as long as the finger is in the eye, the eye will tear and continue to tear. Here too, the priest鈥檚 action will lead to an increased emission of semen.


讜专讘讗 讻诇 讗讞诪讜诪讬 讜讛讚专 讗讞诪讜诪讬 讘砖注转讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞


The Gemara answers that Rava would maintain that if the priest鈥檚 limbs were not quaking and the semen was coming out in drops, there is indeed a concern that holding the penis might increase the emission. But when he feels his limbs quaking, this concern does not apply. The reason is that any such event, i.e., a heating of the body that leads to a seminal emission and which is then followed by another heating of that kind at the time when the semen has been uprooted, is uncommon. Consequently, in this case the priest may hold his penis even with a soft cloth.


讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖讗讬谉 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 诪专讙讬砖 讘讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讝专讬注


Shmuel says: Any emission of semen that is not felt by one鈥檚 entire body does not render him impure. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: 鈥淭he flow of seed鈥 (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that it is referring to an emission that is fit to fertilize, i.e., it is referring only to the kind of emission which is felt as it exits the body.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 诪讛专讛专 讘诇讬诇讛 讜注诪讚 讜诪爪讗 讘砖专讜 讞诐 讟诪讗 转专讙诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘诪砖诪砖 诪讟转讜 讘讞诇讜诪讜 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇砖诪砖 讘诇讗 讛专讙砖讛


The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Mikvaot 8:3): If one was having sexual thoughts at night and he arose and found that his flesh was warm, he is ritually impure, despite the fact that he did not sense the emission of semen. This shows that the impurity of a seminal emission applies even if one did not feel it in his entire body. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna interpreted this mishna as referring to one who engaged in intercourse in his dream. Since it is impossible to engage in intercourse without the accompanying sensation, he certainly must have felt it, despite the fact that he was unaware of this when he awoke.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜专讛 讻讞抓 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 诇讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞注拽专讛 讘讛专讙砖讛 讜讬爪讗讛 砖诇讗 讘讛专讙砖讛


The Gemara cites another version of the above statement. Shmuel says: Any semen that is not shot like an arrow does not render one impure. The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between this version of Shmuel鈥檚 ruling and that version of Shmuel鈥檚 ruling? The Gemara answers that the difference between them is a case where the semen was uprooted accompanied by a sensation, but it emerged without a sensation. According to the first version the man is rendered impure, as he sensed the uprooting of the semen, whereas according to the second version he is not impure, as this is not considered semen shot like an arrow.


诪讬诇转讗 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讗 谞注拽专讛 讘讛专讙砖讛 讜讬爪转讛 砖诇讗 讘讛专讙砖讛 诪讛讜


The Gemara notes that this matter, which is obvious to Shmuel, is raised as a dilemma by Rava. As Rava raises a dilemma: If semen was uprooted accompanied by a sensation but it emerged without a sensation, what is the halakha? Is the man ritually impure or not?


转讗 砖诪注 讘注诇 拽专讬 砖讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讟讬诇 诪讬诐 诇讻砖讬讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讟诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚专讜讘讛 讘讛专讙砖讛 谞驻拽


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Mikvaot 8:3): With regard to one who experienced a seminal emission, and who subsequently immersed but did not urinate before doing so, when he later urinates he is rendered impure, as some semen will also be emitted. The reason that he is rendered impure by this emission, which he does not sense, must be because the uprooting of the semen was accompanied by a sensation. The Gemara refutes this proof: There it is different, as the majority of the semen emerged accompanied by a sensation, and therefore he is rendered impure by this small amount even without a sensation.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜专讛 讻讞抓 讗讬谞讛 诪讝专注转 讗讝专讜注讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讝专注讗 讛讗 讟诪讜讬讬 诪讟诪讬讗 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讱 讗讬砖 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪拽专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讬 讘注讜诇诐


Some say another version of the previous discussion. Shmuel says: Any semen that is not shot like an arrow cannot fertilize, i.e., impregnate a woman. The Gemara infers: It cannot fertilize, but it does render the man who emits it ritually impure, as it is stated: 鈥淚f there be among you any man who is not ritually pure by reason of that which happened to him by night鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:11). This teaches that even mere semen which cannot fertilize renders one impure.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讙讜讬 砖讛专讛专 讜讬专讚 讜讟讘诇 诪讛讜


Rava raises a similar dilemma: With regard to a gentile who had sexual thoughts, on account of which semen was uprooted but not emitted from his body, and he subsequently descended and immersed for the purpose of conversion, which means that he is now Jewish, and he then emitted semen, what is the halakha with regard to his status of ritual purity?


讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讘转专 注拽讬专讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜


The Gemara explains the dilemma: Even if you say that we follow the moment of uprooting, at which point he was still a gentile, one can maintain that this statement applies only when it entails a stringency, as is the case with regard to a born Jew. But here, where this would lead to a leniency, as the gentile would be ritually pure, perhaps we do not say that one follows the moment of uprooting. Or perhaps there is no difference in the application of this principle between a born Jew and a convert, but rather, one always follows the moment of uprooting. The Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讝讘讛 砖谞注拽专讜 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讛 讜讬专讚讛 讜讟讘诇讛 诪讛讜


Rava raises a further dilemma: With regard to a woman who experienced a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava], whose urine, which imparts impurity like all liquids that she discharges vaginally, was uprooted but not emitted from her body, and she descended to the ritual bath and immersed to purify herself from her ziva, and urinated afterward, what is the halakha?


讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讘转专 注拽讬专讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 谞拽讬讟 诇讛 讗讘诇 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讛 讚诪爪讬 谞拽讬讟 诇讛 诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜


The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Even if you say that generally we follow the moment of uprooting, and therefore she should be impure, since the urine was uprooted when she was a zava, nevertheless one can claim that this statement applies only with regard to semen, as the man cannot hold it back from emission. But with regard to the urine of a zava, which she can hold in, one does not follow the moment of uprooting. Or perhaps there is no difference in the application of this principle between urine and semen, but rather, in both cases one follows the moment of uprooting. Here too, the Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讙讜讬讛 讝讘讛 砖谞注拽专讜 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讛


Rava raises yet another dilemma: With regard to a gentile zava, who is not impure by Torah law, although by rabbinic law she is considered a zava in all regards, whose urine was uprooted when she was a gentile,


讜讬专讚讛 讜讟讘诇讛 诪讛讜


and she descended to the ritual bath and immersed for the sake of conversion, what is the halakha?


讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讘转专 注拽讬专讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪爪讬 谞拽讬讟 诇讛讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讚讟诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讙讜讬讛 讝讘讛 讚讟诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜


Once again, the Gemara explains the dilemma: If you say that we follow the moment of uprooting even though she can hold in the urine, nevertheless one can claim that this statement applies specifically to a Jewish woman, who is impure by Torah law. But with regard to a gentile zava, who is impure by rabbinic law, it is possible that one does not follow the moment of uprooting. Or perhaps there is no difference in the application of this principle between the case of a Jewish woman and a gentile woman, as in both cases one follows the moment of uprooting. The Gemara again concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讜诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻诇 砖讛谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讘 爪专讬讱 讻讞转讬诪转 驻讬 讛讗诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗讜 讛讞转讬诐 讘砖专讜 诪讝讜讘讜


搂 The mishna teaches that the emission of a zav and a seminal emission impart impurity in any amount. Shmuel says: In order for a zav to become ritually impure, he must experience a discharge substantial enough to cause a blockage of the tip of the penis, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd this shall be his impurity in his issue: Whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:3).


讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻诇 砖讛谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讝讘 爪专讬讱 讻讞转讬诪转 驻讬 讛讗诪讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that the emission of a zav and a seminal emission impart impurity in any amount? The Gemara answers that Shmuel said his ruling in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: In order for a zav to become ritually impure, he must experience a discharge substantial enough to cause a blockage of the tip of the penis, but the Rabbis did not concede to his opinion, as they maintain that any amount is sufficient. The tanna of the mishna agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis, whereas Shmuel agrees with the statement of Rabbi Natan in the name of Rabbi Yishmael.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讜 讛讞转讬诐 讘砖专讜 诪讝讜讘讜


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., what is the source in the Torah for his ruling? The Gemara answers: His source is, as mentioned above, that the verse states: 鈥淎nd this shall be his impurity in his issue: Whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:3). This verse indicates that the emission must be enough to cause a blockage of his penis.


讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讞 诪讟诪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讬讘砖


The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael, what do they derive from this verse? The Gemara explains that according to the Rabbis, that verse is necessary to teach a different halakha with regard to a zav, that it is only a discharge which is moist, and which therefore could cause a blockage of the organ, that imparts impurity, but a dry discharge does not impart impurity.


讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讛讜讗 诪专专 谞驻拽讗


The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yishmael derive that only a moist discharge imparts impurity? The Gemara answers: That halakha is derived from the word 鈥渞un鈥 in the verse 鈥淎nd this shall be his impurity in his issue: Whether his flesh run with his issue.鈥


讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诇诪谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讝讜讘讜 讞讚讗 专专 讘砖专讜 转专讬 讗转 讝讜讘讜 转诇转 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讘 讘注诇 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转 砖讞讬讬讘 讘拽专讘谉


The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis derive from this word? The Gemara explains that according to the Rabbis, that verse comes to teach the number of emissions by which a zav is rendered impure, as follows: The term 鈥渉is issue鈥 is one emission, the term 鈥渉is flesh run鈥 is another emission so that there are two emissions, and the term 鈥渨ith his issue鈥 makes a total of three emissions. The verse thereby teaches with regard to a zav who experienced three emissions that he is obligated to bring an offering as part of his purification process.


讗讜 讛讞转讬诐 讘砖专讜 诪讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 诪拽爪转 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 砖诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪谞讬谞讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬


The Gemara continues: From the last section of the verse: 鈥淥r his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his impurity,鈥 it is derived that one is impure even by means of part of his issue, i.e., even if he did not experience three emissions. Here the verse teaches with regard to a zav who experienced two emissions that although he is not obligated to bring an offering, he renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure by lying or sitting on them, even without touching them directly. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yishmael, from where does he derive this halakha of the requisite number of emissions? The Gemara answers that he derives it from that which Rabbi Simai said.


讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 砖转讬诐 讜拽专讗讜 讟诪讗 砖诇砖 讜拽专讗讜 讟诪讗 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 砖转讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜砖诇砖 诇拽专讘谉


As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: The verse enumerated two emissions and called the zav impure: 鈥淲hen any man has an emission out of his flesh, due to his issue he is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). And yet, another verse enumerates three emissions and it too called him impure: 鈥淎nd this shall be his impurity in his emission: Whether his flesh runs with his emission, or his flesh be stopped from his emission, it is his impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:3). How can these verses be reconciled? If one is impure after two emissions, for what purpose does the Torah mention three? It is to teach that two emissions are necessary to establish impurity, and three are necessary to render a zav liable to bring an offering.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讝讗转 转讛讬讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘讝讜讘讜 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讝讘 诪讘砖专讜 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诪讘砖专讜


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who derives both the halakha of impurity and the obligation to bring an offering from the single verse: 鈥淎nd this shall be his impurity in his issue,鈥 what do they, i.e., the Rabbis, do with the other verse: 鈥淲hen any man has an emission out of his flesh鈥? The Gemara answers that this verse is necessary to teach the halakha that a zav is not impure unless the discharge emerges from his flesh.


讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讝讜讘 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗


The Gemara further asks: Why do I need the last part of the previous verse, which can be read as: His issue is impure (Leviticus 15:2)? The Gemara explains that this teaches with regard to the issue itself that it is impure, i.e., not only does it render the man who emitted it impure, but the substance itself is impure and imparts impurity to others by contact.


讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬诇讗讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诇专讜讗讛 讘诪砖讛讜 诇谞讜讙注 讘讻注讚砖讛 讜讛讗谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻诇 砖讛谉 转谞谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇谞讜讙注 诇讗 诇专讜讗讛


搂 With regard to the statement of the mishna that the issue of the zav and a seminal emission render them impure in any amount, Rav 岣nilai says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Semen imparts impurity to the man who emits it in any amount, whereas with regard to one who touches semen, it imparts impurity only in the amount of a lentil-bulk. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that the emission of a zav and a seminal emission impart impurity in any amount? What, is it not referring to one who touches semen? The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is referring to the man who emits it.


转讗 砖诪注 讞讜诪专 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 诪讘砖专抓 讜讞讜诪专 讘砖专抓 诪讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 讞讜诪专 讘砖专抓 砖讛砖专抓 讗讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 讞讜诪专 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖讛砖讻讘转 讝专注 诪讟诪讗 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖专抓


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: There is an element of stringency which applies to the impurity of semen that does not apply to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal, and likewise there is an element of stringency which applies to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal that does not apply to the impurity of semen. The baraita elaborates: The stringency which applies to the carcass of a creeping animal but not to semen is that with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal there is no differentiation in its impurity, which is not the case with regard to semen, as certain types of semen impart impurity while others do not. The stringency which applies to semen but not to the carcass of a creeping animal is that semen imparts impurity in any amount, which is not the case with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, which must be at least a lentil-bulk.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇谞讜讙注 诇讗 诇专讜讗讛


The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not referring to one who touches semen, and the baraita rules that he is rendered impure by any amount? The Gemara again answers: No, the baraita is speaking of the man who emits semen, whereas one who touches it becomes impure only if it is at least as large as a lentil-bulk.


讜讛讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖专抓 拽转谞讬 诪讛 砖专抓 讘谞讙讬注讛 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘谞讙讬注讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 砖讜诐 砖专抓 拽转谞讬 讜砖讜诐 砖讻讘转 讝专注 拽转谞讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: But the baraita teaches the case of semen as similar to that of the carcass of a creeping animal, which indicates that just as the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal is imparted by contact, so too, the impurity discussed in the baraita with regard to semen is imparted by contact. Rav Adda bar Ahava said in response: The baraita teaches the category of the carcass of a creeping animal, and it likewise teaches the category of semen, i.e., it is referring to these types of impurity in general, but this does not mean that these types of impurity are contracted in the same manner.


讜砖专抓 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讛讜 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛讗讘专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 砖讬注讜专 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讛诪转 讜驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讘砖专 谞讘诇讛 讜驻讞讜转 诪讻注讚砖讛 诪谉 讛砖专抓


The Gemara asks: And does the carcass of a creeping animal not impart impurity in any amount? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Oholot 1:7): The limbs of impure bodies that are whole have no minimum measure with regard to imparting ritual impurity. Even if a limb is less than an olive-bulk of a human corpse, or less than an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, or less than a lentil-bulk of the carcass of a creeping animal, it imparts ritual impurity. If so, how can the baraita state that there is a minimum measure of a lentil-bulk with regard to the impurity of a creeping animal?


砖讗谞讬 讗讘专 讚讻讜诇讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 注讚砖讛 拽讗讬 讚讛讗 讗讬诇讜 讞住专 驻讜专转讗 讗讘专 诪讬 拽诪讟诪讬讗


The Gemara answers that the halakha of a limb is different, as when all of it is intact it stands in place of a lentil-bulk, i.e., a whole limb is considered like a lentil-bulk of the carcass of a creeping animal, regardless of its actual size. The proof is that if it were lacking any slight bit, thereby causing this limb of a creeping animal to be less than a lentil-bulk, would it impart impurity? Certainly not. Clearly, then, the impurity of a limb is due to its wholeness, not its size.


砖讻讘转 讝专注 讚讞诇讜拽讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讚讙讜讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 注讻讘专 讚讬诐 讜注讻讘专 讚讬讘砖讛


The baraita teaches: The stringency that applies to the carcass of a creeping animal but not to semen is that with regard to a creeping animal there is no differentiation concerning its impurity, which is not the case with regard to semen. The Gemara asks: What is the differentiation with regard to the impurity of semen? If we say that this is referring to the difference between the semen of Jews, to which this impurity applies, and the semen of gentiles, to which it does not apply, there is also a differentiation with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal between a sea mouse, which is not impure, and a land mouse, which is impure.


讗诇讗 讘讬谉 拽讟谉 诇讙讚讜诇


Rather, the baraita is referring to the differentiation between the emission of a minor, which is not classified as semen and which does not render him impure, and that of an adult, which does render him impure. By contrast, there is no such differentiation with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal, as it imparts impurity regardless of its age and size.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻转谞讗讬 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 谞讜讙注 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讗讬砖


Rav Pappa said: The amount of semen which imparts impurity to one who touches it is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is stated in a baraita: From where is it derived that the Torah includes one who touches semen, in addition to one who emits semen, as impure? The verse states with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal: 鈥淥r whoever touches any creeping animal, whereby he may become impure鈥 (Leviticus 22:5). It is inferred from the inclusive phrase 鈥渙r whoever鈥 that one who touches semen is also impure.


讜驻诇讬讙讬 转谞讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讗


And in general, tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the possibility of deriving a halakha in this manner. As some say with regard to a halakha that is inferred from another halakha: Infer from it, and derive the details of the halakha from it as well. And some say with regard to such a halakha: Infer from it, but interpret the halakha according to its own place, i.e., not all aspects of the source case are applied to this halakha.


诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 砖专抓 讘谞讙讬注讛 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘谞讙讬注讛 讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 砖专抓 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘讻注讚砖讛


The Gemara explains how this general dispute applies to the case at hand. According to the one who says that one infers from it and again from it, the derivation is as follows: Just as the carcass of a creeping animal imparts impurity by contact, so too, semen imparts impurity by contact. And one again infers from the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal that just as the carcass of a creeping animal imparts impurity in the amount of a lentil-bulk, so too, semen imparts impurity in the amount of a lentil-bulk.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讗 诪讛 砖专抓 讘谞讙讬注讛 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘谞讙讬注讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讗 诪讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诇专讜讗讛 讘诪砖讛讜 讗祝 诇谞讜讙注 讘诪砖讛讜


And according to the one who says: Infer from it, but interpret the halakha according to its own place, one derives as follows: Just as the carcass of a creeping animal imparts impurity by contact, so too, semen imparts impurity by contact. But one must interpret the halakha according to its own place: Just as semen imparts impurity to the one who emits it in any amount, so too, it imparts impurity to the one who touches it in any amount.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚诪讗讜 讗讬砖 讚砖专抓 拽诪专讘讬 诇讬讛 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讗讜 讗讬砖 讗砖专 转爪讗 诪诪谞讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 拽诪专讘讬 诇讬讛 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛


Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: From where do you infer that the tanna of the baraita derives the impurity of one who touches semen from the phrase 鈥渙r whoever鈥 that is stated with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal? Perhaps he derives it from the previous verse: 鈥淥r from whoever the flow of seed goes out鈥 (Leviticus 22:4), and everyone agrees that when a halakha is derived from a verse dealing with the same matter, one should infer from it and derive the details of the halakha from it as well. If so, the amount of semen that imparts impurity by contact should be derived from the amount that renders the one who emitted it impure, which is any amount.


砖讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 诇转谞讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 讻专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉


The Gemara relates that the Sages asked the tanna鈥檌m, i.e., those who recite mishnayot and baraitot, whether the derivation of the baraita is from the verse dealing with the carcass of a creeping animal or from the one dealing with semen. They discovered that there are those who teach this halakha in accordance with the assumption of Rav Pappa, that it is derived from a creeping animal, and there are those who teach this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, that the source is the verse referring to semen.


诪转谞讬壮 转谞讜拽转 讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪讟诪讗讛 讘谞讚讛 讘转 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讝讬讘讛


MISHNA: A baby girl, even one who is one day old, who experiences an emission of blood, becomes impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. A baby girl who is ten days old who experiences an emission of blood for three consecutive days after the conclusion of the seven days fit for menstruation becomes impure with the impurity of ziva, and is therefore obligated to observe seven clean days before immersion.


转谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讜诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讜诪讟诪讗 讘讟诪讗 诪转 讜讝讜拽拽 诇讬讘讜诐 讜驻讜讟专 诪谉 讛讬讘讜诐 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜驻讜住诇 (讗转) [诪谉] 讛转专讜诪讛


A baby boy, even one who is one day old, becomes impure with the impurity of ziva; and becomes impure with the impurity of leprous marks; and becomes impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; and he creates a levirate bond requiring the widow of his childless brother to enter into levirate marriage with him; and he exempts his widowed mother from the obligation of levirate marriage, freeing her to marry anyone she chooses; and he enables his mother, an Israelite woman who is no longer married to his father, a priest, to continue to partake of teruma; and he disqualifies his mother, the daughter of a priest who is no longer married to his father, an Israelite man, from continuing to partake of teruma, because the child is unfit to partake of teruma;


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 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 43

讜诇讗 转讜讱 转讜讻讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


and not if it was in the interior of its interior, i.e., contained within something else, such as a fold, which is inside the vessel, therefore Rava teaches us that a fold in one鈥檚 body is not considered like the interior of the interior of a vessel. Rather, this definition applies only when the carcass of the creeping animal was actually inside another vessel whose opening was outside the oven.


讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽谞讛 讘拽讜诪讟讜 砖诇 讝讘 讜讛住讬讟 讘讜 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讟讛讜专 拽谞讛 讘拽讜诪讟讜 砖诇 讟讛讜专 讜讛住讬讟 讘讜 讗转 讛讝讘 讟诪讗


搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the folds in the body with regard to ritual impurity. Reish Lakish says: If there was a pole or a stick placed in the folds of an individual impure with the impurity of a zav, and he moved a ritually pure person with it, that individual is pure, despite the fact that a zav imparts impurity by moving an item. If the pole was placed in the folds of one who is pure, and he moved the zav with it, the pure individual is thereby rendered impure, as is the halakha of one who carries a zav.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讜 讛讝讘 讜讬讚讬讜 诇讗 砖讟祝 讘诪讬诐 讝讛讜 讛住讬讟讜 砖诇 讝讘 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛


The Gemara explains: What is the reason that if a zav moved another with a pole in his own folds he does not render the other person impure? As the verse states: 鈥淎nd whoever a zav touches, without having rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water鈥 (Leviticus 15:11). This is referring to the impurity imparted by the movement of a zav, as we have not found an impurity similar to it in the entire Torah. Only a zav imparts impurity to items by moving them.


讜讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 谞讙讬注讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讛讬住讟 讜谞讙讬注讛 讻讬讚讬讜 诪讛 讛转诐 诪讗讘专讗讬 讗祝 讛讻讗 诪讗讘专讗讬


And the Merciful One expresses this impurity imparted by movement using the language of touch, in order to say that the moving and touch of a zav are like his hands: Just as there, with regard to the impurity imparted by contact with the hands, it occurs external to the body, so too here, impurity by means of movement applies only to moving an item with the external portions of the body of the zav.


讗讘诇 讛讝讘 讜讘注诇 拽专讬 讗讬谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讝讘 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讝讘 诪讘砖专讜 注讚 砖讬爪讗 讝讜讘讜 诪讘砖专讜 讘注诇 拽专讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 转爪讗 诪诪谞讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注


搂 The mishna teaches that a woman becomes ritually impure with the flow of blood from the uterus into the vagina, even if it did not leave the woman鈥檚 body. But the zav and one who experiences a seminal emission do not become ritually impure until their emission of impurity emerges outside the body. The Gemara explains: This is the halakha with regard to a zav, as it is written: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). The verse teaches that a zav is not impure until his issue emerges out of his flesh. With regard to one who experiences a seminal emission, the reason is that it is written: 鈥淎nd if the flow of seed goes out from a man鈥 (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that the flow must exit his body.


讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讛专讙讬砖 讜讻讜壮 讗讜讞讝 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讗讜讞讝 讘讗诪讛 讜诪砖转讬谉 讻讗讬诇讜 诪讘讬讗 诪讘讜诇 诇注讜诇诐


搂 The mishna further states that if a priest was partaking of teruma and sensed a quaking in his limbs, indicating that a seminal emission was imminent, he should firmly hold his penis to prevent the emission from leaving his body, and swallow the teruma while ritually pure. The Gemara asks: May one hold his penis? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who holds his penis and urinates is considered as though he is bringing a deluge to the world, as masturbation was one of the sins that led to the flood?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讟诇讬转 注讘讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘诪讟诇讬转 专讻讛 讻讬讜谉 讚注拽专 注拽专 讜讗讘讬讬 讞讬讬砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 讜专讘讗 诇讗讜住讜驻讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖


Abaye said, in resolution of this difficulty, that the mishna is referring to one who holds his penis with a coarse cloth. Rava said: You may even say that the mishna is referring to a priest who holds his penis with a soft cloth, and the reason it is permitted is that once the semen has already been uprooted from his body, it is uprooted, and his subsequent holding of the penis, even with a soft cloth, does not increase the flow of semen. And Abaye prohibits the use of a soft cloth, as he is concerned that perhaps one might come to increase the emission of semen, due to the contact of this cloth. But Rava is not concerned that one might come to increase the emission.


讜讛转谞讬讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 砖讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 诪讚诪注转 讜讞讜讝专转 讜诪讚诪注转


The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rava. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: To what is this holding of a penis comparable? It is comparable to one who places a finger in his eye, in that as long as the finger is in the eye, the eye will tear and continue to tear. Here too, the priest鈥檚 action will lead to an increased emission of semen.


讜专讘讗 讻诇 讗讞诪讜诪讬 讜讛讚专 讗讞诪讜诪讬 讘砖注转讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞


The Gemara answers that Rava would maintain that if the priest鈥檚 limbs were not quaking and the semen was coming out in drops, there is indeed a concern that holding the penis might increase the emission. But when he feels his limbs quaking, this concern does not apply. The reason is that any such event, i.e., a heating of the body that leads to a seminal emission and which is then followed by another heating of that kind at the time when the semen has been uprooted, is uncommon. Consequently, in this case the priest may hold his penis even with a soft cloth.


讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖讗讬谉 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 诪专讙讬砖 讘讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讝专讬注


Shmuel says: Any emission of semen that is not felt by one鈥檚 entire body does not render him impure. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: 鈥淭he flow of seed鈥 (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that it is referring to an emission that is fit to fertilize, i.e., it is referring only to the kind of emission which is felt as it exits the body.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 诪讛专讛专 讘诇讬诇讛 讜注诪讚 讜诪爪讗 讘砖专讜 讞诐 讟诪讗 转专讙诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘诪砖诪砖 诪讟转讜 讘讞诇讜诪讜 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇砖诪砖 讘诇讗 讛专讙砖讛


The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Mikvaot 8:3): If one was having sexual thoughts at night and he arose and found that his flesh was warm, he is ritually impure, despite the fact that he did not sense the emission of semen. This shows that the impurity of a seminal emission applies even if one did not feel it in his entire body. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna interpreted this mishna as referring to one who engaged in intercourse in his dream. Since it is impossible to engage in intercourse without the accompanying sensation, he certainly must have felt it, despite the fact that he was unaware of this when he awoke.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜专讛 讻讞抓 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 诇讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞注拽专讛 讘讛专讙砖讛 讜讬爪讗讛 砖诇讗 讘讛专讙砖讛


The Gemara cites another version of the above statement. Shmuel says: Any semen that is not shot like an arrow does not render one impure. The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between this version of Shmuel鈥檚 ruling and that version of Shmuel鈥檚 ruling? The Gemara answers that the difference between them is a case where the semen was uprooted accompanied by a sensation, but it emerged without a sensation. According to the first version the man is rendered impure, as he sensed the uprooting of the semen, whereas according to the second version he is not impure, as this is not considered semen shot like an arrow.


诪讬诇转讗 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讗 谞注拽专讛 讘讛专讙砖讛 讜讬爪转讛 砖诇讗 讘讛专讙砖讛 诪讛讜


The Gemara notes that this matter, which is obvious to Shmuel, is raised as a dilemma by Rava. As Rava raises a dilemma: If semen was uprooted accompanied by a sensation but it emerged without a sensation, what is the halakha? Is the man ritually impure or not?


转讗 砖诪注 讘注诇 拽专讬 砖讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讛讟讬诇 诪讬诐 诇讻砖讬讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讟诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚专讜讘讛 讘讛专讙砖讛 谞驻拽


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Mikvaot 8:3): With regard to one who experienced a seminal emission, and who subsequently immersed but did not urinate before doing so, when he later urinates he is rendered impure, as some semen will also be emitted. The reason that he is rendered impure by this emission, which he does not sense, must be because the uprooting of the semen was accompanied by a sensation. The Gemara refutes this proof: There it is different, as the majority of the semen emerged accompanied by a sensation, and therefore he is rendered impure by this small amount even without a sensation.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜专讛 讻讞抓 讗讬谞讛 诪讝专注转 讗讝专讜注讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讝专注讗 讛讗 讟诪讜讬讬 诪讟诪讬讗 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讱 讗讬砖 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讟讛讜专 诪拽专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讬 讘注讜诇诐


Some say another version of the previous discussion. Shmuel says: Any semen that is not shot like an arrow cannot fertilize, i.e., impregnate a woman. The Gemara infers: It cannot fertilize, but it does render the man who emits it ritually impure, as it is stated: 鈥淚f there be among you any man who is not ritually pure by reason of that which happened to him by night鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:11). This teaches that even mere semen which cannot fertilize renders one impure.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讙讜讬 砖讛专讛专 讜讬专讚 讜讟讘诇 诪讛讜


Rava raises a similar dilemma: With regard to a gentile who had sexual thoughts, on account of which semen was uprooted but not emitted from his body, and he subsequently descended and immersed for the purpose of conversion, which means that he is now Jewish, and he then emitted semen, what is the halakha with regard to his status of ritual purity?


讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讘转专 注拽讬专讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜


The Gemara explains the dilemma: Even if you say that we follow the moment of uprooting, at which point he was still a gentile, one can maintain that this statement applies only when it entails a stringency, as is the case with regard to a born Jew. But here, where this would lead to a leniency, as the gentile would be ritually pure, perhaps we do not say that one follows the moment of uprooting. Or perhaps there is no difference in the application of this principle between a born Jew and a convert, but rather, one always follows the moment of uprooting. The Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讝讘讛 砖谞注拽专讜 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讛 讜讬专讚讛 讜讟讘诇讛 诪讛讜


Rava raises a further dilemma: With regard to a woman who experienced a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava], whose urine, which imparts impurity like all liquids that she discharges vaginally, was uprooted but not emitted from her body, and she descended to the ritual bath and immersed to purify herself from her ziva, and urinated afterward, what is the halakha?


讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讘转专 注拽讬专讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 谞拽讬讟 诇讛 讗讘诇 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讛 讚诪爪讬 谞拽讬讟 诇讛 诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜


The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Even if you say that generally we follow the moment of uprooting, and therefore she should be impure, since the urine was uprooted when she was a zava, nevertheless one can claim that this statement applies only with regard to semen, as the man cannot hold it back from emission. But with regard to the urine of a zava, which she can hold in, one does not follow the moment of uprooting. Or perhaps there is no difference in the application of this principle between urine and semen, but rather, in both cases one follows the moment of uprooting. Here too, the Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讙讜讬讛 讝讘讛 砖谞注拽专讜 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讛


Rava raises yet another dilemma: With regard to a gentile zava, who is not impure by Torah law, although by rabbinic law she is considered a zava in all regards, whose urine was uprooted when she was a gentile,


讜讬专讚讛 讜讟讘诇讛 诪讛讜


and she descended to the ritual bath and immersed for the sake of conversion, what is the halakha?


讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讘转专 注拽讬专讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪爪讬 谞拽讬讟 诇讛讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讚讟诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讙讜讬讛 讝讘讛 讚讟诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜


Once again, the Gemara explains the dilemma: If you say that we follow the moment of uprooting even though she can hold in the urine, nevertheless one can claim that this statement applies specifically to a Jewish woman, who is impure by Torah law. But with regard to a gentile zava, who is impure by rabbinic law, it is possible that one does not follow the moment of uprooting. Or perhaps there is no difference in the application of this principle between the case of a Jewish woman and a gentile woman, as in both cases one follows the moment of uprooting. The Gemara again concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讜诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻诇 砖讛谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讘 爪专讬讱 讻讞转讬诪转 驻讬 讛讗诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗讜 讛讞转讬诐 讘砖专讜 诪讝讜讘讜


搂 The mishna teaches that the emission of a zav and a seminal emission impart impurity in any amount. Shmuel says: In order for a zav to become ritually impure, he must experience a discharge substantial enough to cause a blockage of the tip of the penis, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd this shall be his impurity in his issue: Whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:3).


讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻诇 砖讛谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讝讘 爪专讬讱 讻讞转讬诪转 驻讬 讛讗诪讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that the emission of a zav and a seminal emission impart impurity in any amount? The Gemara answers that Shmuel said his ruling in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: In order for a zav to become ritually impure, he must experience a discharge substantial enough to cause a blockage of the tip of the penis, but the Rabbis did not concede to his opinion, as they maintain that any amount is sufficient. The tanna of the mishna agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis, whereas Shmuel agrees with the statement of Rabbi Natan in the name of Rabbi Yishmael.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讜 讛讞转讬诐 讘砖专讜 诪讝讜讘讜


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., what is the source in the Torah for his ruling? The Gemara answers: His source is, as mentioned above, that the verse states: 鈥淎nd this shall be his impurity in his issue: Whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:3). This verse indicates that the emission must be enough to cause a blockage of his penis.


讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讞 诪讟诪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讬讘砖


The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael, what do they derive from this verse? The Gemara explains that according to the Rabbis, that verse is necessary to teach a different halakha with regard to a zav, that it is only a discharge which is moist, and which therefore could cause a blockage of the organ, that imparts impurity, but a dry discharge does not impart impurity.


讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讛讜讗 诪专专 谞驻拽讗


The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yishmael derive that only a moist discharge imparts impurity? The Gemara answers: That halakha is derived from the word 鈥渞un鈥 in the verse 鈥淎nd this shall be his impurity in his issue: Whether his flesh run with his issue.鈥


讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诇诪谞讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讝讜讘讜 讞讚讗 专专 讘砖专讜 转专讬 讗转 讝讜讘讜 转诇转 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讘 讘注诇 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转 砖讞讬讬讘 讘拽专讘谉


The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis derive from this word? The Gemara explains that according to the Rabbis, that verse comes to teach the number of emissions by which a zav is rendered impure, as follows: The term 鈥渉is issue鈥 is one emission, the term 鈥渉is flesh run鈥 is another emission so that there are two emissions, and the term 鈥渨ith his issue鈥 makes a total of three emissions. The verse thereby teaches with regard to a zav who experienced three emissions that he is obligated to bring an offering as part of his purification process.


讗讜 讛讞转讬诐 讘砖专讜 诪讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 诪拽爪转 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 砖诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪谞讬谞讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬


The Gemara continues: From the last section of the verse: 鈥淥r his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his impurity,鈥 it is derived that one is impure even by means of part of his issue, i.e., even if he did not experience three emissions. Here the verse teaches with regard to a zav who experienced two emissions that although he is not obligated to bring an offering, he renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure by lying or sitting on them, even without touching them directly. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yishmael, from where does he derive this halakha of the requisite number of emissions? The Gemara answers that he derives it from that which Rabbi Simai said.


讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 砖转讬诐 讜拽专讗讜 讟诪讗 砖诇砖 讜拽专讗讜 讟诪讗 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 砖转讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜砖诇砖 诇拽专讘谉


As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: The verse enumerated two emissions and called the zav impure: 鈥淲hen any man has an emission out of his flesh, due to his issue he is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). And yet, another verse enumerates three emissions and it too called him impure: 鈥淎nd this shall be his impurity in his emission: Whether his flesh runs with his emission, or his flesh be stopped from his emission, it is his impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:3). How can these verses be reconciled? If one is impure after two emissions, for what purpose does the Torah mention three? It is to teach that two emissions are necessary to establish impurity, and three are necessary to render a zav liable to bring an offering.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讝讗转 转讛讬讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘讝讜讘讜 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讝讘 诪讘砖专讜 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诪讘砖专讜


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who derives both the halakha of impurity and the obligation to bring an offering from the single verse: 鈥淎nd this shall be his impurity in his issue,鈥 what do they, i.e., the Rabbis, do with the other verse: 鈥淲hen any man has an emission out of his flesh鈥? The Gemara answers that this verse is necessary to teach the halakha that a zav is not impure unless the discharge emerges from his flesh.


讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讝讜讘 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗


The Gemara further asks: Why do I need the last part of the previous verse, which can be read as: His issue is impure (Leviticus 15:2)? The Gemara explains that this teaches with regard to the issue itself that it is impure, i.e., not only does it render the man who emitted it impure, but the substance itself is impure and imparts impurity to others by contact.


讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬诇讗讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诇专讜讗讛 讘诪砖讛讜 诇谞讜讙注 讘讻注讚砖讛 讜讛讗谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讻诇 砖讛谉 转谞谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇谞讜讙注 诇讗 诇专讜讗讛


搂 With regard to the statement of the mishna that the issue of the zav and a seminal emission render them impure in any amount, Rav 岣nilai says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Semen imparts impurity to the man who emits it in any amount, whereas with regard to one who touches semen, it imparts impurity only in the amount of a lentil-bulk. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that the emission of a zav and a seminal emission impart impurity in any amount? What, is it not referring to one who touches semen? The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is referring to the man who emits it.


转讗 砖诪注 讞讜诪专 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 诪讘砖专抓 讜讞讜诪专 讘砖专抓 诪讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 讞讜诪专 讘砖专抓 砖讛砖专抓 讗讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 讞讜诪专 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 砖讛砖讻讘转 讝专注 诪讟诪讗 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖专抓


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: There is an element of stringency which applies to the impurity of semen that does not apply to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal, and likewise there is an element of stringency which applies to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal that does not apply to the impurity of semen. The baraita elaborates: The stringency which applies to the carcass of a creeping animal but not to semen is that with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal there is no differentiation in its impurity, which is not the case with regard to semen, as certain types of semen impart impurity while others do not. The stringency which applies to semen but not to the carcass of a creeping animal is that semen imparts impurity in any amount, which is not the case with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, which must be at least a lentil-bulk.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇谞讜讙注 诇讗 诇专讜讗讛


The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not referring to one who touches semen, and the baraita rules that he is rendered impure by any amount? The Gemara again answers: No, the baraita is speaking of the man who emits semen, whereas one who touches it becomes impure only if it is at least as large as a lentil-bulk.


讜讛讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖专抓 拽转谞讬 诪讛 砖专抓 讘谞讙讬注讛 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘谞讙讬注讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 砖讜诐 砖专抓 拽转谞讬 讜砖讜诐 砖讻讘转 讝专注 拽转谞讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: But the baraita teaches the case of semen as similar to that of the carcass of a creeping animal, which indicates that just as the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal is imparted by contact, so too, the impurity discussed in the baraita with regard to semen is imparted by contact. Rav Adda bar Ahava said in response: The baraita teaches the category of the carcass of a creeping animal, and it likewise teaches the category of semen, i.e., it is referring to these types of impurity in general, but this does not mean that these types of impurity are contracted in the same manner.


讜砖专抓 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讛讜 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛讗讘专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 砖讬注讜专 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讛诪转 讜驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讘砖专 谞讘诇讛 讜驻讞讜转 诪讻注讚砖讛 诪谉 讛砖专抓


The Gemara asks: And does the carcass of a creeping animal not impart impurity in any amount? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Oholot 1:7): The limbs of impure bodies that are whole have no minimum measure with regard to imparting ritual impurity. Even if a limb is less than an olive-bulk of a human corpse, or less than an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, or less than a lentil-bulk of the carcass of a creeping animal, it imparts ritual impurity. If so, how can the baraita state that there is a minimum measure of a lentil-bulk with regard to the impurity of a creeping animal?


砖讗谞讬 讗讘专 讚讻讜诇讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 注讚砖讛 拽讗讬 讚讛讗 讗讬诇讜 讞住专 驻讜专转讗 讗讘专 诪讬 拽诪讟诪讬讗


The Gemara answers that the halakha of a limb is different, as when all of it is intact it stands in place of a lentil-bulk, i.e., a whole limb is considered like a lentil-bulk of the carcass of a creeping animal, regardless of its actual size. The proof is that if it were lacking any slight bit, thereby causing this limb of a creeping animal to be less than a lentil-bulk, would it impart impurity? Certainly not. Clearly, then, the impurity of a limb is due to its wholeness, not its size.


砖讻讘转 讝专注 讚讞诇讜拽讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讚讙讜讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 注讻讘专 讚讬诐 讜注讻讘专 讚讬讘砖讛


The baraita teaches: The stringency that applies to the carcass of a creeping animal but not to semen is that with regard to a creeping animal there is no differentiation concerning its impurity, which is not the case with regard to semen. The Gemara asks: What is the differentiation with regard to the impurity of semen? If we say that this is referring to the difference between the semen of Jews, to which this impurity applies, and the semen of gentiles, to which it does not apply, there is also a differentiation with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal between a sea mouse, which is not impure, and a land mouse, which is impure.


讗诇讗 讘讬谉 拽讟谉 诇讙讚讜诇


Rather, the baraita is referring to the differentiation between the emission of a minor, which is not classified as semen and which does not render him impure, and that of an adult, which does render him impure. By contrast, there is no such differentiation with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal, as it imparts impurity regardless of its age and size.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻转谞讗讬 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 谞讜讙注 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讗讬砖


Rav Pappa said: The amount of semen which imparts impurity to one who touches it is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is stated in a baraita: From where is it derived that the Torah includes one who touches semen, in addition to one who emits semen, as impure? The verse states with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal: 鈥淥r whoever touches any creeping animal, whereby he may become impure鈥 (Leviticus 22:5). It is inferred from the inclusive phrase 鈥渙r whoever鈥 that one who touches semen is also impure.


讜驻诇讬讙讬 转谞讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讗


And in general, tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the possibility of deriving a halakha in this manner. As some say with regard to a halakha that is inferred from another halakha: Infer from it, and derive the details of the halakha from it as well. And some say with regard to such a halakha: Infer from it, but interpret the halakha according to its own place, i.e., not all aspects of the source case are applied to this halakha.


诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 砖专抓 讘谞讙讬注讛 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘谞讙讬注讛 讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 砖专抓 讘讻注讚砖讛 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘讻注讚砖讛


The Gemara explains how this general dispute applies to the case at hand. According to the one who says that one infers from it and again from it, the derivation is as follows: Just as the carcass of a creeping animal imparts impurity by contact, so too, semen imparts impurity by contact. And one again infers from the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal that just as the carcass of a creeping animal imparts impurity in the amount of a lentil-bulk, so too, semen imparts impurity in the amount of a lentil-bulk.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讗 诪讛 砖专抓 讘谞讙讬注讛 讗祝 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘谞讙讬注讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讗 诪讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诇专讜讗讛 讘诪砖讛讜 讗祝 诇谞讜讙注 讘诪砖讛讜


And according to the one who says: Infer from it, but interpret the halakha according to its own place, one derives as follows: Just as the carcass of a creeping animal imparts impurity by contact, so too, semen imparts impurity by contact. But one must interpret the halakha according to its own place: Just as semen imparts impurity to the one who emits it in any amount, so too, it imparts impurity to the one who touches it in any amount.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚诪讗讜 讗讬砖 讚砖专抓 拽诪专讘讬 诇讬讛 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讗讜 讗讬砖 讗砖专 转爪讗 诪诪谞讜 砖讻讘转 讝专注 拽诪专讘讬 诇讬讛 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛


Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: From where do you infer that the tanna of the baraita derives the impurity of one who touches semen from the phrase 鈥渙r whoever鈥 that is stated with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal? Perhaps he derives it from the previous verse: 鈥淥r from whoever the flow of seed goes out鈥 (Leviticus 22:4), and everyone agrees that when a halakha is derived from a verse dealing with the same matter, one should infer from it and derive the details of the halakha from it as well. If so, the amount of semen that imparts impurity by contact should be derived from the amount that renders the one who emitted it impure, which is any amount.


砖讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 诇转谞讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 讻专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉


The Gemara relates that the Sages asked the tanna鈥檌m, i.e., those who recite mishnayot and baraitot, whether the derivation of the baraita is from the verse dealing with the carcass of a creeping animal or from the one dealing with semen. They discovered that there are those who teach this halakha in accordance with the assumption of Rav Pappa, that it is derived from a creeping animal, and there are those who teach this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, that the source is the verse referring to semen.


诪转谞讬壮 转谞讜拽转 讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪讟诪讗讛 讘谞讚讛 讘转 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讝讬讘讛


MISHNA: A baby girl, even one who is one day old, who experiences an emission of blood, becomes impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. A baby girl who is ten days old who experiences an emission of blood for three consecutive days after the conclusion of the seven days fit for menstruation becomes impure with the impurity of ziva, and is therefore obligated to observe seven clean days before immersion.


转谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讜诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讜诪讟诪讗 讘讟诪讗 诪转 讜讝讜拽拽 诇讬讘讜诐 讜驻讜讟专 诪谉 讛讬讘讜诐 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜驻讜住诇 (讗转) [诪谉] 讛转专讜诪讛


A baby boy, even one who is one day old, becomes impure with the impurity of ziva; and becomes impure with the impurity of leprous marks; and becomes impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; and he creates a levirate bond requiring the widow of his childless brother to enter into levirate marriage with him; and he exempts his widowed mother from the obligation of levirate marriage, freeing her to marry anyone she chooses; and he enables his mother, an Israelite woman who is no longer married to his father, a priest, to continue to partake of teruma; and he disqualifies his mother, the daughter of a priest who is no longer married to his father, an Israelite man, from continuing to partake of teruma, because the child is unfit to partake of teruma;


Scroll To Top