|  |  | Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah ### Folio 43a But not the inside of its inside,1 hence we were informed [that the oven is unclean].2 Resh Lakish ruled: If a reed was held in a fold of the body of a zab and he shook therewith a clean person the latter remains clean.3 If a reed was held in the fold of the body of a clean person and he shook therewith a zab the former is unclean.4 What is the reason?5 Because Scripture said, And whomsoever he that hath issue6 toucheth, without having rinsed his hands in water,7 and this8 refers to the shaking of a zab, a form of conveyance of uncleanness the like of which we do not find anywhere in all the Torah; and the All Merciful expressed this in the term of touching,9 in order to tell that shaking and touching must be performed with a part of the body which is like one's hands; as one's hands are exposed10 so must any other part of the body11 be exposed. BUT A ZAB AND ONE WHO EMITTED SEMEN CONVEY NO UNCLEANNESS etc. A ZAB, because it is written in Scripture, When any man hath an issue out of his flesh,12 [which implies that no uncleanness is conveyed] unless his issue emerged 'out of his flesh'; ONE WHO EMITTED SEMEN, because It is written, And if the flow of seed go out from a man.13 IF A MAN WAS EATING TERUMAH WHEN HE FELT etc. Was it not, however, taught: R. Eliezer stated, whoever holds his membrum when he makes water is as though he had brought a flood on the world?14 — Abaye replied: One does it with a thick rag.15 Raba stated: It may even be done with a soft rag, for once the semen has been detached the subsequent touch is of no consequence.16 And Abaye?17 — He takes into consideration the possibility of an additional discharge. And Raba? — He does not consider the possibility of an additional discharge. But does he not?18 Was it not in fact taught: 'To what may this be compared? To the putting of a finger upon the eye when, so long as the finger remains on it, the eye continues to tear'? Now Raba?19 — It is unusual to get heated twice in immediate succession.20 Samuel ruled, Any semen the emission of which is not felt throughout one's body causes no uncleanness. What is the reason? — The All Merciful has said, The flow of seed,21 implying that the text22 deals only with such as is fit to produce seed. An objection was raised: If a man was troubled with unchaste thoughts in the night and when he rose up he found his flesh heated, he is unclean!23 — R. Huna explained this to apply to a man who dreamt of indulging in sexual intercourse, it being impossible to indulge in the act without experiencing the sensation. Another rendering: Samuel ruled, Any semen which does not shoot forth like an arrow causes no uncleanness. What is the practical difference between the latter reading and the former reading? — The practical difference between them is the case where the detachment of the semen was perceived but the emergence was not felt.24 Now this ruling which was quite obvious to Samuel was a matter of enquiry for Raba. For Raba enquired: What is the law where the detachment of the semen was perceived but its emergence was not felt?25 — Come and hear: If a man who emitted semen performed immersion26 before he had made water, his uncleanness is resumed when he makes water!27 — There it is different, since the emergence of most of the semen was perceived. Others have a different reading: Samuel ruled, Any semen which does not shoot forth like an arrow causes no fructification. It is only fructification that it does not cause but it does cause uncleanness, for it is said in Scripture. If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of that which chanceth him,28 which implies: Even a chance emission29 whatever its nature.30 Raba enquired: What is the law where an idolater indulged in sexual thoughts,31 and then32 he went down and performed ritual immersion?33 If you were to find some case where we follow the time of detachment34 [the question would arise]. Does this apply only where the law is thereby restricted,35 but not here36 where the law would thereby be relaxed,37 or is it possible that no distinction is made? — This is undecided. Raba enquired: What is the ruling where the urine of a zabah had been detached from the source38 and then she went down and performed ritual immersion?39 If you were to find some case where we follow the time of the detachment [the question would arise], Does this apply only to semen, since it cannot be restrained,40 but not to her urine which she is able to restrain,41 or is it possible that no distinction is made? — This is undecided. Raba enquired: What is the law where the urine of an idolatress42 who was a zabah had been detached To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Inside, for instance, an arm-pit which is inside the oven. The implication, 'but not the inside of its inside' excludes only the case where a creeping thing was within a vessel whose rim and mouth projected above the vessel in which it was contained. The reason is given presently. Since he 'carried' the zab. The carrying of a zab as the carrying 'of his couch conveys uncleanness to the carrier (cf. Lev. XV, 10). Why a person who was shaken by a reed held in the fold of the body of a zab remains clean. Heb. zab. Lev. XV, 11. Since the text cannot refer to direct touch which was already dealt with in Lev. XV, 7. 'Toucheth'. Lit., 'as there from outside'. If it is to convey uncleanness. Lev. XV, 2, emphasis on 'out'. Ibid. 16. Cf. prev. n. Supra 13a. Which intercepts the warmth of one's hand. Lit., 'since it uprooted it uprooted'. Why, in view of Raba's explanation, does he insist on a thick rag? So with BaH. Cur. edd. omit. What has he to say to this? Lit., 'any being heated and being heated again at the time is not usual'. The comparison with the eye holds good only when a discharge was originally due to friction. Lev. XV, 16, emphasis on the last word. Then he shall … be unclean (ibid.). Mik. VIII, 3; because he might also have emitted some semen. As this would presumably occur without his being aware of it, an objection arises against Samuel. According to the first reading uncleanness would, and according to the latter reading would not be caused. Is uncleanness thereby conveyed or not? Which frees him from his uncleanness. Mik. VIII, 4 (cur. edd. '3', is an error). Now here there was obviously no perception, and yet uncleanness is nevertheless conveyed. An objection against Samuel. Deut. XXIII, 11, mikreh of the rt. [H] (v. foll. n.). Keri of the rt. [H] (cf. prev. n.). Lit., 'in the world'. As a result of which semen had been detached but did not emerge. For the purpose of his conversion to Judaism. Subsequent to which the semen emerged. Sc. that, in the case of an Israelite, uncleanness is caused where the detachment was perceived even though the emergence was not felt. Uncleanness is caused. The case of the idolater. Since at the time of the detachment the man was still an idolater and free from the laws of uncleanness. Which is a 'father of uncleanness'. Whereby she is freed from her uncleanness; and then she made the water. Is she, it is asked, unclean because at the time of the detachment she was unclean or is she clean because the emergence took place when she was already in a condition of cleanness? In consequence of which detachment must be regarded as virtual emergence. So that the emergence is a separate process which, having taken place after immersion, causes no uncleanness. Which is Rabbinically unclean. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Niddah 43b from the source, and then she1 went down and performed ritual immersion? If you were to find a case2 where we follow the time of the detachment even where the woman can restrain the discharge [the question would arise], Does this apply only to the Israelitish woman who is Pentateuchally unclean but not to an idolatress who was a zabah, since she is only Rabbinically unclean,3 or is it possible that no difference is made between them? — This is undecided. AND THE DISCHARGES CONVEY UNCLEANNESS HOWEVER SMALL THE QUANTITY. Samuel ruled: [the discharge of] a zab 4 must be such a quantity as would stop the orifice of the membrum, for it is said in Scriptures Or his flesh be stopped from his issue.5 But have we not learnt: AND THE DISCHARGES CONVEY UNCLEANNESS, HOWEVER SMALL THE QUANTITY? — He6 maintains the same view as R. Nathan. For it was taught: R. Nathan citing R. Ishmael ruled, [the discharge of] a zab 4 must be such a quantity as would stop the orifice of the membrum; but [the Rabbis] did not agree with him.7 What is R. Ishmael's reason? — Because Scripture said, Or his flesh be stopped from his issue.5 And the Rabbis?8 — That text9 is required for the inference that the discharge conveys uncleanness only when in a state of fluidity10 but not when it is dry.11 And R. Ishmael?12 — That13 is inferred from run.14 And the Rabbis?15 — That text14 serves the purpose of indicating the number:16 His issue,9 implies once; His flesh run,9 implies twice; With his issue,9 implies three times; thus it was taught that a zab who observed three discharges is under an obligation to bring a sacrifice; Or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his uncleanness,9 implies that he is unclean even on account of a part of the number of his issues,17 this teaches that a zab who observed only two discharges conveys uncleanness to his couch and seat. As to R. Ishmael, however,18 whence does he deduce the number required?19 — He derives it from an exposition of R. Simai; for it was taught: R. Simai stated, Scripture enumerated two issues and described the man as unclean20 and it also enumerated three issues and described the man as unclean,21 how is this to be reconciled? Two observations subject a man to the restrictions of uncleanness, and three observations render him liable to bring a sacrifice. But according to the Rabbis22 who deduced both numbers from 'This shall be his uncleanness in his issue',23 what deduction do they make from the text 'when any man hath an issue out of his flesh'?24 — They require it for the deduction that uncleanness does not begin until the discharge emerged from one's flesh. What need, however, was there for 'His issue be unclean'?24 — 'This teaches that the issue itself25 is unclean. R. Hanilai citing R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon ruled: Semen conveys uncleanness to the man who emitted it,26 however small its quantity, but as regards the man who touched it its quantity must be of the bulk of a lentil.27 But did we not learn, AND THE DISCHARGES CONVEY UNCLEANNESS, HOWEVER SMALL THE QUANTITY, which applies, does it not, to the case of one who touched semen? — No, it applies only to one who emitted it.26 Come and hear: In one respect the law of semen is more restrictive than that of a dead creeping thing while in another respect the law of a dead creeping thing is more restrictive than that of semen. 'The law of a dead creeping thing is more restrictive' in that no distinction [of age] is made about its uncleanness,28 which is not the case with semen.29 'The law of semen is more restrictive' in that uncleanness is conveyed by its smallest quantity, which is not the case with a creeping thing.30 Now does not this apply to one who touched the semen?31 — No, it applies only to one who emitted it.32 But was it not taught as being on a par with the creeping thing: As the latter is a case of touching so also the former?31 — R. Adda b. Ahabah replied: The ruling referred to a creeping thing in general33 and to semen in general.34 But does a creeping thing convey no uncleanness even when it is of the smallest bulk? Have we not in fact learnt: Members of the body35 have36 no prescribed minimum size [and uncleanness is, therefore, conveyed] by less than the size of an olive of corpse,37 by less than the size of an olive of nebelah or by less than the size of a lentil of a dead creeping thing?38 — It is different with a member of the body39 since the whole of it takes the place of the size of a lentil; for were any part of it40 missing,41 would the member42 have conveyed any uncleanness?43 What is meant by the 'distinction in uncleanness' in the case of semen? If it be suggested: The distinction between the semen of an Israelite and that of foreigners [it could be objected]: Is there not in this case also44 a distinction between a sea-mouse and a land-mouse?45 — The distinction rather is that between a minor and an adult.46 R. Papa stated: This ruling47 is a point at issue between Tannas:48 [For it was taught] whence do we derive the inclusion in uncleanness of one who touched semen? From Scripture which explicitly stated, Or whosoever;49 and elsewhere Tannas differ on a relevant point,50 for there are those who hold that a deduction is carried through in all respects51 while others hold that a deduction is limited by its original basis.52 Now according to those who hold that a deduction is carried through in all respects51 it follows that as a dead creeping thing53 conveys uncleanness through touch so does semen convey uncleanness by touch and, consequently,54 as a dead creeping thing conveys uncleanness only when it is of the bulk of a lentil so does semen convey uncleanness only when it is of the bulk of a lentil; while according to him who maintained that a deduction is limited by its original basis55 it also follows that as a dead creeping thing conveys uncleanness through touch so does semen convey uncleanness through touch, but then, limiting it to its original basis, as semen conveys uncleanness to the man who emitted it, however small its quantity, so does it also convey uncleanness to the man who touched it, however small its quantity.56 Said57 R. Huna son of R. Nathan to R. Papa: Whence the proof that the inclusion in uncleanness of one who touched semen is deduced from the expression of 'Or whosoever occurring in the context dealing with the creeping thing?58 Is it not possible that the inclusion is derived from the expression of 'Or from whomsoever the flow of seed goeth out,59 and60 all may be of the opinion that a deduction is to be carried through in all respects?61 The Tannas62 were asked63 Some recited as R. Papa while others recited in agreement with R. Huna son of R. Nathan. MISHNAH. A GIRL ONE DAY OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF MENSTRUATION. ONE WHO IS TEN DAYS OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF ZIBAH. A BOY ONE DAY OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF ZIBAH, AND TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY AND THAT OF CORPSEUNCLEANNESS; HE SUBJECTS [HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIDOW] TO THE DUTY OF LEVIRATE MARRIAGE;64 HE EXEMPTS [HIS MOTHER] FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE,65 HE ENABLES HER66 TO EAT TERUMAH AND HE ALSO CAUSES HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED FROM EATING TERUMAH;67 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files For the purpose of her conversion to Judaism. In respect of an Israelitish woman. Cf. supra n. 5. If it is to convey uncleanness. Lev. XV, 3. Samuel. Pes. 67b. How can they maintain their ruling in view of this text? Lev. XV, 3. Lit., 'wet', when the orifice can 'be stopped' by it. When it crumbles away and is incapable of adhesion. How, in view of this explanation, can he still maintain his ruling? That a discharge conveys uncleanness only when in a state of fluidity. Run with his issue (Lev. XV, 3). How can they maintain their ruling in view of this text? Of issues that determine the various grades of uncleanness. 'From his issues' (emphasis on 'from') implying 'a part'. Who requires the expression of 'run with his issue' for the inference he mentioned supra. As just indicated according to the Rabbis. When any man hath an issue out of his flesh (Lev. XV, 2), counts as one; his issue be unclean (ibid), counts as a second. This shall be his uncleanness in his issue (Lev. XV, 3) counts as one; His flesh run with his issue (ibid.) counts as a second; or his flesh be stopped from his issue (ibid.) counts as a third. Lit., 'him'. Supra. Cf. supra n. 12. And not only the man who suffered from it. Lit., 'to the one who observes'. A lesser quantity, as is the case with a dead creeping thing, conveys no uncleanness. Young and old are equally unclean. The uncleanness on account of an emission of semen being restricted to one who is over nine years of age. Tosef. Kel. I. Cf. supra n. 2. But this would present an objection against R. Hanilai's ruling. Lit., 'to the one who observes'. Lit., 'the name of' or 'any'. Sc. it referred to the form of uncleanness appropriate to each. A dead creeping thing can never convey uncleanness unless its bulk is of the prescribed size, while semen, when it concerns the man who had emitted it, may convey uncleanness, however small its quantity. Sc. any part of it which consists of flesh, sinews and bones (v. Bertinoro). In regard to the conveyance of uncleanness. Cf. prev. n. but one. Oh. I, 7, which shows that a dead creeping thing conveys uncleanness, however small its bulk. V. p. 300, n. 10. Lit., 'a portion'. Cf. supra p. 300, n. 10. That was smaller than a lentil. Obviously not; which shows that it is only on account of its importance that the force of conveying uncleanness (as a piece of the prescribed size) was imparted to it. Any other part of the body, however, is subject to the prescribed minimum. That of a creeping thing. Of course there is! A sea-mouse (cf. Hul. 126b) conveys no uncleanness. No uncleanness is conveyed by that of a child under nine years of age. Of R. Hanilai, that semen less in quantity than the bulk of a lentil conveys no uncleanness by means of touch. Lit., 'like Tannas'. This is now presumed to refer to Lev. XXII, 5, which deals with the uncleanness of a creeping thing. Which (as will be shown presently) has a bearing on this deduction: Lit., 'judge from it and (again) from it', i.e., all that applies to the case from which deduction is made is also applicable to the case deduced Lit., 'judge from it and set it in its (original) place', i.e., the rules applicable to the case deduced limit the scope of the deduction. From the law of which that of semen had presumably been deduced (cf. n. 12). Lit., 'and from it', since 'a deduction is carried through in all respects.' V. p. 301, n. 15. It has thus been shown that R. Hanilai's ruling is a point at issue between Tannas. Is it likely, however, that R. Hanilai would differ from the Tannas who presumably hold a different view? In an attempt to remove the difficulty (cf. prev. n. second clause). Lev. XXII, 5, as presumed by R. Papa supra. Lev. XXII, 4. Since the deduction is not made from the contact of the creeping thing. Sc. even if all were to uphold this view, uncleanness would nevertheless be conveyed by the touch of the smallest quantity of semen, since the inference is made, not from the uncleanness of the creeping thing but from that of the emission of semen which is conveyed by the smallest quantity. Those who recited Mishnahs and Baraithas at the college; v. Glos. s.v. (b). To give a decision as to whether R. Papa or R. Huna was in the right. Provided he was born prior to his brother's death. If he was born after his father's death though he only lived for a short while. His mother, the daughter of an Israelite, who was married to a priest, though the latter was dead when the child was born. This is now presumed to refer to a priest's daughter who was married to an Israelite who died and was survived by a son one day old (v. Gemara infra.) Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |