Niddah 41b — the Talmud in English

But

the blood

itself emerged

by way of

the

womb [ [A0008]And this means that the latter clause is not speaking of the blood of the birth itself, but, as in the first clause, of the blood of the birth pangs before the birth, which emerges by way of the womb].

And Rabbi Shimon proceeds according to his reasoning, that

the blood of the birth pangs of a woman giving birth, which emerges through an unusual passage, is like an ordinary woman giving birth to a child, and is pure.

And

also

the Sages

proceed

according to their reasoning,

that it is not similar to the blood of an ordinary birth, and the Torah did not declare that blood pure.

Rav Yosef raised an objection against it: One matter:

If they disagreed concerning a case in which the blood of the birth pangs emerged before the birth,

that is the first clause,

so why does the beraita repeat itself?

And furthermore,

the fact that the beraita stated, “the blood that emerges

from there,”

from

the place

of the

child, is implied!

From the same place from which the child emerged, from there the blood emerged, and not that the child emerged through an unusual passage, whereas the blood emerged through the corridor of the womb.

Rather, Rav Yosef said:

The latter clause is discussing

a case in which the child and the blood emerged through an unusual passage.

And concerning the source,

whether

its place is impure

or pure,

they disagree. [ [A0037]And this means that they disagreed in a manner in which the woman does not become a menstruant, because seeing blood through an unusual passage does not make the woman a menstruant. She is permitted to her husband and is not impure for seven days. But they disagreed whether the blood that touched the source nevertheless becomes impure blood, and renders the woman impure through impurity of contact, and she is forbidden to eat teruma until evening].

The master [ [A0056]the Sages]

мудрецов]

holds: The source—its place is impure.

And therefore, although this blood is, on the one hand, not considered blood of the birth pangs, and, on the other hand, not considered the seeing of menstrual or flux blood, the woman is impure because of her contact with blood that touched the source, and the blood in turn renders the woman impure at least with impurity of contact, like any impure blood.

And the master [ [A0060]Rabbi Shimon]

holds: The source—its place is pure,

and therefore, when the blood emerges through an unusual passage, it is pure blood and does not render the woman impure.

And the same applies to Rabbi Shimon: if the blood emerged from the womb during birth pangs, it too would be pure, since he considers emergence through an unusual passage like a fully valid birth, and it follows that the blood is pure blood of birth pangs.

Reish Lakish said: According to the one who declares impure the blood

that emerges through an unusual passage, it also

renders the woman impure

according to the law of seeing menstrual blood. For Reish Lakish holds that, according to the Sages, the emergence of blood through an unusual passage is as though it emerged through the womb, and the reason of the Sages is not that the source’s place is impure. [And he establishes the beraita according to Ravina’s answer, and not according to Rav Yosef].

According to the one who declares pure the blood

that emerges through an unusual passage, it also

declares the woman pure,

so that she is not a menstruant.

.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even according to the one who declares impure the blood

that emerges through an unusual passage, he

declares pure

the woman

with regard to the woman

from the impurity of seeing menstrual blood. For the impurity of the blood is only because the source’s place is impure, and not because of the seeing of menstrual blood.

And Rabbi Yohanan proceeds according to his reasoning.

И ответили, что, как разъяснено здесь, между мудрецами и Рабби Шимоном существует еще одно основополагающее разногласие по совершенно иному вопросу: каков закон относительно нечистой крови, вышедшей через боковую стенку — оскверняет ли она женщину или женщина от этого не становится нечистой. Следовательно, здесь содержится новое положение, отличное от первой части. Хотя первая часть также говорит об этом случае, причина их разногласия там совершенно иная: там они спорят, называется ли кровь родов через боковую стенку кровью трудных родов.

For Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: From where is it derived that a woman is not impure

with menstrual impurity or flux impurity

until an issue emerges [ [A0088]menstrual and flux blood]

through her genital passage? As it is stated: “And a man who lies with a woman having an issue, and uncovers her nakedness, he has uncovered her source,” teaching that a woman is not impure until an issue emerges through her genital passage,

and not through an unusual passage.

Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: If the source was detached, and a piece of flesh fell

from it,

and

the flesh fell from the source

to the ground, she is impure,

the woman from whom it fell.

As it is stated: “Because you poured out your copper and uncovered your nakedness” [ [A0101]“Your copper” means the woman’s lower part, that is, her source, and it implies that even when part of the source became detached from its place and was poured outward, it is still called by the name “nakedness”].

For what purpose

is the woman impure?

If you say for seven-day impurity,

that the emergence of part of the source is considered the seeing of menstrual blood, this is impossible. For

the Merciful One stated “blood”

which renders impure with menstrual impurity,

but not a piece

of flesh!?

Rather, for evening impurity,

so that the woman becomes impure when she touched that piece when it emerged from her body. And this impurity is like that of anyone who touches a menstruant, who immerses and becomes pure in the evening.

Rabbi Yohanan said: A woman’s source

женщины

that emitted [ [A0115]that sprayed outward] white and clear blood

белая и прозрачная жидкость,

like two drops of pearls, she is impure

the woman.

.

And we explain:

For what purpose

is that woman impure?

If you say for seven-day impurity

like any menstruant,

this is impossible. For white and clear blood does not render impure, since only

five

types of

bloods

that are red

are impure in a woman, and no more.

But this blood is white and clear!?

Rather, for evening impurity,

because the two white drops touched the source and then touched the woman and rendered her impure through their contact with her.

And specifically two

drops render her impure,

but

if only

one

drop emerged, it does not render her impure, because

perhaps

it is not from the source itself, but

from elsewhere,

from the sides of the source

it came,

and it is pure. But concerning two, the Sages knew that it is reasonable that they emerged from the source.

We learned in the Mishna:

All women become impure through

the emergence of the blood into the

outer chamber.

The Gemara asks:

Which is the outer chamber !?

Reish Lakish said: Anything where a young girl sits

and, when she sits, the opening of her womb is opened somewhat

and is seen.

Rabbi Yohanan said to him:

Do we call the blood found there “in her flesh”? For

that place

where the young girl sits and is seen

is exposed [ [A0163]for it is not considered contact with a “concealed place”]

with regard to

the impurity of

a creeping creature!?

And this means that the contact of a creeping creature renders a person impure only if the creeping creature touched an external and exposed part of the body, and not an internal and concealed part. And if a creeping creature touched that place, it is considered as though it touched an exposed place on the body. If so, why do we need the derivation “in her flesh,” that even if the blood did not emerge from the body, but is still in the outer chamber, she is impure? For according to Reish Lakish, this place is considered entirely outside the body!?

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan said: Until between the teeth

is called the outer chamber. It is the place of the folds of flesh found in the passage between the womb and the external side of the body.

They raised a dilemma:

Does the place

between the teeth

itself count

as inside [ [A0175]and if the blood is found there and does not emerge further, she is still pure]

[и если кровь находится там и дальше не вышла, женщина все еще чиста]

or

is it

as outside,

and she becomes impure?

Come and hear: For Rabbi Zakkai taught: Until between the teeth

is considered as outside, and she is impure. But

between the teeth themselves

is

as inside,

and she is pure.

In a matnita it was taught:

Which is the outer chamber, through whose entry the woman becomes impure? It is

the place of pressing!

The Gemara asks:

What is “the place of pressing”?

Rav Yehuda said: The place where the sun presses,

where the organ reaches during intercourse.

The Sages taught: “In her flesh” teaches that the menstruant woman becomes impure

the menstruant

inside,

in the outer chamber of the womb,

as outside,

as though the blood had already emerged completely outside her body.

.

And I have derived only a menstruant,

for the verse “in her flesh” speaks of a menstruant,

, from where

do we derive a flux woman, that she too becomes impure in the outer chamber?

The verse teaches: “Her

blood shall be

her flux in her flesh.”

From where

do we derive that a woman who emits semen also renders impure with evening impurity when she emits it into the outer chamber, even though it has not emerged outside her body?

The verse teaches: “It shall be

her flux in her flesh”—anything that is in her flesh, even the emission of semen, renders impure even while it is still in her flesh.

And Rabbi Shimon says:

A woman does not become impure in the outer chamber until the semen of the man who had intercourse with her emerges outside her body, for

it is enough for her

that the woman be impure

like the man who had intercourse with her.

Just as the man who had intercourse with her does not become impure

with seminal impurity

until the impurity emerges,

his semen,

outside [ [A0225]but if it became detached and did not emerge, he does not render impure],

so she too,

the woman,

does not become impure until her impurity emerges outside.

And we refute this:

And

is it so that

Rabbi Shimon holds

that

it is enough

for the woman to become impure

like the man who had intercourse with her,

and her impurity is not more severe than his?

But it was taught:

The Torah said [Leviticus 15]: “And a woman with whom a man lies with an emission of semen

shall bathe in water, and be impure until evening.”

Rabbi Shimon said: What does this

verse

come to teach us?

If it concerns one who touches semen,

who becomes impure with evening impurity,

it has already been stated below,

in the portion of Emor,

“Or a man

from whom an emission of semen emerges,” and we derive from it that one who touches semen becomes impure.

Rather,

the verse comes only to inform us about the impurity of the woman with whom intercourse was had: although the semen did not touch an external part of her body, but only inside her body when she had intercourse, she is impure. And a verse is needed to innovate such contact

because it is the impurity of a concealed place, and the impurity of a concealed place does not render impure; rather, it is a scriptural decree

concerning the woman with whom intercourse was had, that the impurity of a concealed place renders her impure.

And it is proven that, according to Rabbi Shimon, the impurity of the woman is more severe than that of the man who had intercourse with her, for only she becomes impure through contact in a concealed place, and we do not say, “It is enough for her to become impure like the man who had intercourse with her”!?

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult. Here, it is concerning a woman engaged in intercourse,

where we find that she is more severe than the man who had intercourse with her, by virtue of the scriptural decree.

Here, it is concerning a woman emitting

semen: it is enough for her to become impure like the man who had intercourse with her, for Scripture did not innovate here that she should be more severe than the man who had intercourse with her.

And the Gemara asks:

A woman emitting

semen—how is it possible that she does not become impure until the semen emerges from her body? After all,

it follows

that she is impure because

she indeed had intercourse

and became impure through her intercourse, by virtue of the scriptural decree!?

The Gemara answers: Here it is speaking

of a woman who immersed for her intercourse,

and became pure in the evening, and afterward she does not become impure through the emission of semen until it emerges from her body, so that she not be more severe than the man who had intercourse with her.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

Is this to say that for a woman engaged in intercourse, evening impurity is sufficient for her,

so that she immerses the day after her intercourse and becomes pure, and only afterward becomes impure through the emission of semen?

But Rava said: A woman engaged in intercourse, for all three days

after her intercourse

is forbidden to eat teruma

because

it is impossible that she not emit semen.

And after three days she does not become impure through emission, because after three days the semen putrefies and does not render impure.

And it follows that it is impossible for her to immerse and become pure from her intercourse, and only afterward become impure through her emission. And the difficulty returns: where is the law of Rabbi Shimon stated, that for a woman emitting semen it is enough to be like the man who had intercourse with her?

The Gemara answers:

Here,

the law of Rabbi Shimon, that the woman does not become impure through the emission of semen until it emerges from her body,

with what case are we dealing? With a woman whom they immersed

after she had intercourse while she was

in bed,

and since she did not get down from the bed and became pure through immersion while lying upon it, she is permitted to eat teruma. And we are not concerned that she emitted semen and became impure. And it is in such a case that Rabbi Shimon’s law applies: if she became pure and did not emit semen, she does not become impure except when the emission emerges outside her body.

Rather, if we say that while she is in bed we are not concerned about emission, but immediately when she descends from the bed there is concern that she will emit, then the opposite difficulty arises:

As a rule, when Rava says

that there is concern about emission throughout all three days, he is speaking

of when she went on her feet,

when she descended from the bed after intercourse

and immersed.

And if so, the question arises: Why do they deem her certainly impure, and do they not establish her according to the presumption of purity? For we have grounds to suspend and say,

perhaps while she was going

to immerse,

she expelled it,

all the semen emerged from her before immersion, and once she immersed in order to become pure from her intercourse, she no longer emitted?