Niddah 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

When they disagree

only

with regard to a piece,

and the piece is split into strips, so that the blood is visible in the fissures of the piece.

One master,

the first tanna,

holds that

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 that 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 reason the Sages needed to declare it pure on the grounds that “this is not menstrual blood” is not that they disagree with the exposition from “in her flesh”; rather, they stated an additional reason that would render even the blood in the fissures pure.

Rava said: Everyone agrees that 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 split into strips pure.

And here, they disagree with regard to a pure woman and a source

[the uterus]

whose place is impure.

Although the woman herself is not impure with menstrual impurity, the first tanna and the Sages disagree over whether the mere presence of the blood in the uterus renders it impure and makes it an av hatumah, so that it can render the woman and the ritually pure objects with which she comes into contact impure with impurity lasting until evening; or perhaps presence in the uterus causes no impurity whatsoever.

Rabbi Eliezer’s

[the first tanna’s]

view is: The woman

is pure

from menstrual impurity,

but the blood

is impure, for it comes by way of the uterus;

and the blood became impure through contact with the uterus, and it renders the woman who touches the blood impure, like anyone who touches an impure object.

And the Rabbis hold: The woman is pure.

And the uterus

is pure in its place!

Therefore the woman is pure even from impurity lasting until evening.

Rabba asked Rav Huna: What is the status of one who sees a seminal emission through a splinter 35,

who discharged semen by inserting a splinter into the opening of the penis—

what is the ruling?

The two sides of the question are: “A man from whom there issues

semen”

the Merciful One stated—

only when it emerges from his flesh,

by a natural process of emergence,

but not

when it is extracted

with a splinter 36.

Or perhaps: The meaning of this “from him”

is

only once his impurity emerges outside,

and even if the semen separated and began to emerge within the body, he is still pure, unlike a menstruant, who becomes impure through the blood when it passes the place called “between the teeth,” even before it emerges from the body. 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 to Rabba:

Let him derive it from the fact that it,

the semen,

itself does not render one impure

in any quantity,

but only in the measure sufficient to seal the opening of the penis.

Semen in an amount less than this measure does not render the man from whom it emerged impure, even when it emerged on its own. If so, when he inserts a splinter and extracts semen, he has extracted no more than the amount held by the splinter, which is less than the measure sufficient to seal the opening of the penis . What, then, is Rabba’s uncertainty concerning extraction through a splinter, when the requisite measure that renders one impure is not present at all? The Gemara infers:

Does this mean

that Rav Huna holds that the reason semen renders a person impure is not the emergence of the semen itself, but rather

because it is considered to have touched

the person? Therefore, a measure is required for the semen that comes into contact with him [for if the impurity resulted from seeing a seminal emission, no measure of semen would be required, as in the case of a menstruant, whose impurity results from the sighting of blood itself and not from contact with it; therefore, there is no minimum measure of blood required for her to become impure as a menstruant] .

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But if so,

since seminal impurity results not from seeing but from contact with impure semen,

the one who sees a seminal emission should not invalidate

the zav’s count

through gonorrhea!? [A zav who experienced three sightings of gonorrhea must count seven clean days to become pure, and he must not see anything associated with gonorrhea during those days. If seminal impurity is not impurity resulting from seeing but impurity through contact, then seeing a seminal emission during the seven clean days should not invalidate his purification, just as contact with a creeping animal does not interfere with his purification.] If so, there is a difficulty:

For it is taught in a beraita: “This is the law of the zav, and of him from whom there issues a seminal emission”

[the zav and the man who experiences a seminal emission are juxtaposed], and we derive:

Just as gonorrhea

during the clean days

invalidates

them, requiring that they be counted anew,

so too

the sighting of

semen

by the zav during his seven clean days

also invalidates them!

Why does it invalidate them if this is merely impurity through contact, analogous to contact with a creeping animal?

He said to him,

Rav Huna to Rabba:

The reason for the invalidation—the reason that

the seminal emission invalidates the zav’s seven clean days—is not that semen renders one impure through its emergence from the body itself, but rather

because it is impossible

for semen emitted during the seven clean days to emerge without

traces of gonorrhea;

and these traces of gonorrhea mixed into the semen are what invalidate the clean days, not the sighting of the seminal emission in itself

.

Rabba returned and asked Rav Huna:

But if so,

since you say that it is impossible for semen to emerge during a zav’s seven clean days without traces of gonorrhea,

the sighting should invalidate

the seminal emission

all seven

days, as is the law of a zav who sees gonorrhea during his clean days, who invalidates all the clean days he has counted thus far and must again count seven new clean days.

It is evident from the beraita: “This is the law of the zav

and of him from whom there issues a seminal emission”

—just as gonorrhea invalidates, so too semen invalidates

during a zav’s seven clean days.

Could it be that just as gonorrhea invalidates

the

all seven

the clean days,

so too semen invalidates

the

all seven

of the zav’s clean days?

The verse states, “to render her impure through it”: You have only what is stated concerning it,

with regard to the invalidation caused by semen,

but only what is stated concerning it

with regard to the impurity itself: Just as the impurity of semen lasts only one day, so too the invalidation that it

causes

in the zav’s count of seven days is only for

one day.

That is, the very day on which it was seen. [For example, if the zav counted seven clean days and semen emerged from him on the seventh day, he invalidates only that day, and on the following day he counts one additional clean day, completing the six previously counted clean days.] Why is this so? Semen contains traces of gonorrhea, and because of them all seven days should be invalidated?!

He said to him,

Rav Huna to Rabba—

It is a decree of the verse!

[That is, only]

a complete discharge of gonorrhea, which does not have semen mixed into it,

invalidates all seven days.

But

traces of gonorrhea, into which semen is mixed,

invalidate only one day!

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, asked Rabbi Elazar:

one who sees

dry blood—

what is the halakha?

The sides of the question are:

The impurity of a menstruant is derived from the verse: “A woman

when there will be a flow, the flow of her blood,”

and since

the Merciful One said with regard to the expression “flow”:

until it actually flows [that is, only when it flows like a liquid] does it render impure. And according to this side of the question:

blood that is

wet—

yes,

blood that is

dry—

no!

Or perhaps—

this phrase, “when there will be a flow, the flow of her blood,” is merely the ordinary manner of expression,

as the verse uses the language of flowing because this is the usual manner in which she sees blood;

and in every case, even

blood that is

also dry

renders her impure?

He said to him,

Rabbi Elazar to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina:

You have learned this in a Mishna: “Menstruant blood and the flesh of a corpse render impure whether wet or dry”!

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said to him—

Rabbi Elazar: Blood that was, when it emerged,

wet and subsequently became dry

afterward—

I have no question about that: it renders impure. And this is the case addressed by the Mishna [for the Mishna also mentioned dry flesh of a corpse, and the flesh of a corpse was certainly wet at the time of death and became dry only afterward].

it certainly causes impurity, and this is the case addressed by the Mishna [the Mishna also mentioned dry flesh of a corpse, and the flesh of a corpse was certainly moist at the time of death and became dry only afterward].

My question is: -

blood that was dry from the outset,

which was dry when it emerged from the body and did not emerge in the form of a flow; is it only this blood that can be excluded by the verse “when there will be a flow”?

The Gemara resolves the question:

You have also learned this in a Mishna: “When a woman miscarries something resembling a shell, something resembling a hair, something resembling earth, or something resembling red gnats, she must place

them

in water”—

“If they dissolve, she is impure!”

And it is proven that although the blood was initially dry and only afterward, when it was examined in water, dissolved, she is nevertheless impure .