Niddah 42a (מב.) — the Talmud in English

And if you would say:

What Rava prohibited her from eating teruma was not because she was certainly impure, but only because there was a possibility

perhaps some remained

a small amount of semen in her body after immersion. The semen that remained would be emitted after the immersion and render her impure again.

If so,

as this is a matter of uncertainty, why did Rava use language indicating certainty: “It is impossible for her not to emit it”? Surely

he should have said: ‘We are concerned that perhaps some remained,’

which is language indicating uncertainty!

Rather, according to Rava,

who said that she certainly had not emitted it, he was speaking

also of a case where she was immersed

while she was

in bed.

In such a case, she certainly had not yet emitted it, and “it is impossible for her not to emit it”; therefore she is prohibited from eating teruma, since the semen continues to emerge all the time.

And this is not difficult:

Rava’s statement, that even when she is in bed she is impure whenever she emits semen, does not contradict Rabbi Shimon’s ruling that when she is in bed she is certainly pure and does not become impure until the semen emerges outward. For

here,

Rava’s statement is

in a case where she turns over

in her bed after immersion. Therefore, she certainly became impure because of the semen emerging outward all the time.

Here,

Rabbi Shimon’s statement is

in a case where she does not turn over

in her bed after immersion, and no semen emerges outward. Rabbi Shimon innovated with regard to this case that although the semen is located in the outer chamber, as long as it has not emerged outward, she is pure.

The Gemara now explains why Rava used language indicating certainty and spoke only of a case where they immersed her while she was in bed and she turned over, rather than speaking of an ordinary woman who had intercourse, who is prohibited from eating teruma even if she immersed and did not emit semen, because perhaps some semen remained in her and perhaps she will emit it.

And Rava—

was expounding a verse.

Rava expounded in the study hall in order to explain from the verse how a woman who had intercourse becomes pure.

And this is what he said: When the Merciful One wrote

with regard to a man and woman who had intercourse,

“And they shall bathe in water and remain impure until evening,”

this refers to a woman whom they immersed after she had intercourse while she was still in bed, and it speaks

of a case where she does not turn over,

for only then does immersion make her pure.

But when she turns over

after immersion,

she is prohibited from eating teruma for all three days,

since

it is impossible for her not to emit it.

For although the immersion makes her pure with regard to the status of a woman who had intercourse, she becomes impure again under the status of one who emits semen.

Rav Shmuel bar Bisna asked Abaye: One who emits semen

whom the Torah renders impure [from the verse “her flow shall be”]—is she

considered one who sees,

meaning that the Torah assigned the emission the status of impurity associated with seeing, similar to the blood seen in menstruation and the blood of a zavah, where it is not contact with the blood that renders one impure, but the very act of seeing it—that is, the emergence of the impure substance from her body itself renders her impure?

Or

perhaps

is she considered one who touches,

meaning that contact with the semen renders her impure, through its touching her from outside?

The practical difference is, with regard to overturning

the count of the seven clean days of a zavah [that is, if she was a zavah and counted seven clean days to purify herself, and during the seven clean days she emitted semen].

If she has the status of one who sees, it can be said that her seeing overturns the count of the seven clean days. But if her impurity is due to contact, and not because her body saw an impure substance, contact with impurity does not overturn the seven clean days.

There is also a practical difference

with regard to rendering

the woman impure

with any amount

of semen. For seeing has no minimum measure, since even the slightest amount is considered to have emerged from her body. But with regard to one who touches, where there is an impure object and one rendered impure, certain measures were stated for the object rendering her impure to be considered significant enough to impart impurity.

There is also a practical difference

with regard to rendering her impure internally as externally.

For impurity through contact applies only externally and not in a concealed place. Impurity through seeing, however, applies even when the blood or semen is still inside her flesh, in the outer chamber.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Whichever way you look at it!?

If Rav Shmuel bar Bisna had heard

the

Mishna

above [which he cited when asking this question of Abaye], he should have known that

according to the Rabbis

one who emits semen

is considered one who sees,

as they rendered her impure when the semen emerged into the outer chamber, despite the fact that it had not emerged from her body outward.

And

if

according to Rabbi Shimon,

who says that she has only the same status as the man who had intercourse with her and is not rendered impure internally,

she is considered one who touches.

For the practical difference is that if she is considered one who sees, she renders impure internally as externally; and if she is considered one who touches, she renders impure only externally.

And if he had not heard

this

Mishna,

why was he uncertain at all? Surely

it is logical

that

she is considered one who touches,

because without a source, we have no reason to assume that an external substance not produced by her body has the impurity of seeing.

The Gemara answers:

Actually, he had heard the Mishna. And

indeed,

according to the Rabbis,

who render her impure even when the semen did not touch her outside her body,

he had no question

that one who emits semen has the status of one who sees. Since the Rabbis render one who emits semen impure without the semen touching the external part of her body, it necessarily follows that this is the impurity of seeing; she overturns the seven clean days of a zavah, and she is rendered impure by any amount.

His question was—

according to Rabbi Shimon.

And he had no question with regard to rendering her impure internally as externally

according to Rabbi Shimon, since Rabbi Shimon explicitly says in the beraita that she does not render impure internally as externally.

His question was

according to Rabbi Shimon: Is the emission considered seeing

to overturn

the count of the seven clean days of a zavah,

and

is it likewise considered seeing

to render her impure by any amount?

What is the ruling?

When Rabbi Shimon said, “She has only the same status as the man who had intercourse with her,” these words apply to rendering

one who emits semen impure

internally as externally,

just as the man who had intercourse with her does not render impure internally, so one who emits semen does not render her impure internally.

But with regard to overturning

the seven clean days

and rendering her impure by any amount,

in this regard she has the same status as the man who had intercourse with her. Perhaps Rabbi Shimon holds that she

is considered one who sees [although he does not disagree with the Rabbis that she is one who sees, there is a special biblical decree that she renders impure only externally, so that she will not be more stringent than the man who had intercourse with her].

Or perhaps

Rabbi Shimon holds that there is

no difference

between overturning the seven clean days and rendering her impure by any amount, on the one hand, and rendering her impure internally, on the other: in every respect, Rabbi Shimon considers her to have the status of one who touches and not one who sees.

Some say: Actually, he had not heard

from Rav Shmuel bar Bisna this

teaching.

And the reason he was not certain that she is considered one who touches is that

this was his question:

Since the Merciful One was stringent with regard to those who experienced a seminal emission at Sinai,

as the verse warned against the impurity of one who emits semen and one who experiences a seminal emission participating in the revelation at Mount Sinai, as it is written: “Do not approach a woman,” and if they approached one they would be unable to participate in the revelation at Mount Sinai, while the Torah did not warn the Israelites not to become impure through contact with a creeping animal, it is proven that the impurity of semen is more severe, and that she

is considered one who sees.

Or perhaps we do not derive this from Sinai, because it is an innovation. For zavim and lepers, who

certainly

are more stringent

than those who experienced a seminal emission and those who emit semen, nevertheless

the Merciful One was not stringent with regard to them;

He did not warn them not to participate in the revelation at Mount Sinai. And since this is an innovation, it cannot be derived from it. Abaye resolved the uncertainty for Rav Shmuel bar Bisna, saying that one who emits semen

is considered one who sees.

Rav Shmuel bar Bisna came

to

ask

Rava what status one who emits semen has

according to Rava.

He said to him,

Rava:

She is considered one who sees!

And again he

came before Rav Yosef

and asked him what status one who emits semen has.

Rav Yosef said to him:

She is considered one who sees.

Rav Shmuel bar Bisna then

returned and

came before Abaye

and

said to him: All of you

[Abaye, Rava, and Rav Yosef]

were spat out in a single spittle [that is, you were all spit out in the same spittle; meaning, you heard the same teaching together and therefore gave exactly the same answer].

Abaye said to him,

Abaye:

They gave you an excellent answer!

For

Rabbi Shimon said, “She has only the same status as the man who had intercourse with her,” only with regard to rendering her impure internally as externally,

and in this respect she indeed has the same status as the man who had intercourse with her;

but with regard to overturning the count and rendering her impure by any amount,

even if we say that she has the same status as the man who had intercourse with her, she overturns the count of the seven clean days and is rendered impure by any amount. Therefore,

she is considered one who sees.

The Sages taught: A menstruating woman, a zavah, one who observes a day corresponding to a day, and a woman who has given birth—

all of them render impure

when the blood emerges into the outer chamber, while the blood is still

inside, as outside [that is, this has the same status as seeing blood that has emerged completely outside].

as is the law of one who sees blood that has emerged completely outside].

The Gemara asks:

Granted, in the case of all the others,

except for a woman who has given birth,

indeed,

the beraita teaches us something useful: that the blood renders her impure even if it has not emerged from her body outward.

But a woman who has given birth,

for whom blood emerged into the outer chamber—what novelty is there in stating that she becomes impure?

Surely,

if

the woman who has given birth is

within her days of menstruation

—she is

menstruating,

and the tanna has already taught us that she renders impure in the outer chamber.

And likewise,

if

the woman is

within her days of zivah

—she is

a zavah,

and the tanna has already taught us that she renders impure in the outer chamber. What practical consequence is there in teaching us that a woman who has given birth renders impure in the outer chamber?

The Gemara answers: The beraita is not speaking of blood that she saw at the time of childbirth, for in any event she is impure, whether as a menstruating woman or as a zavah.

Rather,

it is necessary:

The beraita is speaking of a case where a week has already passed since the birth of a male, or two weeks since the birth of a female, and she is now ready to immerse so that the blood from this point onward will be blood of the days of purity. Before she immerses, however, even if blood emerges after a week or two weeks from the birth, it is still impure blood.

And when

she descended to immerse to become pure from the impurity

of a woman who has given birth,

to become pure

for the days of purity, blood was dislodged from her body into the outer chamber but did not emerge from her body outward. The beraita teaches us that the immersion was ineffective for her while that blood was in the outer chamber.

And this—

this beraita is similar to what

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi, who said in the name of Rav: A woman who has given birth who descended to immerse to become pure from impurity and to become pure, and blood was dislodged from her,

and emerged into the outer chamber but did not emerge from her body, is subject to the following ruling:

If the blood was dislodged

while descending

for immersion, she is still

impure,

because the blood is still regarded as blood of the days of impurity.

But if the blood was dislodged

while ascending

from the immersion, she is

pure.

For the blood is already regarded as blood of the days of purity.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: If the blood was dislodged

while descending—

why is she impure?

Surely, her immersion now is meant to purify her from all the blood she saw before immersion, including the blood that was dislodged but is still inside her body.

If you would say that the immersion indeed purifies her from the impurity of a woman who has given birth, but the blood that emerged before immersion and is still in her body is impure blood and renders her impure again through carrying, since she is carrying the blood—and all impure blood of a woman who has given birth renders her impure through contact and carrying—

nevertheless, since the blood has not yet emerged outward but is enclosed in the outer chamber,

it is enclosed impurity,

which does not render her impure through contact?!

Any impurity that is absorbed within the human body, as long as it remains absorbed within the body, does not render one impure either through contact or through carrying.

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira, to Rabbi Yirmeya:

Go and ask Rabbi Avin, for I explained this matter to him,

go and ask Rabbi Avin your question, for I explained to him the reason for this matter,

and he nodded his head to me in the beit-midrash,

and he nodded his head to me as a sign of agreement, in the beit-midrash.

Rabbi Yirmeya went

Rabbi Yirmeya

and asked

Rabbi Avin

. He said to him

Rabbi Avin:

They treated her

the woman who gave birth, whose blood had detached before immersion and was absorbed in the outer chamber, without her blood emerging outside,

like the carcass of a kosher bird, which renders garments impure in the place of swallowing.

That is, the Sages decreed impurity with regard to contact with the blood of a woman who gave birth that is absorbed within her body in the outer chamber, analogous to the Torah’s decree concerning one who eats the carcass of a kosher bird, which renders his garments impure specifically at the time of eating, even though at that time the carcass is in his throat and constitutes absorbed impurity.

And he raises an objection:

Are they comparable

the impurity of a woman who gave birth and the impurity of the garments of one who eats the carcass of a kosher bird, such that we should enact such a decree concerning it?