Niddah 34b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara brings an additional proof that the discharge of a gentile is pure:

ta shma:

“You find that you say: The semen of an Israelite is impure everywhere, ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

and even in the womb of a gentile woman

when she expels it].

And

semen

of a gentile is pure everywhere, and even in the womb of an Israelite woman. Except for urine, which is with it,” for if semen of a gentile emerges from a gentile woman together with her urine, it is impure because of the impurity of the urine mixed with the semen, for they decreed that the urine of gentiles should impart impurity like the discharge of a zav.

And it is proven that the semen of a gentile is entirely pure.

And if you would say, here too

it can also be explained that

“pure”

semen

is pure by Torah law, but is impure by rabbinic law.

It is impossible to say so, for

as for her urine—

does urine impart impurity by Torah law?

And yet all its impurity is only by force of the Sages’ decree that gentiles are impure like a zav.

Rather,

infer from it that semen mixed with urine does not have an intrinsic rabbinic impurity on account of the semen itself, for the semen itself is

pure

entirely,

even by rabbinic law.

And we conclude:

infer from it!

Conclude from this!

The Master said: “The semen of an Israelite is impure everywhere, even in the womb of a gentile woman.”

The semen of a Jew is impure everywhere, even in the womb of a gentile woman.”

The Gemara considers:

resolve

the problem

that Rav Pappa raised:

Rav Pappa raised: The semen of an Israelite in the womb of a gentile woman—

what is [the law]? Is its status like the semen of an Israelite, and it is impure, or like that of a gentile, and it is pure? And apparently, in the beraita it is stated that it is impure!

Does it have the status of a Jew’s semen and is therefore impure, or that of a gentile’s semen and is therefore pure? The beraita seemingly states that it is impure!

The Gemara rejects:

Rav Pappa did not raise the question for within three days

whether she imparts impurity, since it has not yet putrefied [and therefore he did not prove from the beraita, which deals with within three days].

When he raised the question—

after three days, when an Israelite woman who expels it then is pure—

what [is the law]?

Is the law of gentiles like that of Israelites, or are they different from them?

Do gentiles have the same status as Jews, or are they different from them?

And the sides of the uncertainty are: On the one hand, there is reason to distinguish between them, because specifically

Israelites, who are scrupulous

Jews, who are careful

fearful and vigilant]

with mitzvot,

their bodies become heated

[hot]

hot],

and the semen in the woman’s body putrefies from the heat. But

gentiles, who are not scrupulous with mitzvot, their bodies do not become heated and it does not putrefy

even after several days, and therefore it will be impure.

Or perhaps: since they eat,

the gentiles,

abominable creatures and creeping things—

their bodies become heated

from eating them,

and it putrefies,

and after three days even in the womb of a gentile woman it will be pure.

And we conclude:

teiku!

We learned in the Mishna:

the pure blood of a woman with tzaraat—

Beit Shammai declare it pure. And Beit Hillel say: like her saliva and like her urine.

The Gemara considers:

What is the reason of Beit Hillel, who declare her blood impure? Behold, the blood is not included among the “flowings of the afflicted person,” and from where do we know to declare it impure?

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Since the verse repeated [Leviticus 15], “And the zav with his discharge, for male and for female,” it necessarily came to teach us:

“for male”—

to include a male afflicted person with regard to his flowings.

“and for female”—

to include a female afflicted person with regard to her flowings!

“Or female”—

to include a female with tzara’at with regard to her springs!

What are “her flowings” of a female afflicted person, which the verse came to include?

If you say

to include

her other flowings,

such as her saliva and urine, why do we need a special inclusion for a female afflicted person? Behold,

it emerges from the male!

As it is stated there, “and when the zav spits upon the pure,” and from it they learned all the laws of flowings.

Rather,

the verse came to include

her blood,

which does not apply to a male zav; and since the blood of her menstruation is impure in any event, we apply the inclusion

to declare the pure blood of her impure!

to declare the pure blood of her purification impure!

The Gemara asks:

And Beit Shammai, who declare it pure, how will they explain the repetition of the verses? The Gemara explains: The flowings of a

female—

do not come from the male!

Therefore the verse had to say “and for female” to include the other flowings of the female afflicted person, and it follows that there is no redundant verse to include the blood of her purification, and therefore they declared it pure.

Therefore, the verse had to say “or female,” to include the other springs of a woman with tzara’at. It follows that there is no superfluous verse with which to include her pure blood, and therefore they declared it pure.

And the reason that they do not learn the flowings of a female afflicted person from a male is:

For there is room to refute: What is true of the male afflicted person, who is stringent,

for

he is

required to uncover [his hair] and to rend [his garments], and is forbidden marital intercourse,

and therefore we were stringent concerning his flowings, to declare them impure.

Can you say the same of the female, who is not

required to uncover and rend, and is permitted marital intercourse? Therefore Beit Shammai held that without the special verse we would not declare her flowings impure.

one say the same with regard to a female, who is not required to uncover her hair and rend her garments and is permitted marital relations? Therefore, according to Beit Shammai, without the special verse we would not declare her springs impure.

And the Gemara asks conversely:

And Beit Hillel, how did they learn the less stringent female afflicted person from the more stringent male afflicted person?

The Gemara explains: They expounded the verse concerning the female, because they reasoned:

The Merciful One should have written concerning the female

alone,

and would not need to write concerning the male. And I would say: If with regard to the female, who is not required to uncover and rend and is not forbidden marital intercourse, the Merciful One included her flowings

as impure, then with regard to a male afflicted person

male,

who is required to uncover and rend and is forbidden marital intercourse,

is it not all the more so that his flowings impart impurity?!

is it not all the more so that his springs convey impurity?!

And therefore, if

the repetition of the verse

is not needed for the male [because it can be learned by a

kal va-chomer from the female],

apply it to the female [so that the redundant word “for male” serves as an exposition concerning the female] .

[so that the extra word “male” serves as an exposition concerning the female] .

And if it is not needed for her flowings

of a female afflicted person, since for this we have the inclusion “and for female”— \-

apply it to her blood, to declare the pure blood of her impure!

And

the Gemara returns to explain that

Beit Shammai do not expound in this manner, because

the male cannot be derived from the female, since

there is room to refute—

what is true of the female,

whose flowings impart impurity,

for

when she is a menstruating woman she has a stringency beyond a zav, in that she

imparts impurity

through a discharge

caused by compulsion; can you say the same of the male, who does not

become a zav if the sight of the discharge was caused by compulsion?

caused by an external circumstance; can one say the same with regard to a male, who does not become a zav if the discharge was caused by an external circumstance?

And Beit Hillel do not concern themselves with this refutation, for: \-

They are dealing with an afflicted person—

and they refute with matters concerning a zav?!

we are dealing with one who has tzara’at—

And Beit Shammai, who refuted from the laws of a zav concerning an afflicted person, say: We refuted with regard to any impurity! And if you wish, say: In truth, there is no refutation of the derivation from male to female; however,

Beit Shammai can say to you—

this “for male” is not redundant, even if there is room to derive the male from the female.

For

it is needed for another exposition:

“for male”—

anyone who is male, his discharge imparts impurity

whether he is

adult or

whether he is

a minor! And it follows that there is no redundancy to include flowings in a female afflicted person .

“Whether male”—

anyone who is male,

his discharge conveys impurity

whether

he is

an adult or whether

he is

a minor! It follows that there is no superfluity with which to include the springs of a woman with tzara’at .

Следовательно, нет лишнего слова для включения источников пораженной женщины .

And Beit Hillel derive it—that even a minor afflicted person imparts impurity—

from “This is the law of the zav”—

whether adult or minor!

Rav Yosef said: When he expounded,

when

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was expounding concerning a zav

[in a discussion concerning a zav],

in the discussion of a zav],

he raised the following question:

The first sighting of a minor zav—

what is the law as to whether it imparts impurity through contact? [And concerning the second sighting, through which the minor becomes a zav, there was no uncertainty, for a minor was included for zavah impurity!]

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

“This is the law of the zav, and that which issues from him, semen,” said the Merciful One, and in this verse the first sighting of a discharge was compared to the sighting of a seminal emission. By force of the comparison, it is possible to equate them in the following manner:

Anyone

whose

semen imparts impurity—

his first sighting [of a discharge]

imparts impurity! And this

minor,

since his semen does not impart impurity,

for the semen of a minor imparts impurity only from the age of nine years and one day —

his first sighting [of a discharge]

does not impart impurity!

his first sighting

[of ziva]

should not convey impurity!

Or perhaps: since if he,

the minor,

were to see two

sightings of a discharge,

the first sighting joins

the second to render him impure according to the law of a zav with two sightings,

it imparts impurity

also through his first sighting by contact, and imparts impurity for one evening, according to the law of an adult who saw semen .

Rava said: Come and hear: “This is the law of the zav”—“law” teaches that

both

a

large

zav and

a small

zav

are equal.

Just as an adult—

his first sighting imparts impurity,

so too a minor—

his first sighting also imparts impurity.

Rav Yosef raised: The first sighting of an afflicted person \-

what is the law concerning its conveying impurity through carrying?

what is the law as to whether it imparts impurity through carrying?

With regard to a zav who is not an afflicted person, it is obvious that the discharge at the first sighting imparts impurity only through contact and not through carrying, because the first discharge is equivalent to the semen of one who experiences a seminal emission, which imparts impurity through contact alone.

Likewise, it is obvious that the discharge of the

second sighting imparts impurity through carrying, because after two sightings he is a

complete zav, whose discharge imparts impurity through carrying [even though he is not yet liable to bring an offering until the third discharge].

And the entire uncertainty is only concerning the first discharge of an afflicted person: does it impart impurity

like the other flowings of an afflicted person,

such as his saliva and urine, which impart impurity through carrying, or perhaps the discharge is a matter in itself, which is not included within the “flowings” of an afflicted person

, and therefore imparts impurity only through contact, like the first sighting of every zav who is not an afflicted person. And the Gemara explains the sides of the uncertainty:

Is

the place of discharge a “flowing,” because the discharge gathers into a rounded mass, collecting and emerging like the other flowings,

and imparts impurity

through carrying, like his saliva and urine?

Or perhaps it is not a “flowing,”

because the discharge does not resemble, in its emergence from the body of the zav, the emergence of urine or saliva, which collect and emerge all at once, whereas the discharge emerges continuously; and its law is like the first sighting of every zav, and it imparts impurity only through contact .

because the discharge does not emerge from the body of the zav in the same manner as urine or saliva, which gather and emerge all at once. Rather, the discharge emerges continuously, and has the status of the first sighting of any zav, conveying impurity only through contact .

Rava said -

ta shma:

It is stated concerning the second sighting of a zav: “When a man has a discharge from his flesh,

his discharge -

“he is impure” -

this taught concerning the discharge that it is impure

through carrying!

And Rava proves:

In what

is this verse speaking?

If you say it is concerning an ordinary zav,

who is not a metzora, and Scripture came to teach us that the discharge renders impure through carrying, it is obvious that it renders impure, by a kal va-chomer, and no special verse is needed to inform us of this,