נדה מג

נדה מג

וְלֹא תּוֹךְ תּוֹכוֹ — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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’s 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.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: קָנֶה בְּקוּמְטוֹ שֶׁל זָב, וְהֵסִיט בּוֹ אֶת הַטָּהוֹר — טָהוֹר. קָנֶה בְּקוּמְטוֹ שֶׁל טָהוֹר, וְהֵסִיט בּוֹ אֶת הַזָּב — טָמֵא.

§ 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.

מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בּוֹ הַזָּב וְיָדָיו לֹא שָׁטַף בַּמָּיִם״ — זֶהוּ הֱסֵיטוֹ שֶׁל זָב, שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ לוֹ טוּמְאָה בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.

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: “And whoever a zav touches, without having rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water” (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.

וְאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן נְגִיעָה, לְמֵימְרָא דֶּהֱיסֵט וּנְגִיעָה כְּיָדָיו, מָה הָתָם מֵאַבָּרַאי, אַף הָכָא מֵאַבָּרַאי.

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.

אֲבָל הַזָּב וּבַעַל קֶרִי אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין וְכוּ׳. זָב — דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי יִהְיֶה זָב מִבְּשָׂרוֹ״ — עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא זוֹבוֹ מִבְּשָׂרוֹ, בַּעַל קֶרִי — דִּכְתִיב ״וְאִישׁ כִּי תֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״.

§ 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’s 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: “When any man has an issue out of his flesh” (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: “And if the flow of seed goes out from a man” (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that the flow must exit his body.

הָיָה אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה וְהִרְגִּישׁ וְכוּ׳. אוֹחֵז? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָאוֹחֵז בָּאַמָּה וּמַשְׁתִּין, כְּאִילּוּ מֵבִיא מַבּוּל לָעוֹלָם!

§ 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’t 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?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמַטְלִית עָבָה. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּמַטְלִית רַכָּה, כֵּיוָן דַּעֲקַר — עֲקַר. וְאַבָּיֵי חָיֵישׁ דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְאוֹסוֹפֵי, וְרָבָא — לְאוֹסוֹפֵי לָא חָיֵישׁ.

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.

וְהָתַנְיָא: לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה? לְנוֹתֵן אֶצְבַּע בָּעַיִן, שֶׁכׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶצְבַּע בְּעַיִן — מַדְמַעַת וְחוֹזֶרֶת וּמַדְמַעַת.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rava. Isn’t 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’s action will lead to an increased emission of semen.

וְרָבָא, כֹּל אִחֲמוֹמֵי וַהֲדַר אִחֲמוֹמֵי בְּשַׁעְתָּא — לָא שְׁכִיחַ.

The Gemara answers that Rava would maintain that if the priest’s 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.

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁאֵין כׇּל גּוּפוֹ מַרְגִּישׁ בָּהּ אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — בִּרְאוּיָה לְהַזְרִיעַ.

Shmuel says: Any emission of semen that is not felt by one’s entire body does not render him impure. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “The flow of seed” (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.

מֵיתִיבִי: הָיָה מְהַרְהֵר בַּלַּיְלָה, וְעָמַד וּמָצָא בְּשָׂרוֹ חַם — טָמֵא! תַּרְגְּמַאּ רַב הוּנָא: בִּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ בַּחֲלוֹמוֹ, דְּאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּלֹא הַרְגָּשָׁה.

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.

לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין הַאי לִישָּׁנָא לְהַאי לִישָּׁנָא? אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ: נֶעֶקְרָה בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה וְיָצְאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה.

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’s ruling and that version of Shmuel’s 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.

מִילְּתָא דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל, מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא. דְּבָעֵי רָבָא: נֶעֶקְרָה בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה וְיָצְתָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה, מַהוּ?

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?

תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּעַל קֶרִי שֶׁטָּבַל וְלֹא הֵטִיל מַיִם, לִכְשֶׁיָּטִיל מַיִם טָמֵא. שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּרוּבַּהּ בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה נְפַק.

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.

לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ אֵינָהּ מַזְרַעַת. אַזְרוֹעֵי הוּא דְּלָא מַזְרְעָא, הָא טַמּוֹיֵי מְטַמְּיָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה בְךָ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִהְיֶה טָהוֹר מִקְּרֵה״ — אֲפִילּוּ קֶרִי בָּעוֹלָם.

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: “If there be among you any man who is not ritually pure by reason of that which happened to him by night” (Deuteronomy 23:11). This teaches that even mere semen which cannot fertilize renders one impure.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִרְהֵר, וְיָרַד וְטָבַל — מַהוּ?

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?

אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר בָּתַר עֲקִירָה אָזְלִינַן, הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְחוּמְרָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דִּלְקוּלָּא — לָא אָמְרִינַן, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

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.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: זָבָה שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ מֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ, וְיָרְדָה וְטָבְלָה — מַהוּ?

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?

אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר בָּתַר עֲקִירָה אָזְלִינַן, הָנֵי מִילֵּי שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, דְּלָא מָצֵי נָקֵיט לַהּ, אֲבָל מֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ, דְּמָצֵי נָקֵיט לַהּ — לָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

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.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: גּוֹיָה זָבָה שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ מֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ,

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,

וְיָרְדָה וְטָבְלָה — מַהוּ?

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

אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר בָּתַר עֲקִירָה אָזְלִינַן, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמָצֵי נָקֵיט לְהוּ — הָנֵי מִילֵּי יִשְׂרְאֵלִית דִּטְמֵאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל גּוֹיָה זָבָה דִּטְמֵאָה דְּרַבָּנַן — לָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

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.

וּמְטַמְּאִין בְּכֹל שֶׁהֵן. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זָב צָרִיךְ כַּחֲתִימַת פִּי הָאַמָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אוֹ הֶחְתִּים בְּשָׂרוֹ מִזּוֹבוֹ״.

§ 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: “And 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” (Leviticus 15:3).

וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: מְטַמְּאִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן! הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי נָתָן, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: זָב צָרִיךְ כַּחֲתִימַת פִּי הָאַמָּה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t 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.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אוֹ הֶחְתִּים בְּשָׂרוֹ מִזּוֹבוֹ״.

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: “And 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” (Leviticus 15:3). This verse indicates that the emission must be enough to cause a blockage of his penis.

וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ: לַח מְטַמֵּא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא יָבֵשׁ.

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.

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? הָהוּא מֵ״רָר״ נָפְקָא.

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 “run” in the verse “And this shall be his impurity in his issue: Whether his flesh run with his issue.”

וְרַבָּנַן? הָהוּא לְמִנְיָנָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא: ״זוֹבוֹ״ — חֲדָא, ״רָר בְּשָׂרוֹ״ — תְּרֵי, ״אֶת זוֹבוֹ״ — תְּלָת, לִימֵּד עַל זָב בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּקׇרְבָּן.

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 “his issue” is one emission, the term “his flesh run” is another emission so that there are two emissions, and the term “with his issue” 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.

״אוֹ הֶחְתִּים בְּשָׂרוֹ מִזּוֹבוֹ טָמֵא״, מִקְצָת זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא, לִימֵּד עַל זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב. וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מִנְיָנָא מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי סִימַאי.

The Gemara continues: From the last section of the verse: “Or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his impurity,” 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.

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: מָנָה הַכָּתוּב שְׁתַּיִם וּקְרָאוֹ ״טָמֵא״, שָׁלֹשׁ וּקְרָאוֹ ״טָמֵא״. הָא כֵיצַד? שְׁתַּיִם לַטּוּמְאָה, וְשָׁלֹשׁ לַקׇּרְבָּן.

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: The verse enumerated two emissions and called the zav impure: “When any man has an emission out of his flesh, due to his issue he is impure” (Leviticus 15:2). And yet, another verse enumerates three emissions and it too called him impure: “And 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” (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.

וּלְמַאן דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מִ״זֹּאת תִּהְיֶה טוּמְאָתוֹ בְּזוֹבוֹ״, ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה זָב מִבְּשָׂרוֹ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִבְּשָׂרוֹ.

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: “And this shall be his impurity in his issue,” what do they, i.e., the Rabbis, do with the other verse: “When any man has an emission out of his flesh”? 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.

״זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא״ לְמָה לִי? לִימֵּד עַל הַזּוֹב שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא.

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.

אָמַר רַב חֲנִילַאי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע — לְרוֹאֶה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, לְנוֹגֵעַ בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. וְהָאֲנַן ״מְטַמְּאִין בְּכֹל שֶׁהֵן״ תְּנַן! מַאי לַָאו לְנוֹגֵעַ? לֹא, לְרוֹאֶה.

§ 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 Ḥanilai 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’t 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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: חוֹמֶר בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מִבְּשֶׁרֶץ, וָחוֹמֶר בְּשֶׁרֶץ מִבְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע. חוֹמֶר בְּשֶׁרֶץ — שֶׁהַשֶּׁרֶץ אֵין חֲלוּקָה טוּמְאָתוֹ, מָה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע. חוֹמֶר בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע — שֶׁהַשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מְטַמֵּא בְּכֹל שֶׁהוּא, מָה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשֶׁרֶץ.

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.

מַאי לַָאו לְנוֹגֵעַ? לָא, לְרוֹאֶה.

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.

וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דְּשֶׁרֶץ קָתָנֵי, מָה שֶׁרֶץ בִּנְגִיעָה — אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בִּנְגִיעָה! אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: שׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ קָתָנֵי, וְשׁוּם שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע קָתָנֵי.

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.

וְשֶׁרֶץ לָא מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ? וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: הָאֵבָרִים אֵין לָהֶם שִׁיעוּר, פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת, וּפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה, וּפָחוֹת מִכַּעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ.

The Gemara asks: And does the carcass of a creeping animal not impart impurity in any amount? But didn’t 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?

שָׁאנֵי אֵבֶר — דְּכוּלֵּיהּ בִּמְקוֹם עֲדָשָׁה קָאֵי, דְּהָא אִילּוּ חָסַר פּוּרְתָּא אֵבֶר — מִי קָמְטַמֵּיא?

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.

שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע דַּחֲלוּקָה טוּמְאָתוֹ — מַאי הִיא? אִילֵימָא בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל לִדְגוֹיִם — הָכִי נָמֵי אִיכָּא עַכְבָּר דְּיָם וְעַכְבָּר דְּיַבָּשָׁה!

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.

אֶלָּא, בֵּין קָטָן לְגָדוֹל.

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.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּתַנָּאֵי, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת נוֹגֵעַ בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ אִישׁ״.

§ Rav Pappa said: The amount of semen which imparts impurity to one who touches it is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, 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: “Or whoever touches any creeping animal, whereby he may become impure” (Leviticus 22:5). It is inferred from the inclusive phrase “or whoever” that one who touches semen is also impure.

וּפְלִיגִי תַּנָּאֵי בְּעָלְמָא, דְּאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ, וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ.

And in general, tanna’im 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.

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ — מָה שֶׁרֶץ בִּנְגִיעָה, אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בִּנְגִיעָה; וּמִינַּהּ — מָה שֶׁרֶץ בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה.

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.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ, מָה שֶׁרֶץ בִּנְגִיעָה — אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בִּנְגִיעָה, וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ — מָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע לָרוֹאֶה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, אַף לַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי דְּמֵ״אוֹ אִישׁ״ דְּשֶׁרֶץ קָמְרַבֵּי לֵיהּ? דִּילְמָא מֵ״אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״ קָמְרַבֵּי לֵיהּ, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ?

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 “or whoever” that is stated with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal? Perhaps he derives it from the previous verse: “Or from whoever the flow of seed goes out” (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.

שַׁיְילִינְהוּ לְתַנָּאֵי, אִיכָּא דְּתָנֵי כְּרַב פָּפָּא, וְאִיכָּא דְּתָנֵי כְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן.

The Gemara relates that the Sages asked the tanna’im, 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.

מַתְנִי’ תִּנוֹקֶת בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד — מִטַּמְּאָה בְּנִדָּה. בַּת עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים — מִטַּמְּאָה בְּזִיבָה.

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.

תִּנוֹק בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד — מִטַּמֵּא בְּזִיבָה, וּמִטַּמֵּא בִּנְגָעִים, וּמִטַּמֵּא בִּטְמֵא מֵת, וְזוֹקֵק לְיִבּוּם, וּפוֹטֵר מִן הַיִּבּוּם, וּמַאֲכִיל בִּתְרוּמָה, וּפוֹסֵל (אֶת) [מִן] הַתְּרוּמָה,

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;