Niddah 43b — the Talmud in English

And she descended and immersed herself

for her conversion, and afterward emitted the urine [that had been displaced earlier],

what is the law?

And the uncertainty is: even

if you should say that we follow the displacement, although she can hold it [even according to the side that an Israelite woman becomes impure in this manner if she immersed between the displacement and the emission of the urine],

[то есть даже согласно мнению, что еврейка в подобном случае становится нечистой, если она погрузилась в микву между началом выделения и выделением мочи],

this applies to an Israelite woman, whose impurity is by Torah law. But a gentile woman with a flow, whose impurity is

only

rabbinic,

say

they did not

decree upon her that we follow the displacement.

Or perhaps it is no different

between a convert and an Israelite woman. And since her urine was displaced before her immersion and was emitted afterward, she becomes impure.

And we conclude:

teyku!

We learned in the Mishna: The man with a flux and one who experienced a seminal emission

convey impurity in any amount.

Shmuel said: A man with a flux requires

that there be in his flux at least the measure

of sealing the opening of the organ

in order to convey impurity

. As it is stated: “or has sealed his flesh because of his flux,”

whose meaning is that the flux seals the place of its exit from his flesh, namely, the opening of the organ.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But did we not learn:

The man with a flux and one who experienced a seminal emission

convey impurity in any amount?

And the Gemara answers:

He [Shmuel]

[Шмуэль]

stated in accordance with Rabbi Natan 49 .

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: A man with a flux requires [a flux] the measure of sealing the opening of the organ, but they did not agree with him.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael?

For the verse says: “or has sealed his flesh because of his flux.”

And the Rabbis,

who hold that even any amount of flux conveys impurity, what did they derive from the verse “or has sealed his flesh”?

That

verse

is needed by him

to teach us that only flux

that is moist [which can seal the opening of the organ]

[способное запечатать отверстие полового члена]

conveys impurity.

And it does not convey impurity

through flux

that is dry,

which does not seal the opening of the organ, for when it dries it falls away.

And Rabbi Yishmael,

from where does he know that dry flux does not convey impurity?

That

law, that only moist flux conveys impurity,

is derived from “a flow,”

which implies moist and not dry.

And the Rabbis,

what do they expound from the verse “a flow”?

That

verse did not come to teach us that the flux must be moist, but

it came for counting,

to teach us the number of emissions that render a man with a flux impure. And just as they expounded the verse concerning a man with a flux, “And this shall be his impurity in his flux: when his flesh flows with his flux,” they expound:

“His flux” —

one.

“When his flesh flows” —

two.

“With his flux” —

three.

The verse taught

that

a man with a flux who has three emissions is liable to a sacrifice.

And from the end of the verse, as it is written,

“or has sealed his flesh because of his flux,”

“it is his impurity,” they derive that even if he did not see a “complete flux” of three emissions, but only

“was impure through part” of his flux,

that is, he saw not three emissions but only two, he is

impure.

The verse taught

that

a man with a flux who has two emissions —

conveys impurity to a bed and a seat [but does not bring a sacrifice].

[но не приносит жертву].

And Rabbi Yishmael,

who expounds the verse “a flow” as teaching that only moist flux conveys impurity and not dry flux,

the counting

of the three emissions of a man with a flux for liability to a sacrifice,

from where does he derive it?

He derives it from Rabbi Simai.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Simai says: The verse counted

in the first verse of the section of those with fluxes

two

emissions only, as it is stated, “Any man, when there shall be

a. a flux from his flesh,

b. his flux is impure.”

And the verse called him

Писание его

“impure”

after only two emissions.

Whereas afterward, in the following verse, the verse counted

three

emissions,

and

only then

called him impure.

a. “And this shall be his impurity

in his flux.

b. When his flesh flows with

his flux.

c. Or has sealed his flesh

because of his flux.”

How

shall we reconcile the contradiction, whether we consider him impure after two emissions or after three?

Two

emissions

for impurity, and three

emissions

for

making the man with a flux liable for a

sacrifice.

And according to whom [the Rabbis above]

[то есть согласно мнению мудрецов выше,]

who derive both of them,

both impurity and a sacrifice,

from “And this shall be his impurity in his flux: when his flesh flows with his flux,”

the second verse, what does he do with the first verse,

“Any man, when there shall be a flux from his flesh”?

It is needed by him

to teach us that he does not convey impurity

until it has exited from his flesh.

And the end of the first verse, which states

“his flux is impure,” what is it needed for?

It taught concerning the flux [the drop itself]

[самой капли],

that it is impure,

apart from the fact that it renders the person impure through the emission.

And now the Gemara returns to discuss what the Mishna says, that one who experienced a seminal emission conveys impurity in any amount.

Rav Hanilai said in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon: The measure of semen is:

таков:

For one who sees

the semen [that is, it exits his body],

any amount.

For one who touches it,

the drop itself,

, the measure of a lentil.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But did we not learn, “They convey impurity in any amount”?

Is it not referring to one who touches

it that we learned, and why did Rav Hanilai say that its measure is the size of a lentil?

And the Gemara answers: The Mishna

does not

speak about one who touches it. Rather,

for one who sees

it we learned. One who sees conveys impurity in any amount, but one who touches it has the measure of a lentil.

Come and hear: There is a stringency with semen over a creeping creature, and a stringency with a creeping creature over semen:

The stringency with a creeping creature —

that the impurity of a creeping creature is not divided,

for every creeping creature conveys impurity, whether small or large.

This is not so with semen,

which conveys impurity only when it issues from a grown person, whereas a minor below the age of nine has no seminal emission.

The stringency with semen —

that semen conveys impurity in any amount, which is not so with a creeping creature.

Is it not the case that

the statement in the beraita, that there is a stringency with semen over a creeping creature in that it conveys impurity in any amount, refers

to one who touches it.

And this is difficult for Rav Hanilai, who holds that one who touches semen becomes impure only with the measure of a lentil.

And the Gemara answers:

No.

The stringency refers

to one who sees it,

whose measure is any amount.

But it still remains difficult:

But it taught it in comparison with a creeping creature,

that semen is more stringent than a creeping creature:

Just as a creeping creature

has its measure stated as the size of a lentil

with regard to contact, so too semen

has its measure as any amount

with regard to contact!?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It teaches “any creeping creature,” and it teaches “any semen.”

The tan did not compare them with regard to the form of the impurity; rather, it taught us that there is a stringency with semen over a creeping creature, in that semen conveys impurity through seeing in any amount, whereas with a creeping creature we do not find that its impurity, which is only through contact, has a measure of any amount less than the size of a lentil.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And

if

a creeping creature does not convey impurity

in any manner

in any amount?

But did we not learn: The limbs [of a corpse, an unslaughtered carcass, or a creeping creature]

[умершего, падали или пресмыкающегося]

have no measure

for their impurity, and even if the limbs contain

less than an olive-size of flesh of the corpse, less than an olive-size of flesh of the unslaughtered carcass, and less than a lentil-size of the creeping creature,

they convey impurity, each with its own impurity .

If so, how did the tan teach above that impurity from a creeping creature cannot occur with less than the size of a lentil?

And the Gemara answers:

A limb is different, for all of it

is a limb in its entirety

stands in place of a lentil!

The significance of a complete limb is like the significance of a lentil, and therefore the tan said that we do not find impurity from a creeping creature without the significance of a lentil. But semen conveys impurity even without the significance of a lentil.

Know that the significance of the limb lies in its completeness,

for if a small part of the limb were missing —

would it convey impurity?

For when a limb is small, measuring less than a lentil, it conveys impurity only in its entirety, and by virtue of this completeness it is significant like a lentil .

And the Gemara returns to explain the beraita:

“Semen, whose impurity is divided” —

what is it?

If you say

that the division is

between Israelites and gentiles,

as a gentile does not convey the impurity of one who experienced a seminal emission.

This is not possible, because

there is also

such a division with regard to a creeping creature. There is

a sea mouse

that does not convey impurity,

and a land mouse

that does convey impurity.

Rather,

the intention of the tan is that with a creeping creature there is no division

between a minor and an adult.

Every creeping creature conveys impurity, which is not so with semen, for a minor has no impurity of a seminal emission.

Rav Pappa said:

The law of Rav Hanilai, that semen conveys impurity with the measure of a lentil and not in any amount, is

a matter of dispute among tannaim.

For it was taught in a beraita:

From where is it derived to include one who touches semen

that it conveys impurity only to one who touches it in the measure of a lentil?

The verse states: “Or a man.” [And Rav Pappa holds that it refers to the verse, “Or a man who touches any creeping creature that conveys impurity.”]

[рав Папа считает, что речь идёт о стихе: «или человек, который прикоснётся ко всякому пресмыкающемуся, делающему нечистым»].

And since

tannaim disagree generally,

as a fundamental general dispute,

some say,

wherever one law is learned from another law [through a gzera shava, an analogy, or “what do we find”]

derive from it and from it,

we must fully equate the derived law with the teaching law, and all the details present in the teaching law are present in the derived law

. And there are

tannaim

who say,

that although the fundamental law is

derived from it,

the remaining details of the law

are established in its place,

learned from its own context.

Here too there will be that same dispute among tannaim:

According to the one who says, “derive from it and from it,”

we fully equate the law of semen with that of a creeping creature, and say: derive from it:

Just as a creeping creature

conveys impurity

through contact, so too semen

conveys impurity

through contact.

And we continue to derive the remaining details as well,

and from it: just as a creeping creature

has its measure of impurity

as a lentil, so too semen

does not convey impurity except

with the measure of a lentil.

And according to the one who says, “derive from it and establish it in its place,”

we indeed derive from it:

Just as a creeping creature

conveys impurity

through contact, so too semen

conveys impurity

through contact,

but

establish it in its place:

the remaining details and the manner in which semen conveys impurity through contact are learned from its own context [namely, from semen itself] and not from the teaching matter [the creeping creature].

Just as semen

conveys impurity

for one who sees

it with the impurity of a seminal emission

in any amount, so too one who touches

it, it conveys to him the impurity of contact

in any amount 53 .

Rav Huna son of Rav Natan said to Rav Pappa: From where do you know that “or a man”

mentioned in the section

refers to a creeping creature,

as the tanna of the beraita includes it, and that we should make the law dependent on the dispute among tannaim whether one derives from it and from it or derives from it and establishes it in its place?

Perhaps he includes it from “or a man from whom semen issues,”

who becomes impure through contact, analogous to seeing.

And everyone

holds here

“derive from it and from it,”

and it has all the laws of semen, since this is a derivation from one law of semen to another, just as one who sees conveys impurity in any amount, so too one who touches it.

Let him ask the “tannaim” [the amoraim who transmit the beraitot] which verse they taught the beraita from.

[амораев, передавающих различные барайты], по поводу какого стиха они учили барайту.

There are those who teach,

that the beraita speaks of the verse concerning a creeping creature,

in accordance with Rav Pappa.

And there are those who teach,

that the beraita speaks of the verse concerning semen,

in accordance with Rav Huna son of Rav Natan.

Mishna:

From here until the end of the chapter, the Mishna details all the laws that apply to a person and that depend on age.

The Mishna begins to enumerate several matters that apply at every age, from the time of birth, even to an infant one day old. But with a fetus that is not one day old, these laws do not apply. And these are they:

A girl,

even

one day old,

from whom menstrual blood issued,

conveys impurity through menstruation.

A girl

ten days old

who saw blood on the day of her birth and became a menstruant for seven days, if afterward she saw blood on the eighth, ninth, and tenth days from her birth,

conveys impurity through a flow.

But before ten days it is not possible in practice for her to be a woman with a flow, since seeing blood at first renders her impure for the seven days of menstruation, and only if she sees additional blood after the seven days of menstruation, for three days, does she become a major woman with a flow.

A male infant one day old —

If he saw a flux, even on his first day,

conveys impurity through a flow.

For a male conveys impurity through a flow immediately on the first day of his seeing

.

And

if the infant was afflicted with leprosy, he

conveys impurity through lesions.

And

if the infant touched a corpse, or was in the tent of a corpse, he

conveys impurity through contact with the impure dead.

And he causes levirate marriage to be required.

If, after the infant was born, his brother died without leaving offspring, the wife of his deceased brother is forbidden to marry until the infant grows up and either performs levirate marriage with her or releases her through halitza.

And if the infant’s father died without other offspring, this infant

exempts

his mother

from levirate marriage,

even if the infant dies while one day old, provided that he is viable and not a miscarriage.

And he enables her to eat teruma.

An Israelite woman married to a koen eats teruma. If her koen husband dies, then as long as she has offspring from her koen husband, she continues to eat teruma.

But if she has no offspring from her koen husband, she returns to the house of her Israelite father and is forbidden to eat teruma.

And he disqualifies her from teruma.

A koen’s daughter married to an Israelite is forbidden to eat teruma even if her husband dies, as long as she has offspring from her Israelite husband. But if her husband dies, and all the offspring born to her from her Israelite husband also die, she returns to the house of her koen father and eats teruma.