Niddah 43a — the Talmud in English

And not

when the creeping creature is found in

“within its interior”

[inside another vessel that is found inside the earthenware vessel]. And it might enter your mind that the same is true of a creeping creature that is in his armpit: the creeping creature is considered as though it were found “within its interior” of the vessel, and not as though it were found inside the vessel itself.

It teaches us

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

Reish Lakish said: A reed

that is found

in the armpit of a zav

[that is, the zav did not hold the reed openly, but the end of the reed was held in the zav’s armpit in a concealed manner],

and with it he moved the pure person, he is 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 armpit, and his moving him was not visibly apparent.

But if a

reed

was placed

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

the pure person

the zav—

he is impure.

For a pure person who moves a zav becomes impure through this moving, like one who carries the zav [and with impurity caused by carrying, the hidden parts were not excluded; therefore it does not matter that the pure person held the reed in his armpit].

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

for the first ruling, that the zav does not impart impurity through moving in the hidden parts?

For the verse says [Leviticus 15]

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

“And everything that the zav touches, and his hands he has not washed with water.”

And from this superfluous verse, the Sages expounded that there is an additional, novel type of impurity, that a zav imparts through moving, and

this is the moving by a zav, for which we find no impurity anywhere in the entire Torah,

for there is no impurity that moves a pure object and renders it impure, other than a zav who moves a pure person and renders him impure through his moving him.

And the Torah expressed

this novel impurity of moving

in the language of touching,

and the verse added and said “his hands,” to say that it must be visible like his hands,

meaning to say, that moving and touching are like his hands: just as there,

his hands are

from outside

[they are outside], visibly,

so too here,

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

from outside

[outside] and visibly.

This excludes a case where the zav held the reed in his armpit, in such a manner that his holding the reed was not visible, and moved the pure person through it.

But the reason that the pure person who holds the reed in his armpit and moves the zav with it becomes impure is that the impurity of carrying applies also in concealment, in the hidden parts.

We learned in the Mishna:

But the zav and the person who experienced a seminal emission do not impart 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 discharge from his flesh,”

and the Sages expounded,

until his discharge emerges from his flesh.

The person who experienced a seminal emission:

from where do we know that he does not impart impurity while the semen is still inside?

For it is written, “And a man, when there will emerge from him a discharge of semen.”

We learned in the Mishna:

If he was eating teruma and felt

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

And the Gemara asks: How does the Mishna say

“he holds”

his organ?

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

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

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

Abaye said:

Here we are speaking of one who holds

a thick cloth,

which does not warm, and he will not come to emit semen.

Rava said: Even if you say

that it is permitted for him to hold now

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

and he will not cause additional semen to begin to emerge.

And Abaye,

who required him to hold a thick cloth, what did he fear, since the semen had already begun to emerge?

He fears lest he come to add,

so that additional semen will begin to emerge and come out.

But Rava does not fear adding,

for it is not common that additional semen should come out at that same time, after it has already begun to emerge from him.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And

if

not

common that additional semen should come out?

But it was taught in a beraita: To what is this comparable

[one who touches the organ and emits semen]?

To one who places a finger in the eye, for as long as the finger is in the eye, it weeps and again weeps,

and we see that the nature is that more continues to come out; so why does Rava not fear adding?

And the Gemara answers:

And Rava

held:

Any warming and then renewed warming at one time—

is not common.

That is, where the semen came out following a sensation, as in the case of the Mishna, where his entire body trembled as a result of the warming, the entire semen comes out in one beginning, and it is no longer common that additional warming will occur that will cause more semen to emerge. But where he touches the organ, as in the beraita, and his body did not tremble, he emits semen slowly, more and more, similar to one who places a finger in the eye, which weeps for as long as the finger is in the eye.

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

at the time of emission

does not impart impurity. What is the reason?

“Semen,” said the Merciful One,

that it should impart impurity, and only

when capable of causing conception

is it called semen, but not this one, for the Sages knew that if he did not feel it, it is not capable of causing conception.

He raises an objection

from what we learned in Tractate Mikvaot [8:3]:

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

[his organ]

hot,

and did not feel that a seminal emission had come out of him, he is

impure,

lest he became impure through the impurity of a seminal emission.

But here he did not feel the emission of the semen, so why do they render him impure?

Rav Huna interpreted it:

he explained it:

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

[that is, he indeed felt it, but did not remember this when he awoke from his dream].

Another version:—

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

What difference is there between this version and that version?

There is a difference between them: If the semen began to emerge

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?

with a sensation, and came out without a sensation,

so that it does not shoot like an arrow. According to the first version, even a sensation at the time it began to emerge renders impure, whereas according to the other version, there must be a sensation at the time of its emergence.

A matter that is obvious to Shmuel was a question to Rava—

Rava asked:

What is the status of semen that

began to emerge with a sensation and came out without a sensation

as regards rendering impure?

Come and hear

from what we learned in Tractate Mikvaot [8:3]:

A person 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 comes out, the remnant of the semen comes out with it without a sensation, and renders him impure because the semen began to emerge with a sensation.

And it is proven that a sensation at the time it began to emerge renders impure, even if there is no sensation at the time of emission.

And the Gemara rejects this:

That case is different, for the majority of it—

the majority of the semen—

came out with a sensation,

and only a minority remained and came out without a sensation at the time of urination; therefore, even the minority that came out without a sensation renders impure. But Rava’s question was where the majority of the semen came out without a sensation.

Another version, some say it this way: Shmuel said: Any semen that does not shoot like an arrow cannot cause conception.

And the Gemara infers:

It is only that it cannot cause conception; but as for rendering impure, it does render impure

[for if it does not render impure, Shmuel should also have taught the practical halakha that it does not render impure],

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

of the night.” To teach us that

even an occurrence in the world,

which cannot cause conception, nevertheless renders impure.

[The words “occurrence” and “seminal emission” derive from an expression for something that has no purpose or objective in the world.]

Rava asked: A gentile who had a thought,

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

and he descended

to an immersion pool

and immersed

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

what is the ruling?

And the uncertainty is: even

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

and we render him impure when he is an Israelite,

that applies

to an Israelite, 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, where it began to emerge in purity [for while he was a gentile, his seminal emission was pure],

as a leniency,

if we follow only the beginning of its emergence, we find that we are being lenient and declaring him pure,

we do not say this.

That is, beginning to emerge alone or emission alone renders impure, and one of them is sufficient.

Or perhaps it is no different,

and it is always only the time of the beginning of its emergence that determines, both as a stringency, in the case of an Israelite regarding a sensation at the time it began to emerge, and as a leniency, in the case of a gentile who converted: since it began to emerge while he was a gentile, he is pure even if it came out after he converted.

And we conclude:

It remains unresolved!

Rava asked: A woman who experienced a flow, whose urine began to emerge

[which renders impure because of the spring of the zavah], but still had not come out of her.

And she descended and immersed

for her purification from the impurity of her flow, and afterward she urinated—

what is the ruling?

Does the time that determines the impurity of the spring of the zavah consist in the time when the urine began to emerge, so that the immersion can no longer purify the urine, or perhaps the determining time for impurity is the emission of the urine, and then she is no longer impure, having been purified through the immersion pool?

And the uncertainty is: even

if you should say that we follow the beginning of its emergence, that applies to semen, which he cannot hold,

for the emission of the seminal discharge is not under the control of the person who experienced the emission, and therefore from the moment it begins to emerge it is considered as though it came out.

But as for her urine, which she can hold, not

do we say that once it has begun to emerge in order to come out, it is considered as though it came out.

Or perhaps it is no different.

Because every beginning of emergence is considered an emission.

And we conclude:

It remains unresolved!

Further,

Rava asked: A gentile woman who experienced a flow,

who is not impure by Torah law through a flow, but the Sages decreed upon her that she should be impure like a zavah,

whose urine began to emerge

while she was a gentile.