Niddah 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Anyone whose hand examines frequently

among men—if they have not become impure through keri; and among women—if they have not become impure through niddah or ziva.]

Now, if the frequent examinations are

among women —

the examining hand is praiseworthy,

as it prevents her from rendering pure items impure and from causing her husband to stumble.

But if it is

among men—

the hand that examines frequently should be cut off,

because it brings the one examining to the serious transgression of emitting seed in vain.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

What is different about women,

whose frequent examination is praiseworthy,

and what is different about men, for whom it is prohibited?

It answers:

Women—

are not subject to sensation!

The examination does not affect a woman in a manner that causes her to stumble into this transgression; therefore, the woman who examines herself is praiseworthy.

But

men, who are subject to sensation,

because examination can bring them to the destruction of seed, which is a serious sin—

the hand

that examines itself should be cut off!

The Gemara challenges this:

If so,

if the distinction between them is the possibility of being led to sin,

why specifically

do we say: Anyone whose hand

examines frequently

among men should have it cut off? Surely

even if he does not examine frequently,

but examines only a little,

as well

his hand should be cut off, since even a little examination can cause men to stumble! The Gemara answers:

When it teaches

in the Mishna, “Anyone whose hand

examines frequently”—

it

is teaching about examinations by

women,

for whom frequent examination is praiseworthy.

The tanna taught: In what case is this statement made,

that the hand of one who examines frequently among men should be cut off? When the examination was

concerning

whether the man examining himself had seen

seminal fluid. Since a person feels when seminal fluid emerges, there is no need to examine whether it emerged from him so long as he did not feel it.

But concerning a flux,

which emerges even without sensation,

and it is impossible to know whether it emerged except through examination— he too,

the man afflicted with a flux who has become impure through ziva, and who examines himself to see whether his discharge has continued in order to determine whether he is obligated to bring an offering—

is

praiseworthy

5, like women,

who are praiseworthy for their frequent examinations!

And even concerning seminal fluid,

there is a circumstance in which examination is permitted:

if he comes to examine himself with a pebble,

which is hard and does not cause warmth,

or with earthenware—

he may examine himself!

The Gemara challenges:

And

what of

a cloth—is it not permitted to examine with it?

The wording of the tanna implies that it is specifically permitted to examine with a pebble or earthenware, but not with anything else.

But it was taught in a beraita: He examines himself with a cloth, and with anything he wishes to examine with!?

The Gemara answers:

As Abaye said

elsewhere, as will be explained below:

With a thick cloth

it is possible to examine oneself.

Here too,

the statement

that we learned

in the beraita, that one examines himself with a cloth, refers specifically to

a thick cloth,

which resembles a pebble and earthenware.

The Gemara explains:

And where was

the statement

of Abaye

that it is permitted to examine oneself with a thick cloth stated?

With regard to that which we learned:

A kohen who

was eating teruma, and felt that his limbs were shaken,

meaning that semen had been dislodged from his body and was about to emerge—and when semen emerges from his body he becomes impure and is forbidden to eat teruma, while he wishes to finish eating the teruma before becoming impure—

he grasps his organ,

preventing the semen from emerging from his body,

and swallows,

in the meantime and quickly,

the teruma!

For as long as the semen has not emerged, he remains permitted to eat the teruma.

The Gemara asks: How can the Mishna state that he has a remedy by

grasping

his organ?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who grasps his organ while urinating—

it is as though he brings a flood upon the world,

because by doing so he emits seed in vain; and this was the sin of the generation of the Flood!?

To resolve this,

Abaye said that the permission to grasp his organ and swallow the teruma applies specifically

when he uses

a thick cloth, which does not cause warmth and does not lead to the destruction of seed. [This is the explanation intended by the Gemara above when it said, “As Abaye said: with a thick cloth.”]

that does not warm the organ and does not cause the destruction of semen. [This is the explanation intended by the Gemara above when it said, “As Abaye said: with a thick cloth.”]

Rava said: You may even say

that the case concerns one who grasps his organ

with a soft cloth—

since it has already been dislodged,

and is about to emerge—

it is dislodged!

The Gemara challenges:

And Abaye,

why did he prohibit grasping his organ with a soft cloth? The semen had already been dislodged from its place before the examination!

It answers:

He is concerned that perhaps he will come to cause additional emission,

by means of the warmth generated while grasping the organ.

And Rava is not concerned that perhaps he will come to cause additional emission!

The Gemara asks:

Is he not?

Is there no reason to fear additional destruction of seed through the warmth generated by the grasping?

But it was taught in a beraita

in the Tosefta, chapter 2, halakha 7, on our Mishna]:

This

that is, a man who examines himself constantly,

to what can it be compared?

To one who places a finger in his eye; as long as the finger is in the eye,

the eye weeps and continues to weep!

Likewise, with a man, the more he examines himself, the more he causes additional emission of seed!

Rava

answers that a distinction must be made: our Mishna concerns a case in which the man’s limbs were shaken and he felt that the semen had been dislodged, all at once, in order to emerge. In such a case—

all warming, and then renewed warming at the same time—

is uncommon!

The beraita, which compares the one examining himself to someone who places a finger in his eye, refers to a case different from that of the Mishna: he repeatedly handles the organ, such as when he examines himself and then examines himself again. As long as he continues handling it, the semen continues to emerge gradually, just as a tear emerges slowly from an eye with each movement of the hand against it.

The essential matter: Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who grasps the organ and urinates —

it is as though he brings a flood upon the world!

They said to Rabbi Eliezer: But

if he does not grasp it, his urine will not travel far, and then

drops

of urine

will splash upon his feet, and he will appear

for this reason

like one whose organ is cut off

who cannot father children, since he does not project his urine far;

and he will thereby bring slander upon his sons, saying that they are mamzerim! Rabbi Eliezer said to them: It is preferable that he bring slander upon his sons, saying that they are mamzerim, and not make himself wicked,

even

for one hour, before the Omnipresent!

It was taught in another beraita: Rabbi Eliezer said to the Sages

that there is advice for preventing the drops from splashing on his feet even without grasping his organ with his hand:

he should stand

the

man in an elevated place—

and urinate

downward!

Or he should urinate on loose soil,

in which the drops will be absorbed. It is proper to make this effort, to trouble himself to urinate specifically in such places,

and not make himself wicked for one hour before the Omnipresent.

And the Gemara explains:

What did

Rabbi Eliezer say to the Sages

first?

The prohibition, or the advice?

If we say that it was the first statement, in which only the prohibition was stated,

he said it to them first—this is impossible! For how could it be that

after he told them the prohibition

categorically, that in every circumstance it is forbidden to hold it in his hand while urinating, he would then

tell them a remedy!?

This would imply that he merely gave them advice about how it is possible to refrain from holding it, but that if it is impossible to act according to his advice, it is permitted to hold it.

And the Gemara concludes:

Rather,

necessarily,

this,

the advice,

he told them first. And they said to him:

If

he has no elevated place or loose soil,

what

should he do?

He said to them: It is preferable that he bring disrepute upon his sons, but he should not make himself wicked for even one moment before the Omnipresent!

And the Gemara explains:

And why all this? —

Because he emits semen in vain!

As Rabbi Yohanan said: Anyone who emits semen in vain —

is liable for death! As it is stated: “And what he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord,

Onan,

and He put him to death as well.”

Rabbi Yitzhak and Rabbi Ami said:

He is

as though

he sheds blood!

As it is stated: “Those who console themselves with gods, beneath every green tree, who slaughter the children in the valleys, beneath the clefts of the rocks”

— “Do not read ‘those who slaughter

the children’

”

but rather, ‘those who squeeze

the children”! That is, those who emit semen in vain. Scripture considers them as though they had slaughtered children.

Rav Asi said:

He is

as though he worships idolatry!

For

it is written here,

“beneath every green tree”; and it is written there,

“upon the lofty mountains

high places

and beneath every green tree.”

Rav Yehuda and Shmuel were standing on the roof of the synagogue of

the place

Dǝshef

a place-name,

which was situated

that synagogue was

within the boundaries of Nehardea.

Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: I need to urinate,

but how should I do so on the roof of a synagogue?

He said to him,

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda:

Sharp one

a designation for Rav Yehuda, because he was sharp-witted:

Hold your organ

so that the urine will not fall beneath you onto the roof of the synagogue,

and urinate outward.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

How did

Rav Yehuda

do this? But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: “Anyone who holds his organ and urinates is as though he brings a flood upon the world”!

And it answers:

Abaye said —

he treated

this ruling of Rav Yehuda

like a troop of besiegers 14 ,

for in a place of danger and fear, a person is occupied with what he is doing without thinking about other matters. Therefore, since Rav Yehuda was on the roof, he did not have to fear that holding his organ would lead him to erotic thoughts, as it is explained:

As we learned: A troop of besiegers

a military force that enters to search and plunder

that entered a city,

if

in peacetime

it entered, then

barrels

of wine that were

open are prohibited,

from that point onward, for drinking, lest the soldiers have poured libations from them for idolatry. But barrels that were

sealed

remained

permitted.

And if the force entered

in wartime,

both these and those are permitted, because they do not have time to pour libations! Apparently, since they are afraid,

as the soldiers are frightened because of the war,

they do not come to pour libations.

Here too,

since he was afraid,

Rav Yehuda, while standing on the roof,

he would not come to entertain erotic thoughts!

And the Gemara explains:

And what element of “fear” was present here?

a.

Alternatively,

it was the fear of the night and of the roof

from standing at the edge of the roof at night.

b.

And alternatively,

it was the fear of his teacher

since Rav Yehuda was Shmuel’s student.

c.

And alternatively,

it was the fear of the Divine Presence

that rests in the synagogue, on whose roof he was standing.

d

. And alternatively,

the awe of his Master was upon him

since Rav Yehuda was God-fearing, and it would have been permitted for him to hold his organ even when he was not on the roof.

For Shmuel would call Rav Yehuda: “This is not a human being!”

because he was so God-fearing.

e.

And alternatively,

this was permitted to Rav Yehuda because

he was married, as Rav Naḥman said:

If he was married

that he has “bread in his basket,”

it is permitted

to hold it.

f.

And alternatively: In a case such as this,

in this manner

Shmuel instructed

Rav Yehuda to act:

as Abba, son of Rabbi Binyamin bar Ḥiyya, taught —

although it is forbidden to hold the organ,

one may assist with the testicles from below!

g.

And alternatively: In a case such as this, Shmuel instructed

Rav Yehuda:

as Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan —

there is a limit

to the prohibition against holding it:

from the crown downward —

it is permitted.