Niddah 43a (מג.) — the Talmud in English

And not

when the creeping creature was found in

“within its interior” [within another vessel that was located inside the earthenware vessel]. And one might have thought that the same applies to a creeping creature found in his body fold: the creeping creature is considered as though it were found “within the interior” of the vessel, and not as though it were inside the vessel itself.

It teaches us

that the presence of the creeping creature inside the body fold is not considered presence “within the interior” of the earthenware vessel.

Reish Lakish said: A reed

that is

in the body fold of a zav [meaning that the zav was not holding the reed openly, but that the end of the reed was held secretly in the zav’s body fold],

and with it moved a pure person, the pure person remains pure.

Even though when a zav moves a pure person, the pure person becomes impure, that is specifically when he moved him openly; but here the zav held the end of the reed in his body fold, and his movement of the pure person was not visibly apparent.

But if a

reed

was

placed

in the body fold of a pure person, and with it he moved

the pure person

the zav—

he becomes impure.

For a pure person who moves a zav becomes impure through this movement, just as one who carries a zav does [and with regard to impurity caused by carrying, the exemption of concealed parts does not apply; therefore, it makes no difference that the pure person held the reed in his body fold].

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

for the first ruling, that a zav does not transmit impurity through movement involving a concealed part?

As the verse states [Leviticus 15]:

“And whoever the zav touches, and he has not washed his hands in water.”

The Sages derived from this apparently superfluous verse that there is an additional, novel category of impurity: a zav transmits impurity through movement. And

this is the movement caused by a zav, for we find no such impurity anywhere in the entire Torah,

that an impurity-causing person who moves a pure person renders him impure, except for a zav who moves a pure person and renders him impure through that movement.

And the Torah expressed

this novel impurity of movement

in the language of touching,

and the verse added the words “his hands,” to indicate that the movement must be visible, like his hands.

That is to say, movement and touching are like his hands: Just as there,

his hands are

from outside [they are external], openly visible,

so too here,

a zav who moves a pure person renders him impure only if he moved him

from outside [externally] and openly.

This excludes the case where the zav held the reed in his body fold, in a manner in which his holding of the reed was not visible, and moved the pure person by means of it.

But the reason that a pure person who holds the reed in his body fold and moves the zav becomes impure is that the impurity of carrying applies even secretly, in a concealed part.

We learned in the Mishna:

But a zav and one who experienced a seminal emission do not transmit impurity

until their impurity emerges outside.

And the Gemara explains the source of the ruling:

A zav, as it is written: “When there will be a zav from his flesh,”

and the Sages expounded:

until his discharge emerges from his flesh.

With regard to one who experienced a seminal emission,

from where do we know that he does not transmit impurity while the seminal emission is still inside him?

As it is written: “And a man from whom there emerges a discharge of semen.”

We learned in the Mishna:

If he was eating teruma and sensed

that his limbs had convulsed, he holds his organ and swallows the teruma.

And the Gemara asks: How can the Mishna say

“he holds”

his organ?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who holds his organ while urinating—

it is as though he brings a flood upon the world,

as he causes himself to emit semen in vain, and for this transgression the generation of the Flood was punished!

Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a case in which he holds a thick cloth, which does not generate warmth, and he will not come to emit semen.

Rava said: You may even say

that he is permitted to hold

a soft cloth now, since once it has begun, it has begun,

and he will not cause another emission of semen.

And Abaye,

who required him to hold a thick cloth, why was he concerned, given that the semen had already begun to emerge?

He is concerned lest he come to cause an additional emission,

so that another quantity of semen will begin to emerge and be discharged.

But Rava is not concerned about an additional emission,

as it is not common for another quantity of semen to emerge at that same time, after one quantity has already begun to emerge.

And the Gemara challenges:

But

is it

not

common for another quantity to emerge?

But it was taught in a beraita: To what is this comparable [one who handles his organ and emits semen]?

To one who places a finger in his eye: For as long as the finger is in the eye, it sheds tears and continues to shed tears,

and we see that the natural tendency is for more to continue emerging. Why, then, was Rava not concerned about an additional emission?

The Gemara answers:

And Rava

maintained:

Any repeated warming after warming within a short period is uncommon.

That is, when the semen emerges following a sensation, as in the case of the Mishna, where his entire body convulsed as a result of the arousal, all the semen emerges in a single emission, and it is no longer common for an additional arousal to occur that would cause another quantity of semen to emerge. But when he handles his organ, as in the beraita, and his body does not convulse, he emits semen gradually, again and again, similar to one who places a finger in his eye, which continues to shed tears as long as the finger remains in the eye.

Shmuel said: Any semen whose emission is not sensed by his body

at the time it emerges

does not transmit impurity. What is the reason?

“Discharge of semen,” the Merciful One says

that transmits impurity; and only

when it is capable of fertilization

is it called a discharge of semen, but not this discharge, since the Sages knew that if its emission was not sensed, it is not capable of fertilization.

Meytivi:

They challenged this from what we learned in tractate Mikvaot [8:3]:

If he was fantasizing at night, and he arose and found his flesh

[his organ]

to be

warm,

but did not sense that a seminal emission had emerged from him, he is

impure,

as perhaps he became impure with the impurity of one who experienced a seminal emission.

But here he did not sense the emergence of the semen. Why, then, do we render him impure?

Rav Huna explained:

This is referring to one who had intercourse in his dream, for it is impossible to have intercourse without a sensation

[meaning that he did in fact experience a sensation, but did not remember it when he awoke from his dream].

An alternative version:

Shmuel said: Any semen that does not shoot like an arrow does not transmit impurity.

What difference is there between this version and that version?

The difference between them is:

Semen that

began to emerge with a sensation but emerged without a sensation,

as in that case it does not shoot like an arrow.

According to the first version, even a sensation at the time it began to emerge renders one impure; according to the alternative version, there must be a sensation at the time it emerges.

A matter that was obvious to Shmuel was a question for Rava— Rava asked: Semen that began to emerge with a sensation but emerged without a sensation—what is the ruling as to whether it transmits impurity?

Ta shma:

Come and hear a proof from what we learned in tractate Mikvaot [8:3]:

One who experienced a seminal emission who immersed, but did not urinate

before his immersion,

when he urinates

he will be

impure,

because when his urine emerges, the remainder of the seminal emission emerges with it without a sensation, and renders him impure because the semen began to emerge with a sensation.

It is thus proven that a sensation at the time the semen begins to emerge renders one impure, even if there is no sensation at the time it emerges.

The Gemara rejects this:

There it is different, for the majority

of the semen

emerged with a sensation,

and only a minority remained and emerged without a sensation when he urinated. Therefore, even the minority that emerged without a sensation renders him impure. Rava’s question, however, concerned a case in which the majority of the semen emerged without a sensation.

An alternative version: Some say it this way: Shmuel said: Any semen that does not shoot like an arrow is not capable of fertilization.

And the Gemara infers:

It is only with regard to fertilization that it is not capable, but it does transmit impurity [for if it did not transmit impurity, Shmuel would also have taught the practical halakha that it does not transmit impurity],

as it is stated: “When there will be among you a man who will not be pure, from an occurrence”

of the night. This teaches us that

even semen that has no purpose,

which cannot fertilize, nevertheless transmits impurity.

[The terms “occurrence” and “semen” derive from a root denoting something without purpose or objective in the world.]

Rava asked: A gentile who fantasized

and semen began to emerge from him with a sensation but did not emerge externally,

and he descended

to a ritual bath

and immersed

for the sake of conversion, and after he converted the semen emerged from him without a sensation—

what is the ruling?

The question is as follows: Even

if you say that we follow the beginning of the emergence,

and render a Jew impure,

that applies

to a Jew, for it is sufficient that it began to emerge with a sensation

as a stringency,

to render him impure.

But here,

in the case of a convert, whose semen began to emerge in a state of purity [because while he was a gentile his seminal emission was pure],

as a leniency,

if we follow only the beginning of the emergence, we would be lenient and declare him pure;

we do not say this.

That is, beginning of emergence alone or emergence alone renders one impure, and either one is sufficient.

Or perhaps it is no different,

and it is always the time when the semen began to emerge that determines the matter, both stringently, in the case of a Jew with regard to a sensation at the beginning of the emergence, and leniently, in the case of a gentile who converted: since it began to emerge while he was a gentile, he remains pure even if it emerged after he converted.

The Gemara concludes:

Teyku!

The question remains unresolved.

Rava asked: A menstruant who had her urine begin to emerge

[urine that renders her impure because of the discharge of a zav], but it had not yet emerged from her,

and she descended and immersed

to purify herself from the impurity of her discharge, and afterward urinated—

what is the ruling?

Does the time that determines the impurity of the discharge of a zav consist of the time when the urine began to emerge, in which case the immersion can no longer purify the urine, or is the determining time the actual urination, in which case she was already pure, having been purified through the ritual bath?

The question is as follows: Even

if you say that we follow the beginning of the emergence, this applies to semen, since he cannot restrain it,

and the emergence of a seminal emission is not under the control of the person experiencing it; therefore, from the moment it begins to emerge, it is considered to have emerged.

But with regard to her urine, which she can restrain, it is not

said that once it has begun to emerge, it is considered as though it has emerged.

Or perhaps it is no different,

because every beginning of emergence is considered an emergence.

The Gemara concludes:

Teyku!

Another

question was asked by Rava: A gentile menstruant,

who is not impure by Torah law on account of a discharge, but whom the Sages decreed should be impure like a menstruant,

whose urine began to emerge

while she was a gentile.