Niddah 22a — the Talmud in English

When they differ

only

with regard to a piece,

and it is split open, so that the blood is visible in the fissures of the piece.

One master,

the first tanna,

holds—

it is the way of a woman to see blood in a piece,

and the blood is menstrual blood; and since there is no interposition here, she is impure.

And the other master,

the Rabbis,

holds: It is not the way of a woman to see blood in a piece,

and therefore this blood is not called “menstrual blood,” and it is pure. And the fact that the Sages needed to declare it pure because “this is not menstrual blood” is not because they dispute the exposition from “in her flesh”; rather, they stated an additional reason that would render even the blood in the fissures pure.

Rava said: According to everyone, it is not the way of a woman to see blood in a piece,

and this blood is not considered menstrual blood, and even the first tanna declares a piece that is split open pure.

And here, they differ concerning a pure woman, while the source

[the womb]

its place is impure.

For although the woman herself is not impure with menstrual impurity, the first tanna and the Rabbis differed as to whether its very presence in the womb renders it impure and makes it a primary source of impurity, so as to render the woman and the pure things that she touches impure with impurity lasting until evening; or perhaps the presence in the source causes no impurity whatsoever.

Rabbi Eliezer’s

[the first tanna]

position is: The woman—

pure

from menstrual impurity—

but the blood—

impure! For it comes by way of the source,

and the blood became impure through its contact with the womb, and it renders impure the woman who touches the blood, according to the law of anyone who touches an impure thing.

And the Rabbis hold: The woman is pure.

And the source—

its place is pure!

And therefore the woman is pure even from impurity lasting until evening.

Rabba asked Rav Huna: In the case of one who sees a seminal emission on a splinter 35 ,

that is, he caused seminal fluid to emerge by inserting a splinter into the opening of the organ—

what is the law?

And the sides of the question are: “A man from whom there emerges

from him

seminal fluid,”

the Merciful One said—

until it emerges from his flesh,

by way of an exit,

and not

when it was extracted

with a splinter 36 .

Or perhaps: This “from him”

means—

until his impurity emerges outside,

and even if it was dislodged and began to emerge inside the body, he is still pure, and its law differs from that of a menstruant, who becomes impure from the blood when it passes the place of “between the teeth,” even before it emerges outside the body. And since the verse “from him” is needed for this exposition, no additional exclusion can be derived from it—

and even through a splinter as well

he is impure?!

He said to him

Rav Huna said to Rabba:

Let him derive it from the fact that it,

the semen,

itself does not render impure

in any quantity,

but only in the amount that seals the opening of the organ,

and when it is less than this measure of “the amount that seals the opening of the organ,” the semen does not render impure the man from whom it emerged, even when it emerged on its own. If so, when he inserted a splinter and extracted semen, he extracted no more than the measure of the splinter, which is less than the measure that seals the opening of the organ. And what is Rabba’s uncertainty concerning extraction with a splinter, when there is not at all the measure that renders impure? And the Gemara infers:

Does this mean

that Rav Huna holds that the fact that the semen renders the man impure is not because of the very emergence of the semen, but because

it is one that touches

the man. And therefore a measure is required of the semen that is touched [for if the impurity were because of seeing the seminal emission, a measure of semen would not be required, as with a menstruant, whose impurity results from the very seeing of the blood and not from touching it; therefore, no measure of blood is required for her to be impure as a menstruant].

And the Gemara objects:

If so,

if the impurity of a seminal emission is not because of seeing, but because of contact with the impure semen,

the one who sees a seminal emission should not invalidate

the one who sees a seminal emission

in a case of gonorrhea!? [

A person with gonorrhea who has seen three emissions of gonorrhea must count seven clean days for his purification, for he must not see during these days anything connected with gonorrhea. And if we say that a seminal emission is not seeing impurity but contact impurity, the seeing of the seminal emission within the seven clean days need not invalidate his purification, just as contact with a creeping creature does not interfere with his purification.] If so, this is difficult:

Why, then, was it taught: “This is the law of the person with gonorrhea, and of one from whom seminal fluid emerges”

[for the person with gonorrhea and one with a seminal emission were compared to one another], and we expound:

Just as gonorrhea

during the clean days

invalidates

them, and he must count them anew,

so too

the seeing of

seminal fluid

by the person with gonorrhea during his seven clean days

also invalidates!

And why does it invalidate, when this is only contact impurity, similar to contact with a creeping creature?

He said to him

Rav Huna said to Rabba:

The invalidation—this is the reason that it invalidates

the seminal emission the seven clean days of the person with gonorrhea: not because the seminal fluid itself renders impure through its emergence from the body, but

because it is impossible for it

for the seminal fluid emerging during the seven clean days to be without

traces of gonorrhea,

and these traces of gonorrhea, mixed into the seminal fluid, are what invalidate the cleanness of the days,

and not the seeing of the seminal emission in itself.

And Rabba returned and asked Rav Huna:

If so,

since you say that it is impossible for seminal fluid during the seven clean days of a person with gonorrhea to be without traces of gonorrhea,

the seeing of the seminal emission should invalidate

the seeing of the seminal emission

all seven

days, according to the law of a person with gonorrhea who sees gonorrhea during the clean days, who invalidates all the clean days that he has counted until then and returns and counts seven new clean days.

Why, then, was it taught: “This is the law of the person with gonorrhea

and of one from whom seminal fluid emerges”

—just as gonorrhea invalidates, so seminal fluid invalidates

during the seven clean days of a person with gonorrhea.

If just as gonorrhea invalidates

the

entire seven

clean days,

so too seminal fluid also invalidates

the

entire seven

clean days of the person with gonorrhea,

the verse says, “to render impure through it”—you have only in it

with regard to the invalidation caused by seminal fluid

what is stated concerning it

with regard to the impurity itself: just as the impurity of seminal fluid is for only one day, so too the invalidation by which it

invalidates

from the count of the seven days of the person with gonorrhea is only

one day.

That is, the same day on which it was seen [for example, if the person with gonorrhea counted seven clean days and on the seventh day seminal fluid emerged from him, he invalidates only that day, and on the next day counts one additional clean day and completes it with the six previous clean days]. And why? Does seminal fluid not contain traces of gonorrhea, and by their force all seven days should be invalidated?!

He said to him

Rav Huna said to Rabba:

It is a scriptural decree!

[That is: only]

complete gonorrhea, into which seminal fluid was not mixed—

invalidates all seven.

But

traces of gonorrhea, into which seminal fluid was mixed—

invalidate only one day!

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina asked Rabbi Elazar:

one who sees

dry blood—

what is the ruling?

And the sides of the question are:

that the impurity of a menstruant is learned from the verse, “A woman

when there is a flow, the flow of her blood,”

and since in the language of flowing

the Merciful One stated—

only when it actually flows for her

[only when it flows like a liquid] does it convey impurity; and according to this side:

moist blood—

yes,

blood

dry—

no!

Or perhaps—

this “when there is a flow, the flow of her blood” is the ordinary manner of the matter,

that the verse adopted the language of flowing because this is the ordinary manner in which she sees blood,

but in every case, even

blood

that is also dry

conveys impurity?

He said to him,

Rabbi Elazar to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina—

“You have learned it: ‘The blood of a menstruant and the flesh of a corpse convey impurity whether moist or dry’!”

He said to him,

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina to Rabbi Elazar: Blood that was, at the time of its exiting,

moist and became dry

afterward,

is not what I am asking about,

for it conveys impurity; and this is the case with which the Mishna deals [for the Mishna also mentioned dry flesh of a corpse, and the flesh of a corpse was certainly moist at the time of death and only afterward became dry].

What I am asking about is \-

dry from the outset,

which at the time of its exiting from the body was dry and did not exit in the form of flowing, and only that could be excluded by the verse, “when there is a flow”?

And the Gemara resolves:

“This too you have learned: ‘A woman who discharges something resembling a shell, something resembling a strand of hair, something resembling earth, or something resembling red gnats, shall place

them

in water”—![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

if they dissolved, she is impure!’”

And it is proven that although at first the blood was dry, and only afterward, at the time of its examination in water, it dissolved, she is impure .