Niddah 34b (לד:) — the Talmud in English

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

ta shma:

“You find that the semen of a Jew is impure everywhere,

even in the womb of a gentile woman

when she expels it].

And

semen

of a gentile is pure everywhere, even in the womb of a Jewish woman. Except for urine that is mixed with it,”

for if the 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, as the Sages decreed that the urine of gentiles conveys impurity like the discharges of a zav.

This proves that the semen of a gentile is entirely pure.

And if you would say: Here, too,

we should explain that

“pure”

means that the semen is

pure by Torah law, but impure by rabbinic law.

This cannot be said, because

is it so that their urine—

by Torah law conveys impurity?

After all, all its impurity derives only from the Sages’ decree that gentiles are impure like a zav.

Rather, conclude from this that

semen mixed with urine does not possess an independent rabbinic impurity on account of the semen itself, for the semen itself is

pure

entirely,

even by rabbinic law.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this!

The Master said: “

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

The Gemara considers:

Resolve

from this beraita the problem

that Rav Pappa raised:

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

what is its status?

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 this:

Rav Pappa did not raise the question concerning the period within three days

whether she conveys impurity, since the semen has not yet putrefied [and therefore he did not derive proof from the beraita, which deals with the period within three days].

When he raised the question—

after three

days, when a Jewish woman who expels semen at that point is pure—

what is the law?

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

And these are the sides of the question:

On the one hand, there is reason to distinguish between them, because only

Jews, who are careful

[fearful and scrupulous]

with regard to mitzvot,

83, their bodies become heated

[hot]

and the semen putrefies

because of the heat in the woman’s body. But

gentiles, who are not careful with regard to mitzvot, do not have their bodies become heated, and the semen does not putrefy

even after several days, and therefore it should remain impure.

Or perhaps: Since they eat,

the gentiles,

repulsive creatures and creeping things,

their bodies become heated

from eating them,

and it putrefies,

so that after three days it will also be pure in the womb of a gentile woman.

And we conclude:

teyku!

We learned in the Mishna:

The pure blood of a woman with tzara’at—

Beit Shammai declare it pure. And Beit Hillel say: It has the status of her saliva and urine.

The Gemara considers:

What is the reason of Beit Hillel,

who declare her blood impure? After all, the blood is not included among “the springs of one with tzara’at”; from where do we derive that it is impure?

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yitzhak said: Since the verse repeats [Leviticus 15] “And the zav with his discharge, whether male or female,” it must necessarily come to teach us:

“Whether male”—

to include a male with tzara’at with regard to his springs.

“Or female”—

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

What is meant by “her springs”

of a woman with tzara’at, which the verse came to include?

If you say

that it comes to include

her other springs,

such as her saliva and urine, why do we need a special inclusion for a woman with tzara’at? After all,

it is derived from the male!

As it says [there 8], “And when the zav spits upon one who is pure,” and from that all the laws of springs were derived.

Rather,

the verse comes to include

her blood,

which is not applicable to a male zav. Since her menstrual blood is impure in any event, we apply the inclusion

to declare the pure blood of her purification impure!

The Gemara asks:

And Beit Shammai,

who declare it pure, how do they explain the repetition of the verses? The Gemara explains: The springs of a

female

cannot be derived from the male!

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.

The reason that the springs of a female with tzara’at cannot be derived from the male is:

There is room to refute the comparison: What is special about the male,

the male with tzara’at, who is more stringent,

in that

he is

required to uncover his hair and rend his garments, and is forbidden marital relations,

and therefore we were stringent with regard to his springs and declared them impure.

Can

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.

The Gemara asks from the other side:

And Beit Hillel,

how did they derive the case of the less stringent female with tzara’at from the more stringent male with tzara’at?

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

Let the Merciful One write the law concerning the female

alone

and not need to write the law concerning the male. And I would say: If, with regard to a female, who is not required to uncover her hair and rend her garments and is not forbidden marital relations, the Merciful One included her springs

as sources of impurity, then with regard to a

male

who is required to uncover his hair and rend his garments and is forbidden marital relations,

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

Therefore, if

the repetition of the verse

does not apply to the male

[because it can be derived through a kal va-chomer from the female],

apply it to the female

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

And if it does not apply to her springs

of a female with tzara’at, since for that we already have the inclusion “or female”—

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

And

the Gemara returns to explain why

Beit Shammai

do not expound the verse in this manner: because

the male cannot be derived from the female,

since

there is room to refute the comparison:

What is special about the female,

whose springs convey impurity,

in that

when she is a menstruant woman she possesses a stringency beyond that of a male zav, in that she

conveys impurity

through a discharge

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, since

we are dealing with one who has tzara’at—

and you are raising points concerning a zav?!

And Beit Shammai,

who raised a refutation from the laws of a zav concerning one with tzara’at, say:

We raise a refutation from any impurity! And if you prefer, I will say:

In truth, there is no refutation of the derivation from male to female. However,

Beit Shammai could say to you:

This “whether male”

is not superfluous, even if there is room to derive the male from the female.

For

it is needed

for another exposition:

“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 .

And Beit Hillel derive

that even a minor with tzara’at conveys impurity

from “This is the law of the zav”—

whether an adult or a minor!

Rav Yosef said: When Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish expounded

when he was teaching

the laws of a zav

[in a discussion concerning a zav],

he raised the following question:

A minor zav’s first sighting—

what is the law concerning its conveying impurity through contact?

[There was no uncertainty concerning the second sighting, through which the minor becomes a zav, since a minor was included with regard to ziva!]

And these are the sides of the question:

“This is the law of the zav, and that which emerges from him, semen,” the Merciful One said,

and in this verse the first sighting of ziva is equated with a sighting of keri. By virtue of this comparison, it is possible to equate them as follows:

Anyone

whose

semen conveys impurity—his

first sighting

[of ziva]

also conveys impurity! But this

minor,

since his semen does not convey impurity,

as a minor’s keri conveys impurity only from the age of nine years and one day —

his first sighting

[of ziva]

should not convey impurity!

Or perhaps: Since if he,

the minor,

were to see two

sightings of ziva,

the first sighting joins

the second in rendering him impure, as the law of a zav who has seen two sightings,

it conveys impurity

also through contact in his first sighting, and conveys impurity lasting until evening, as in the case of an adult who saw keri .

Rava said: Ta shma: “This is the law of the zav”—

“law” teaches that

whether

an adult

or whether

a minor

zav,

they are equal.

Just as an adult—

his first sighting conveys impurity,

so too a minor—

his first sighting also conveys impurity.

Rav Yosef raised a question: A leper’s first sighting -

what is the law concerning its conveying impurity through carrying?

In the case of a zav who is not also afflicted with tzara’at, it is obvious that the discharge from the first sighting conveys impurity only through contact and not through carrying, because the first discharge is equivalent to the semen of one who experiences keri, which conveys impurity through contact alone.

Likewise, it is obvious that the discharge from the

second

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

complete zav,

whose discharge conveys impurity through carrying [although he is still not obligated to bring an offering until a third discharge].

The entire uncertainty concerns only the first discharge of one with tzara’at: Does it convey impurity

like the other springs of one with tzara’at,

such as his saliva and urine, which convey impurity through carrying? Or perhaps the discharge is an independent matter, not included among the “springs” of one with tzara’at , and therefore conveys impurity only through contact, like the first sighting of any zav who does not have tzara’at. The Gemara explains the sides of the question:

Is

the place of the discharge a “spring,”

because the discharge flows in a continuous stream, gathering and emerging like the other springs,

and conveys impurity

through carrying, like his saliva and urine?

Or perhaps it is not a “spring,”

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 [Leviticus 15:2]: “When a man has a discharge from his flesh,

his discharge -

it is impure” -

this teaches concerning the discharge that it conveys impurity

through carrying!

And Rava demonstrates:

in what

does this verse deal?

If you say it deals with a zav alone,

who is not a metzora, and the verse came to teach us that the discharge conveys impurity through carrying, it is obvious that it conveys impurity, by means of a kal va-chomer, and there is no need for a special verse to inform us of this,