Niddah 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

From the corona and above [to direct the body] -

it is forbidden.

And likewise he instructed him to hold from the corona and below.

Rav said: One who deliberately causes himself an erection -

shall be

placed under a ban.

And the Gemara raises an objection: Why not say that

Rav said:

It is forbidden

to deliberately cause oneself an erection!?

And it answers: The reason Rav used this particular expression was to teach you that the prohibition is especially severe, because

he incites the evil inclination against himself [Ran, Shabbat, chapter 14].

And Rabbi Ami said:

One who deliberately causes himself an erection

is called a transgressor!

Because

such is the craft of the evil inclination:

Today it tells him, “Do this,” and tomorrow it tells him, “Do this,” and on the following day

[after the person obeys it and becomes entirely under its control],

it tells him: “Go worship idols!” And he goes and worships them.

Some say: Rabbi Ami said: Anyone who brings himself to a state of erotic thoughts

is not admitted into the partition of the Holy One, blessed be He!

For

it is written here [concerning the emission of semen] ,

“And it was evil in the eyes of the Lord

that which Onan did.”

And it is written there [concerning those who are not admitted into the partition of the Holy One, blessed be He],

“For You are not a God who desires wickedness;

evil

[a wicked person does not dwell together with You within Your partition]

shall not dwell with You.”

This requires examination: What proof does the Gemara derive from the verse “And it was evil in the eyes of the Lord,” which is stated concerning Onan, who destroyed his semen and was called evil, that anyone who merely brings himself to a state of erotic thoughts is called evil? From this difficulty Rabbi Tzadok HaKohen [Takanat HaShavin, section 15] learned that the primary prohibition against emitting semen lies in the sexual thoughts that caused it, although a person is not punished for thoughts that did not lead to an actual deed. The explanation appears to be based on the words of Maimonides [Takanat HaShavim, section 15] learned that the primary prohibition of emitting semen lies in the thought that caused it, although one is not punished for a thought that did not lead to action. The matter appears to be explained according to Rambam’s words in The Guide for the Perplexed [Part III, chapter 8], that thoughts of sin are worse than the sin itself. One who sins in thought has sinned with the intellect, which is the superior element in the body; this is not comparable to the rebellion of a lowly servant against the rebellion of a great minister. But [III:8], that thoughts of transgression are more severe than the transgression itself: One who sins in thought has sinned with the intellect, which is the noblest part of the body, and the rebellion of an inferior servant is not comparable to the rebellion of a great minister. The Bach [Even HaEzer 23:3] holds that the Gemara means precisely what it says, and that an unmarried man is forbidden to bring his hand below his navel. He cited [23:3], however, wrote the opposite: That erotic thoughts and deliberately causing an erection were prohibited because of concern that this would lead to the destruction of semen. See the Shulchan Arukh [Orach Chayim 240:1], which prohibited sexual thoughts and arousal even concerning one’s wife, where there is no concern of wasting semen. [Orach Chayim 240:1], which prohibited erotic thoughts and deliberately causing an erection even concerning one’s wife, with whom there is no concern of semen being destroyed.

And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written, “Your hands are full of blood”?

These are those who commit adultery with the hand!

[As they destroy their semen with their hands.]

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

said: It is not written, “You shall not commit adultery with a woman,” but rather

“You shall not commit adultery”

without specification—teaching

that there shall not be in you

any

adultery—

whether with the hand

or with the foot! 19 , They taught in a baraita: Converts and those who play with children

delay the

coming of

the Messiah!

And the Gemara discusses this:

Granted, converts

delay it,

in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Helbo. For Rabbi Helbo said: Converts are as difficult for Israel as a scab

[a form of leprosy]!

Rather, what is meant by “those who play with children”? -

What is it?

If you say it means homosexual intercourse -

then

they are liable to stoning!

And not merely to delay the Messiah and nothing more.

Rather,

perhaps it means that they destroy their semen

through the limbs

[whereas homosexual intercourse specifically resembles intercourse with a woman]—

the difficulty still remains: Are they not

“the generation of the Flood,”

which is an expression of a more severe punishment than delaying the Messiah! And the Gemara answers:

Rather, they marry

women

who are minors and are not capable of bearing children, 21 ,

and there is no prohibition of destroying semen in this, but rather they are neglecting the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying.

For Rabbi Yosei said:

The son of David will come only once

the souls in the body have been exhausted!

“Body” is the place in which all the souls are stored. As long as all the souls have not been brought forth from it, the son of David will not come. It follows that one who prevents himself from bringing souls down from the “body” into the world thereby delays the redemption!

As it is stated: “For the spirit before Me shall be faint, and the souls

I have made.”

The explanation is: The spirits that are before Me, which I decreed should be born, will “be faint”—they will delay [from the expression “and the faint ones for Laban”] the redemption mentioned in that verse.

We learned in the Mishna: Anyone who examines himself frequently

among men -

his hand should be cut off!

They raised a dilemma before them:

Is

law what we learned,

meaning that the law is literally to cut off his hand, or

a curse is what we learned

[a curse—that his hand deserves to be cut off]?

And the explanation of the dilemma is: Is

law what we learned,

as in the case of Rav Huna, who cut off a hand!

[As explained in Sanhedrin, anyone who raises his hand against another person should have his hand cut off. Rav Huna actually did so!] Likewise here, the hand should be cut off.

Or is it only a curse

and not an actual punishment

that we learned?

Come and hear, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Tarfon says:

One who sends

his hand to his organ -

his hand should be cut off

while it is still

upon his navel!

They said to him:

How can one cut off the hand while it is upon the navel?

Would not his abdomen be split open

by this, while he is liable only for the cutting off of his hand!?

He said to them,

Rabbi Tarfon:

It is preferable

that

his abdomen be split open, and he not descend into the pit of destruction!

And the Gemara proves:

Granted, if you say that law is what we learned,

this is why they said to him: “Would not his abdomen be split open?”

But if you say that a curse is what we learned,

and his hand is not actually cut off—

what is there about “his abdomen being split open”

at all!?

The Gemara rejects this:

But what can you say—

that law is what we learned!?

And is it

not sufficient

to say that his hand should be cut off when it is

not upon his navel?

Why did Rabbi Tarfon say that it should specifically be cut off while upon his navel?

Rather, this is what Rabbi Tarfon was saying: Anyone who inserts his hand below his navel

[and touches his organ] -

his hand should be cut off

and it is always only a curse [and this is the explanation of his words: “His hand to his organ should be cut off,” because he inserted his hand below his navel].

They said to Rabbi Tarfon: If a thorn became lodged in his abdomen

[his organ], should

he not remove it? He said to them -

No!

They said to him -

But would not

his abdomen be split open?!

He said to them: It is preferable that his abdomen be split open and that he not descend

into the pit of destruction!

Mishna:

A deaf-mute woman

[who lacks understanding because she has not learned],

an intellectually disabled woman

[whose understanding was impaired from birth],

a blind woman, and one whose mind has become deranged -

if

they have

acquaintances who are

mentally competent,

their mentally competent companions

attend to them

by examining them to ascertain that they have not become impure as menstruating women; and if they have become impure, their companions immerse them,

and they may eat teruma,

if they are daughters of kohanim.

Gemara:

And the Gemara asks:

a deaf woman—

why is it necessary to have her examined by her mentally competent companions?

Let her examine herself!

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi said: There was a deaf woman in our neighborhood—

not only did she examine herself, but her companions would observe and show her

the blood from their examinations, to examine whether it was pure or impure, because she was proficient in the appearance of blood

?

There,

the case concerns the neighborhood of Rabbi,

with

a deaf woman who

speaks but does not hear.

She had previously been able to hear and had learned to speak then, and afterward became deaf; therefore, she possessed full mental capacity.

Here,

in our Mishna, the case concerns

one who does not

speak but does not hear,

because she was born deaf.

As we learned in a Mishna: Whenever the Sages speak of a deaf-mute

who lacks mental capacity like a mentally deranged person, it refers specifically to a deaf-mute who

neither hears nor speaks!

We learned in our Mishna:

A blind woman—

mentally competent women rectify

her condition.

And the Gemara asks: Why

?

Let her examine herself and inspect her companion?

It resolves this:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: “A blind woman”—

is not part of the Mishna!

It must be erased from the Mishna.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one whose mind became deranged.

And the Gemara asks:

One whose mind became deranged—

this is a mentally deranged person,

which has already been stated in the Mishna

!

It answers: The case is not one whose mind was deranged from birth, as in the case of a mentally deranged person, but rather

one whose mind became deranged

after she was born,

due to illness!

The Sages taught: A mentally deranged koen

who wishes to eat teruma—

they immerse him in a ritual bath

in order to purify him from the impurity of a seminal emission or the impurity of a creeping creature.

And they feed him teruma in the evening,

as he is permitted to eat only after sunset.

If he sleeps —

he is impure. If he does not sleep—

he is pure.

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says:

Even if he sleeps, there is a way to feed him teruma—

they make him a leather pouch

and examine the pouch before coming to feed him teruma, to determine whether it contains a seminal emission or a flux.

They said to him:

It is impossible to make him a pouch, because

all the more so it will bring

that pouch

to a state of heating.

He said to them: According to your statement—

a

mentally deranged koen has no remedy,

because perhaps he will experience a seminal emission.

They said to him: According to our statement

he does have a remedy, because only

if he sleeps is he impure,

but

if he does not sleep—

he is pure.

But

according to your statement, that one makes him a pouch, there is concern

that perhaps he will experience

a drop

of seminal emission, a small one

like a mustard seed, and it will be absorbed into the pouch!

And he will eat teruma while impure in body, for which he incurs the severe punishment of death

!

A tanna taught: They said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: They make him

a

pouch for the mentally deranged koen

of metal. Abaye said: And

the metal pouch must specifically be made

of copper, since copper does not absorb at all, and therefore there is no concern that a drop of semen the size of a mustard seed might be absorbed into the pouch.

And as it is taught

in another context, that copper does not absorb: “Waters of purification,” which are water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, and through which those impure with impurity imparted by a corpse are purified, render the one who carries them impure if the water contains enough for sprinkling. According to the Sages, the water that renders the carrier impure must contain an amount sufficient both for sprinkling and for the absorption of the hyssop stems, with which the water is sprinkled upon those who are impure. If it contains less than this total amount, the waters of purification do not render the one who carries them impure.

But

Rabbi Yehuda

disagrees and holds that an amount of water sufficient for sprinkling alone is enough. For

we regard

those

hyssop stems as though they were made of copper,

which does not absorb at all, and as though all the water on the stems would be sprinkled upon the person being purified, without being absorbed by the hyssop.

Rav Pappa said: Infer from this

that since the Sages prohibited making a leather pouch for a mentally deranged koen—

trousers

are prohibited

to wear, since they bring about heating just like the pouch.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But it is written

with regard to the garments of the koanim,

“And you shall make for them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness”

!?

It answers:

That—as it is taught in a beraita: The trousers of the koanim—

to what are they comparable? To a kind of skirt

of horsemen

[that is, wide trousers that do not bring about heating].

Above,

the trousers reached

to the hips. Below,

they reached

to the thighs, and they had cords

[laces].

And they had neither a “place of the orifice”

at the back,

nor a “place of nakedness”

in front, as it is disgraceful for sacred garments to be made in such a manner.