Niddah 34a (לד.) — the Talmud in English

Because that incident occurred during a

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

the Sages treated him as pure!

They did not decree impurity upon ammei ha-aretz during the Festival because

it is written [Judges 20]:

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

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

as one man, united!”

And they derived from this that

the verse rendered them all

according to the status of

“united,”

when the Israelites gather together. The Festival is indeed a time of assembly for all Israel. Therefore, at this time everyone has the status of a ḥaver, and they do not impart the impurity of an am ha-aretz.

However, they were lenient during the Festival only with regard to the impurity of an am ha-aretz. There still remained the concern that a Sadducee might be impure by the status of one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman, a concern that applies at all times, even during the Festival. Therefore, the High Priest went to his wife to ascertain whether her husband was one who engaged in intercourse with a menstruating woman.

Mishna:

The blood of a menstruating woman and the blood of a woman who experiences a ziva discharge differ essentially from the other liquids that emerge from the human body, and consequently their laws differ:

The essential distinction.

The other liquids “gather and emerge”: The liquid first collects in the body and then emerges, unlike blood, which immediately upon emerging drips and comes out, drop by drop, the first drop at a time [Rashi 19b, s.v. shemat‘aggel].

This results in a legal distinction:

The other liquids are called “springs,” unlike blood. Therefore, wherever impurity is stated with regard to “springs,” it does not include 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. However, with regard to impurities that are rabbinic, we find that the Sages decreed only with regard to liquid blood and not dry blood. The Sages equated the law of blood with the law of springs so that there would be a recognizable indication that the impurity is only rabbinic, and people would not come to burn teruma or sacrificial foods because of it.

The Mishna presents the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai in several cases dependent upon these principles: A.

The blood of a gentile woman,

who does not have the impurity of menstruation by Torah law, as only Jewish women become impure through menstruation.

And the pure blood of a leprous woman,

a woman who gave birth who is leprous, from whom blood emerged—a blood that is pure during the days of purity for a male or female child .

Beit Shammai declare them pure!

Two innovations are stated in their opinion:

The first concerns the purity of the blood of a gentile woman: Although the Sages decreed that gentiles have the impurity of a zav in every respect [and therefore included in their decree was that their saliva and urine impart impurity like those of a zav], the Sages were lenient and declared the menstrual blood of a gentile woman pure, so that there would be an indication that their impurity is only rabbinic.

The second concerns the purity of the blood of a leprous woman who gave birth: Although her other springs impart impurity by Torah law, nevertheless the pure blood that emerges from her while she is a woman who has given birth is pure. Blood is not included in the impurity of “springs,” because it is not a “spring,” since it does not “gather and emerge.”

And Beit Hillel say:

The blood of a gentile woman and the pure blood of a leprous woman who gave birth impart impurity—but their impurity is only

like her saliva and urine,

which impart impurity only when they are liquid.

The dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai concerns both laws:

With regard to a gentile woman, they render her blood impure like her saliva and urine, which are impure because the Sages decreed that gentiles have the impurity of zavim. [At the same time, there is an indication here that the impurity of gentiles is only rabbinic: The menstrual blood of a Jewish woman imparts impurity whether liquid or dry, whereas the blood of a gentile woman imparts impurity only when liquid, analogous to her saliva and urine, which impart impurity only when liquid.]

And with regard to a leprous woman who gave birth, Beit Hillel render her pure blood impure by Torah law. Although blood is not a “spring,” the Torah included it and gave it the status of a spring [and the springs of a leper are impure by Torah law]. Therefore, the pure blood of a leprous woman is impure by Torah law, like her saliva and urine .

B.

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

at the conclusion of seven days of impurity for a male child or fourteen days of impurity for a female child, 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 pure blood is not dependent upon immersion for the impurity of childbirth.

Although the other liquids that emerge from her, such as her saliva and urine, impart impurity by Torah law, like liquids emerging from a woman who gave birth and has not immersed after childbirth, her blood is not included in this category. As stated, blood is not included in the impurity of “springs.”

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

like her saliva and urine

and impart impurity by rabbinic decree.

The indication that the impurity of this pure blood is only rabbinic is that it imparts impurity only when liquid and not when dry. Its law is thus like that of saliva and urine, which impart impurity by Torah law only when 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 pure blood applies to a woman who has given birth only if she immersed after the days of impurity of her childbirth had passed. Therefore, in the case of one who has not yet immersed, although the days of purity have arrived, her blood is impure by Torah law, and it

imparts impurity whether liquid or dry,

like all blood impure by Torah law.

C.

And they concede—

Beit Shammai to Beit Hillel—

with regard to a woman who gave birth while in a state of ziva,

who was impure as a woman experiencing a ziva discharge at the time of childbirth and has not yet become pure from the impurity of ziva,

that she imparts impurity through her blood whether liquid or

dry,

even

during the days of purity. Although her ordinary blood is not impure during those days, since they are days of purity, she remains impure by virtue of her status as a woman experiencing ziva. As long as she has not immersed, blood emerging from a woman experiencing ziva imparts impurity according to the law of ziva blood.

Gemara:

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

And

is it because

Beit Shammai do not hold

of the Sages’ decree 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 ziva, but gentiles do not become impure through ziva. Nevertheless, 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 that it

become impure whether liquid or dry,

like impure blood that is not considered a “spring,”

if so,

you have made it like that of Torah law!

People will err concerning it, thinking that its impurity is by Torah law, and they will burn teruma and sacrificial foods because of it.

And if we decree that it

become impure when liquid but not when dry,

thereby creating an indication that the impurity is only rabbinic, since blood impure by Torah law imparts impurity even when dry,

if so,

you have made a distinction in a matter of Torah law—

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

Therefore, they did not decree any impurity upon the menstrual blood of a gentile woman. In this way there is an indication that the impurity of gentiles is only rabbinic .

The Gemara objects:

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 people would burn teruma and sacrificial foods because of it—

her saliva and urine as well

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

For in the case of a Jewish woman, saliva imparts impurity by Torah law only when liquid, and in the case of a gentile woman the Sages decreed that her saliva impart impurity only while it is liquid. If so, let us be concerned lest people say that the impurity of gentiles is by Torah law and come to burn teruma and sacrificial foods because of it. If so, should we not decree no impurity upon her saliva and urine, so that there will be an indication that the impurity of gentiles is only rabbinic? The Gemara answers:

Since we make an indication through her blood

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

it is known

that all their impurity, including the impurity

of their saliva and urine,

is only

rabbinic!

The Gemara asks: Why did they declare her blood pure but render her springs impure?—

Let them instead make [

the opposite]

an indication through her saliva and urine

by not rendering them impure at all,

and render her blood impure,

without concern for “you have made it like that of Torah law,” since we have an indication through her saliva and urine, which do not impart impurity at all!?

The Gemara answers:

Her saliva and urine, which are common—

the Sages decreed impurity upon them.

Her blood, which

in comparison with her saliva is considered something

uncommon —

the Sages did not decree impurity upon it!

Rava said: The discharge of a gentile

—

is impure,

and through contact 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.

The Gemara explains the reason:

His discharge is impure even according to Beit Shammai, for there is an indication that can be made through his semen!

Since his semen is pure and does not render those who touch it impure, this indicates that the impurity of his discharge is only rabbinic. Therefore, it is possible to decree that his discharge impart impurity, without concern that people will come to burn teruma and sacrificial foods 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 an indication. In the case of a gentile woman’s blood, there is an indication in that it imparts impurity only when liquid and not when dry, whereas in the case of a zav,

the Sages made an indication through it

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

so that they would not burn teruma because of it

and sacrificial foods.

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

Let them instead [

do the opposite!]

make an indication through his discharge

by declaring it entirely pure,

and render his semen impure?

The Gemara answers:

A discharge, which does not depend upon an action,

is considered something common, and therefore

the Sages decreed impurity upon it.

His semen, which depends upon an action [

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

the Sages did not decree impurity upon it

!

Shall we say that this supports Rava,

who said that the semen of a gentile is entirely pure?

From what we learned in a beraita:

A gentile woman who expelled semen from a Jew is impure

because of the semen!

And a Jewish woman who expelled semen from a gentile is pure

from the semen!

What, is it not the meaning of

“pure”

that it is

“entirely pure”?

This proves Rava’s statement, that the semen of a gentile is entirely pure and is not impure even by rabbinic law.

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

The Mishna intends to teach that the semen of a gentile is

pure by Torah law,

but it is

impure by rabbinic law!