נדה מב

נדה מב

וְכִי תֵּימָא דִּילְמָא אִשְׁתְּיַיר — אִי הָכִי, ״חָיְישִׁינַן שְׁמָא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

And if you would say that it is certainly possible that she released all the semen, but Rava’s 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.

אֶלָּא: לְרָבָא נָמֵי, שֶׁהִטְבִּילוּהָ בַּמִּטָּה, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּמִתְהַפֶּכֶת, כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ מִתְהַפֶּכֶת.

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.

וְרָבָא אַקְּרָא קָאֵי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כִּי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְרָחֲצוּ בַמַּיִם וְטָמְאוּ עַד הָעָרֶב״ בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ מִתְהַפֶּכֶת, אֲבָל בְּמִתְהַפֶּכֶת כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ שֶׁלֹּא תִּפְלוֹט.

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: “They shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:18), which indicates that when evening comes the woman’s 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.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר בִּיסְנָא מֵאַבָּיֵי: פּוֹלֶטֶת שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, רוֹאָה הָוְיָא אוֹ נוֹגַעַת הָוְיָא?

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?

נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לִסְתּוֹר, וּלְטַמֵּא בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וּלְטַמֵּא בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ.

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.

מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתִין — לְרַבָּנַן רוֹאָה הָוְיָא, וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נוֹגַעַת הָוְיָא.

Before addressing the dilemma, the Gemara raises a difficulty with Rav Shmuel bar Bisna’s 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’ 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.

וְאִי לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתִין, מִסְתַּבְּרָא נוֹגַעַת הָוְיָא!

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?

לְעוֹלָם שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתִין, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן — לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ — אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

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.

וּלְטַמֵּא בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ — לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ — לִסְתּוֹר וּלְטַמֵּא בְּכֹל שֶׁהוּא, מַאי?

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?

כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דַּיָּהּ כְּבוֹעֲלָהּ — הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְטַמּוֹיֵי בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ, אֲבָל לִסְתּוֹר וּלְטַמֵּא בְּכֹל שֶׁהוּא — רוֹאֶה הָוְיָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

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.

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, לְעוֹלָם לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתָא, וְהָכִי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: מִדְּאַחְמַיר רַחֲמָנָא אַבַּעֲלֵי קְרָיִין בְּסִינַי — רוֹאָה הָוְיָא.

There are those who say a different explanation of Rav Shmuel bar Bisna’s 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: “Be ready on the third day; do not come near a woman” (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.

אוֹ דִילְמָא: לָא גָּמְרִינַן מִסִּינַי, דְּחִדּוּשׁ הוּא, דְּהָא זָבִין וּמְצוֹרָעִים דַּחֲמִירִי, וְלָא אַחְמַיר בְּהוּ רַחֲמָנָא.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רוֹאָה הָוְיָא. אֲתָא שַׁיְילֵיהּ לְרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רוֹאָה הָוְיָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רוֹאָה הָוְיָא. הֲדַר אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כּוּלְּכוּ בְּרוּקָּא חֲדָא תָּפִיתוּ.

After clarifying Rav Shmuel bar Bisna’s dilemma, the Gemara cites Abaye’s answer to him. Abaye said to him: The woman’s 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’s 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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר אָמְרִי לָךְ, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דַּיָּהּ כְּבוֹעֲלָהּ אֶלָּא לְטַמֵּא בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ, אֲבָל לִסְתּוֹר וּלְטַמֵּא בְּכֹל שֶׁהוּא — רוֹאָה הָוְיָא.

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’s 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’s status is that of one who experienced an emission. Therefore, the discharge negates her count and renders her impure by any amount.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַנִּדָּה, וְהַזָּבָה, וְהַשּׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם, וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת — כּוּלָּן מְטַמְּאוֹת בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ.

§ 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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא כּוּלְּהוּ — לְחַיֵּי, אֶלָּא יוֹלֶדֶת: אִי בִּימֵי נִדָּה — נִדָּה, אִי בִּימֵי זִיבָה — זִיבָה!

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.

לָא צְרִיכָא — שֶׁיָּרְדָה לִטְבּוֹל מִטּוּמְאָה לְטׇהֳרָה.

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.

וְכִי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי, אָמַר רַב: יוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁיָּרְדָה לִטְבּוֹל מִטּוּמְאָה לְטׇהֳרָה, וְנֶעֱקַר מִמֶּנָּה דָּם בַּיְּרִידָה — טְמֵאָה, בָּעֲלִיָּיה — טְהוֹרָה.

And the halakha here is like that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: בַּיְּרִידָה אַמַּאי טְמֵאָה? טוּמְאָה בְּלוּעָה הִיא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שַׁיְילֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אָבִין, דְּאַסְבַּרִית נִיהֲלֵיהּ, וְכַרְכֵּישׁ לִי בְּרֵישֵׁיהּ בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא.

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 Ḥullin 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.

אֲזַל שַׁיְילֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֲשָׂאוּהָ כְּנִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. מִי דָּמֵי?

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?

הָתָם אֵין לָהּ טוּמְאָה בַּחוּץ, הָכָא כִּי נָפֵיק לְבָרַאי לִיטַמֵּי! הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֶׁיָּצָא לַחוּץ.

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.

אִי יָצָא לַחוּץ — מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִגּוֹ דְּמַהֲנֵי טְבִילָה לְדָם דְּאִיכָּא גַּוַּאי, תַּהֲנֵי נָמֵי לְהַאי — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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’s 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.

שְׁמַעְתִּין אִיפְּרִיק, אֶלָּא יוֹלֶדֶת: אִי בִּימֵי נִדָּה — נִדָּה, אִי בִּימֵי זִיבָה — זִיבָה.

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’s 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.

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּלֵידָה יַבִּשְׁתָּא. לֵידָה יַבִּשְׁתָּא, מַאי מְטַמֵּא בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ אִיכָּא?

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’s body just as it would when emerging outside her body? There is no blood at all in the case of a dry birth.

כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹצִיא וָלָד רֹאשׁוֹ חוּץ לַפְּרוֹזְדוֹר, וְכִדְרַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יוֹצִיא הַוָּלָד רֹאשׁוֹ חוּץ לַפְּרוֹזְדוֹר.

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.

וְכִי הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְמִמְהַל בְּשַׁבְּתָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. בָּתַר דִּנְפַק, אָמַר רָבָא: סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּהַהוּא גַבְרָא לָא יָדַע דִּשְׁרֵי לְמִמְהַל בְּשַׁבְּתָא?! אֲזַל בָּתְרֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימָא לִי אִיזִי, גּוּפָא דְּעוֹבָדָא הֵיכִי הֲוָה?

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?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁמַעִית וָלָד דְּצָוֵיץ אַפַּנְיָא דְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא, וְלָא אִתְיְלִיד עַד שַׁבְּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי הוֹצִיא רֹאשׁוֹ חוּץ לַפְּרוֹזְדוֹר הוּא, וְהָוֵי מִילָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ, וְכׇל מִילָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עָלֶיהָ אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

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.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁל אִשָּׁה, בָּלוּעַ הָוֵי אוֹ בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים הָוֵי?

§ 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?

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ — כְּגוֹן שֶׁתָּחֲבָה לָהּ חֲבֶירְתָּהּ כְּזַיִת נְבֵלָה בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בָּלוּעַ הָוֵי — טוּמְאָה בְּלוּעָה לָא מְטַמְּאָה, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים הָוֵי — נְהִי דִּבְמַגָּע לָא מְטַמְּיָא, בְּמַשָּׂא מִיהָא מְטַמְּיָא!

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.

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בָּלוּעַ הָוֵי, רָבָא אָמַר: בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים הָוֵי. אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁטּוּמְאַת בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים הִיא״.

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: “The woman also with whom a man shall lie carnally, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening” (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: “Or a man from whom the flow of seed goes out” (Leviticus 22:4). Rather, it must be teaching that a woman who engages in intercourse is rendered impure by the man’s semen, despite the fact that the semen did not touch her on the outside of her body.

וְטוּמְאַת בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים לֹא מְטַמְּאָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁגְּזֵרַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא.

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.

וְאַבַּיֵּי, חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר: חֲדָא, דְּטוּמְאָה בְּלוּעָה הִיא; וְעוֹד, אֲפִילּוּ אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר טוּמְאַת בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים הִיא — אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁגְּזֵרַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא.

The Gemara asks: And Abaye, how does he respond to Rava’s 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.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מְקוֹם נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר — בָּלוּעַ הָוֵי, אוֹ בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים הָוֵי?

§ A similar dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the place in a person’s 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?

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? כְּגוֹן שֶׁתָּחַב לוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ כְּזַיִת נְבֵלָה לְתוֹךְ פִּיו. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בָּלוּעַ הָוֵי — טוּמְאָה בְּלוּעָה לָא מְטַמְּיָא, (אֶלָּא אי) [וְאִי] אָמְרַתְּ בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים הָוֵי — נְהִי נָמֵי דִּבְמַגָּע לֹא מְטַמֵּא, בְּמַשָּׂא מִיהָא מְטַמֵּא.

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’s 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.

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בָּלוּעַ הָוֵי, וְרָבָא אָמַר: בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים הָוֵי. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא יֹאכַל לְטׇמְאָה בָהּ״.

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’s throat, like an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird. Therefore, the verse states: “That which dies of itself, or is torn of animals, he shall not eat to render himself impure through it” (Leviticus 22:8).

מִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ טוּמְאָה אֶלָּא אֲכִילָתָהּ — יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁטְּמֵאָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיֹּאכְלֶנָּה.

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’s 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’s opinion that an item located in the throat is considered encapsulated, which is why it does not impart impurity.

וְתֵיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִנִּבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר, וּמָה נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁאֵין לָהּ טוּמְאָה בַּחוּץ — יֵשׁ לָהּ טוּמְאָה בִּפְנִים, זוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ טוּמְאָה בַּחוּץ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ טוּמְאָה בִּפְנִים?

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’s 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?

אָמַר קְרָא: ״בָּהּ״ — בָּהּ וְלֹא בְּאַחֶרֶת.

The Gemara answers that the verse states: “That which dies of itself, or is torn of animals, he shall not eat to become impure through it,” 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.

אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהָאוֹכֵל״?

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

לִיתֵּן שִׁיעוּר לְנוֹגֵעַ וּלְנוֹשֵׂא, כְּאוֹכֵל — מָה אוֹכֵל בִּכְזַיִת, אַף נוֹגֵעַ וְנוֹשֵׂא בִּכְזַיִת.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: שֶׁרֶץ בְּקוּמְּטוֹ — טָהוֹר, נְבֵלָה בְּקוּמְּטוֹ — טָמֵא.

§ 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’s body, e.g., the armpit, he is ritually pure. If the flesh of an animal carcass is found in the folds of one’s body, he is impure.

שֶׁרֶץ בְּקוּמְּטוֹ, טָהוֹר — שֶׁרֶץ בִּנְגִיעָה הוּא דִּמְטַמֵּא, וּבֵית הַסְּתָרִים לָאו בַּר מַגָּע הוּא. נְבֵלָה בְּקוּמְּטוֹ, טָמֵא — נְהִי דִּבְמַגָּע לָא מְטַמֵּא, בְּמַשָּׂא מִיהָא מְטַמֵּא.

Rava elaborates: If the carcass of a creeping animal is found in the folds of one’s 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’s 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.

שֶׁרֶץ בְּקוּמְּטוֹ, וְהִכְנִיסוֹ לַאֲוִיר הַתַּנּוּר — טָמֵא. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״תּוֹכוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא,

Rava further said: If there was the carcass of a creeping animal in the folds of one’s 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’t this obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that as the Merciful One states with regard to the impurity of creeping animals: “And any earthenware vessel into whose interior any of them fall, whatever is in it shall be impure, and it you shall break” (Leviticus 11:33), this teaches that impurity applies only if the creeping animal fell inside the vessel itself,