Niddah 34a — the Talmud in English

Because that event took place at the time of

the pilgrimage festival, and the impurity of an am ha-aretz during the pilgrimage festival—

the Sages established them as having the status of purity!

For they did not decree impurity upon amei ha-aretz during the pilgrimage festival, because of

as it is written [Judges 20]

“And all the men of Israel gathered to the city—

as one man, companions!”

And they derived from this that

the verse made them all

subject to the law of

“companions,”

when the Children of Israel gather together. And the time of the pilgrimage festival is the appointed time of the gathering of all Israel. Therefore, at this time everyone has the status of a “companion,” and they do not impart impurity with the impurity of an am ha-aretz.

But they were lenient during the pilgrimage festival only with regard to the impurity of an am ha-aretz. There still remained the concern that perhaps a Sadducee is impure by the law of one who has intercourse with a menstruant woman, which exists at all times, even during the pilgrimage festival. Therefore, the High Priest went to his wife to ascertain whether her husband had intercourse with a menstruant woman.

Mishna:

The blood of a menstruant woman and of a zavah differ essentially from the other liquids that issue from the human body, and therefore their laws differ:

The essential distinction.

The other liquids “become rounded and emerge”: the liquid first collects in the body and afterward emerges. This is not so with blood, for immediately when it emerges, it drips and emerges, the first first [Rashi 19b, s.v. “that becomes rounded”].

And from this follows a legal distinction:

The other liquids are called “springs,” unlike blood. Therefore, wherever impurity is stated with regard to “springs,” it does not include the blood that emerges.

And in the Mishna below [54b] another distinction is explained—

Impure blood, which is not a spring, imparts impurity whether it is liquid or dry, whereas the other liquids, which are called “springs,” impart impurity only when they are liquid, and not when they are dry.

This distinction applies only to impurity by Torah law. But with regard to impurities that are by rabbinic law, we find that the Sages decreed only with regard to liquid blood and not dry blood. For the Sages equated the law of blood with the law of springs, so that there would be a sign that the impurity is only by rabbinic law, and people would not come to burn teruma or sacred offerings because of it.

And the Mishna brings the opinion of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai in several ways dependent upon these principles: a.

The blood of a gentile woman,

who does not have the impurity of a menstruant woman by Torah law, since only Jewish women become impure as menstruants.

And the blood of purity of a woman with tzaraat who has given birth,

a woman who has given birth—a woman with tzaraat from whom blood emerged—which is pure during the days of purity, whether for a male or for a female .

Beit Shammai declare it pure!

And two novel points were stated in their words:

The first, regarding the purity of the blood of a gentile woman: although the Sages decreed that gentiles impart impurity like a zav in every respect [and therefore included in their decree was also that their spittle and urine impart impurity according to the law of a zav], the Sages were lenient and declared the menstrual blood of a gentile woman pure, so that there would be a sign that their impurity is only by rabbinic law.

And the second, regarding the purity of a woman with tzaraat who has given birth: although her other springs impart impurity by Torah law, nevertheless the blood of purity that emerges from her while she is a woman who has given birth is pure, for the blood is not included in the impurity of the “springs,” since it is not a “spring,” because it does not “become rounded” and emerge.

And Beit Hillel say:

The blood of a gentile woman, and the blood of purity of a woman with tzaraat who has given birth, impart impurity—but their impurity is only

like her spittle and like her urine,

which impart impurity only when they are liquid.

And the dispute of Beit Hillel with Beit Shammai concerns both laws:

With regard to a gentile woman, they render her blood impure like her spittle and urine, which are impure because the Sages decreed that gentiles impart impurity like zavim [but at the same time there is here a sign that the impurity of gentiles is only by rabbinic law, since the blood of a Jewish menstruant imparts impurity whether liquid or dry, whereas the blood of a gentile woman imparts impurity only when it is liquid, analogous to her spittle and urine, which impart impurity only when they are liquid].

And with regard to a woman with tzaraat who has given birth, Beit Hillel render her blood of purity impure by Torah law. For although blood is not a “spring,” the Torah included it so that it would have the law of a spring [and the springs of one with tzaraat are impure by Torah law]. Therefore, the blood of purity of a woman with tzaraat is impure by Torah law, like her spittle and urine .

b.

The blood of a woman who has given birth who has not immersed

at the completion of seven days of impurity for a male or fourteen days of impurity for a female, and she sees blood during the days of purity while she is still impure with the impurity of childbirth—

Beit Shammai say:

By Torah law her blood is pure, because it is not impure menstrual blood, and the purity of the blood of purity is also not dependent upon immersion from the impurity of childbirth.

And although the other liquids issuing from her, such as her spittle and urine, impart impurity by Torah law, according to the law of liquids issuing from a woman who has not immersed for her childbirth, her blood is not included in this. For, as stated, blood is not included in the impurity of the “springs.”

Therefore, since it is “blood of purity” during those days, it is pure by Torah law! However, the Sages decreed concerning it that it should be

like her spittle and like her urine

and impart impurity by rabbinic law.

And the sign that the impurity of this blood of purity is only by rabbinic law will be that it imparts impurity only when liquid and not when dry. Its law is thus like that of spittle and urine, which impart impurity by Torah law only when they are liquid, whereas blood that is impure by Torah law imparts impurity whether liquid or dry.

And Beit Hillel say:

The law of the purity of blood of purity applies to a woman who has given birth only if she immersed after the days of impurity of her childbirth had passed. Therefore, this woman who has not yet immersed, although the days of purity have arrived, has blood that is impure by Torah law, and it

imparts impurity when liquid and dry,

like all blood impure by Torah law.

c.

And they agree—

Beit Shammai with Beit Hillel—

with regard to a woman who has given birth as a zavah,

who was impure as a zavah at the time of her childbirth and has still not become pure from the impurity of a zavah,

that she imparts impurity through her blood whether liquid or

dry,

even during the days of purity.

For although her ordinary blood is not impure during those days, since they are days of purity, she continues to be impure by virtue of her status as a zavah. Blood issuing from a zavah, so long as she has not immersed, imparts impurity according to the law of zavah blood.

Gemara:

The Gemara is astonished: Why do Beit Shammai declare the menstrual blood of a gentile woman pure?

And

do

Beit Shammai not have

the decree of the Sages that gentiles have the status of zavim? For they said [Shabbat 83a] concerning the verse [Leviticus 15:2],

“Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them: Any man, should there be a discharge from his flesh”—

the Children of Israel become impure through zavah, but gentiles do not become impure through zavah; but the Sages decreed

upon

them—

that they should have the status of zavim in every respect!?

The Gemara explains:

Beit Shammai could say to you: What should we do

with their menstrual blood?

If we decree concerning it

that it impart impurity when liquid and dry,

according to the law of impure blood that is not considered a “spring.”

If so,

you have made it like that of Torah law!

And they will come to err concerning it, thinking that its impurity is by Torah law, and burn teruma and sacred offerings because of it.

And if we decree concerning it that it

impart impurity when liquid but not impart impurity when dry,

and thereby there will be a sign that the impurity is only by rabbinic law, since blood by Torah law imparts impurity when dry—

If so,

you have divided in a matter of Torah law—

they will err and say that the impurity of the blood of a gentile woman is by Torah law, like all menstrual blood, and they will learn from this that all menstrual blood, even that of a Jewish woman, imparts impurity only when liquid and not when dry, and they will come to stumble.

Therefore, they did not decree any impurity upon the menstrual blood of a gentile woman, and thereby there is a sign that the impurity of gentiles is only by rabbinic law .

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

since they did not decree impurity upon the blood of a gentile woman so that there would not be a situation in which “you have made it like that of Torah law,” and they would burn teruma and sacred offerings because of it—

her spittle and urine also

should not impart impurity, lest they come to err and think that they are impure by Torah law.

For with regard to a Jewish woman, spittle imparts impurity by Torah law only when it is liquid, and likewise with regard to a gentile woman the Rabbis decreed that her spittle impart impurity only while it is liquid. If so, let us be concerned lest they say that the impurity of gentiles is by Torah law and come to burn teruma and sacred offerings because of it; and if so, let us not decree impurity upon her spittle and urine, so that there would be a sign that the impurity of gentiles is only by rabbinic law? The Gemara answers:

Since we make a sign in her blood

of a gentile woman, which does not impart impurity at all,

it is known

that all their impurity, including the impurity

of their spittle and urine,

is only

by rabbinic law!

The Gemara raises an objection: Why did they declare her blood pure and render her springs impure?—

Let them make [

instead]

a sign in her spittle and urine

by having them not impart impurity at all,

and render her blood impure,

and let us not be concerned about “you have made it like that of Torah law,” since we have a sign in her spittle and urine, that they do not impart impurity at all!?

The Gemara answers:

Her spittle and urine, which are common—

the Rabbis decreed impurity concerning them.

Her blood, which

with regard to her spittle is considered something

uncommon

—

the Rabbis did not decree concerning it!

Rava said: The discharge

of a gentile

is impure, and through contact with it imparts impurity to a person and vessels

even according to Beit Shammai!

who declared the menstrual blood of a gentile woman pure .

But

the semen

of a gentile—

is pure

78 , even according to Beit Hillel

who rendered the blood of a gentile woman impure.

And the Gemara explains his reason:

His discharge is impure even according to Beit Shammai, for there is the possibility of making a sign through his semen!

Since his semen is pure and does not render those who touch it impure, this constitutes a sign that the impurity of his discharge is only by rabbinic law. Therefore, it is possible to decree that his discharge impart impurity, and there is no concern that people will come to burn teruma and sacred offerings because of it.

His semen is pure even according to Beit Hillel

who render the blood of a gentile woman impure, because even according to Beit Hillel a decree of impurity requires a sign. With regard to the blood of a gentile woman, there is a sign in that it imparts impurity only when liquid and not when dry, whereas with regard to a zav,

the Rabbis made a sign in him

by the fact that the semen of a gentile does not impart impurity at all,

so that they would not burn teruma because of it

and sacred offerings.

The Gemara asks: Why did they declare his semen pure and render his discharge impure?

Let them [

the opposite!]

make a sign through his discharge

by having it be entirely pure,

and render his semen impure?

The Gemara answers:

A discharge, which does not depend upon an act,

is considered something common, and therefore

the Rabbis decreed impurity concerning it.

His semen, which depends upon an act [

arousal], since he causes himself to experience a seminal emission and can prevent himself from doing so, is considered uncommon , and

the Rabbis did not decree impurity concerning it

!

Shall we say that this supports Rava,

that the semen of a gentile is entirely pure?

From what we learned in a beraita:

A gentile woman who emitted Jewish semen is impure,

the semen!

And a Jewish woman who emitted gentile semen is pure,

the semen!

What, is it not that “

pure”

means

“entirely pure”?

And it is proven in accordance with Rava’s words, that the semen of a gentile is entirely pure and is not impure even by rabbinic law.

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

The intention of the Mishna is to teach us that the semen of a gentile is

pure by Torah law,

but it is

impure by rabbinic law!