Niddah 85

ולא תוך תוכו קמ"ל

But not the inside of its inside,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inside, for instance, an arm-pit which is inside the oven. ');">¹</span>

אמר ר"ל

hence we were informed [that the oven is unclean].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The implication, 'but not the inside of its inside' excludes only the case where a creeping thing was within a vessel whose rim and mouth projected above the vessel in which it was contained. ');">²</span>

קנה בקומטו של זב והסיט בו את הטהור טהור

Resh Lakish ruled: If a reed was held in a fold of the body of a <i>zab</i> and he shook therewith a clean person the latter remains clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given presently. ');">³</span>

קנה בקומטו של טהור והסיט בו את הזב טמא

If a reed was held in the fold of the body of a clean person and he shook therewith a <i>zab</i> the former is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he 'carried' the zab. The carrying of a zab as the carrying 'of his couch conveys uncleanness to the carrier (cf. Lev. XV, 10). ');">⁴</span>

מאי טעמא דאמר קרא (ויקרא טו, יא) וכל אשר יגע בו הזב וידיו לא שטף במים זהו הסיטו של זב שלא מצינו לו טומאה בכל התורה כולה

What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why a person who was shaken by a reed held in the fold of the body of a zab remains clean. ');">⁵</span>

ואפקיה רחמנא בלשון נגיעה למימרא דהיסט ונגיעה כידיו מה התם מאבראי אף הכא מאבראי

Because Scripture said, And whomsoever he that hath issue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. zab. ');">⁶</span>

אבל הזב ובעל קרי אינן מטמאין וכו'

toucheth, without having rinsed his hands in water,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 11. ');">⁷</span>

זב דכתיב (ויקרא טו, ב) כי יהיה זב מבשרו עד שיצא זובו מבשרו

and this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the text cannot refer to direct touch which was already dealt with in Lev. XV, 7. ');">⁸</span>

בעל קרי דכתיב

refers to the shaking of a <i>zab</i>, a form of conveyance of uncleanness the like of which we do not find anywhere in all the Torah; and the All Merciful expressed this in the term of touching,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Toucheth'. ');">⁹</span>

(ויקרא טו, טז) ואיש כי תצא ממנו שכבת זרע

in order to tell that shaking and touching must be performed with a part of the body which is like one's hands; as one's hands are exposed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as there from outside'. ');">¹⁰</span>

היה אוכל בתרומה והרגיש וכו'

so must any other part of the body<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is to convey uncleanness. ');">¹¹</span>

אוחז

be exposed.

והתניא ר"א אומר

BUT A <i>ZAB</i> AND ONE WHO EMITTED SEMEN CONVEY NO UNCLEANNESS etc. A <i>ZAB</i>, because it is written in Scripture, When any man hath an issue out of his flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 2, emphasis on 'out'. ');">¹²</span>

כל האוחז באמה ומשתין כאילו מביא מבול לעולם

[which implies that no uncleanness is conveyed] unless his issue emerged 'out of his flesh'; ONE WHO EMITTED SEMEN, because It is written, And if the flow of seed go out from a man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 16. Cf. prev. n. ');">¹³</span>

אמר אביי

IF A MAN WAS EATING <i>TERUMAH</i> WHEN HE FELT etc. Was it not, however, taught: R. Eliezer stated, whoever holds his membrum when he makes water is as though he had brought a flood on the world?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 13a. ');">¹⁴</span>

במטלית עבה

— Abaye replied: One does it with a thick rag.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which intercepts the warmth of one's hand. ');">¹⁵</span>

רבא אמר

Raba stated: It may even be done with a soft rag, for once the semen has been detached the subsequent touch is of no consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'since it uprooted it uprooted'. ');">¹⁶</span>

אפילו תימא במטלית רכה כיון דעקר עקר

And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why, in view of Raba's explanation, does he insist on a thick rag? ');">¹⁷</span>

ואביי חייש דילמא אתי לאוסופי ורבא לאוסופי לא חייש

— He takes into consideration the possibility of an additional discharge. And Raba? — He does not consider the possibility of an additional discharge. But does he not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So with BaH. Cur. edd. omit. ');">¹⁸</span>

והתניא

Was it not in fact taught: 'To what may this be compared? To the putting of a finger upon the eye when, so long as the finger remains on it, the eye continues to tear'? Now Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What has he to say to this? ');">¹⁹</span>

למה זה דומה לנותן אצבע בעין שכל זמן שאצבע בעין מדמעת וחוזרת ומדמעת

— It is unusual to get heated twice in immediate succession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'any being heated and being heated again at the time is not usual'. The comparison with the eye holds good only when a discharge was originally due to friction. ');">²⁰</span>

ורבא כל אחמומי והדר אחמומי בשעתא לא שכיח

Samuel ruled, Any semen the emission of which is not felt throughout one's body causes no uncleanness. What is the reason? — The All Merciful has said, The flow of seed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 16, emphasis on the last word. ');">²¹</span>

אמר שמואל

implying that the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then he shall&nbsp;… be unclean (ibid.). ');">²²</span>

כל שכבת זרע שאין כל גופו מרגיש בה אינה מטמאה

deals only with such as is fit to produce seed. An objection was raised: If a man was troubled with unchaste thoughts in the night and when he rose up he found his flesh heated, he is unclean!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mik. VIII, 3; because he might also have emitted some semen. As this would presumably occur without his being aware of it, an objection arises against Samuel. ');">²³</span>

מ"ט

— R. Huna explained this to apply to a man who dreamt of indulging in sexual intercourse, it being impossible to indulge in the act without experiencing the sensation. Another rendering: Samuel ruled, Any semen which does not shoot forth like an arrow causes no uncleanness. What is the practical difference between the latter reading and the former reading? — The practical difference between them is the case where the detachment of the semen was perceived but the emergence was not felt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first reading uncleanness would, and according to the latter reading would not be caused. ');">²⁴</span>

שכבת זרע אמר רחמנא בראויה להזריע

Now this ruling which was quite obvious to Samuel was a matter of enquiry for Raba. For Raba enquired: What is the law where the detachment of the semen was perceived but its emergence was not felt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is uncleanness thereby conveyed or not? ');">²⁵</span>

מיתיבי

— Come and hear: If a man who emitted semen performed immersion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which frees him from his uncleanness. ');">²⁶</span>

היה מהרהר בלילה ועמד ומצא בשרו חם טמא

before he had made water, his uncleanness is resumed when he makes water!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mik. VIII, 4 (cur. edd. '3', is an error). Now here there was obviously no perception, and yet uncleanness is nevertheless conveyed. An objection against Samuel. ');">²⁷</span>

תרגמא רב הונא

— There it is different, since the emergence of most of the semen was perceived. Others have a different reading: Samuel ruled, Any semen which does not shoot forth like an arrow causes no fructification. It is only fructification that it does not cause but it does cause uncleanness, for it is said in Scripture. If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of that which chanceth him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 11, mikreh of the rt. [H] (v. foll. n.). ');">²⁸</span>

במשמש מטתו בחלומו דאי אפשר לשמש בלא הרגשה

which implies: Even a chance emission<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keri of the rt. [H] (cf. prev. n.). ');">²⁹</span>

לישנא אחרינא אמר שמואל

whatever its nature.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the world'. ');">³⁰</span>

כל שכבת זרע שאינו יורה כחץ אינה מטמאה

Raba enquired: What is the law where an idolater indulged in sexual thoughts,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a result of which semen had been detached but did not emerge. ');">³¹</span>

מאי איכא בין האי לישנא להאי לישנא

and then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the purpose of his conversion to Judaism. ');">³²</span>

איכא בינייהו

he went down and performed ritual immersion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Subsequent to which the semen emerged. ');">³³</span>

נעקרה בהרגשה ויצאה שלא בהרגשה

If you were to find some case where we follow the time of detachment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that, in the case of an Israelite, uncleanness is caused where the detachment was perceived even though the emergence was not felt. ');">³⁴</span>

מילתא דפשיטא ליה לשמואל מיבעיא ליה לרבא

[the question would arise]. Does this apply only where the law is thereby restricted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Uncleanness is caused. ');">³⁵</span>

דבעי רבא

but not here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the idolater. ');">³⁶</span>

נעקרה בהרגשה ויצתה שלא בהרגשה מהו

where the law would thereby be relaxed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since at the time of the detachment the man was still an idolater and free from the laws of uncleanness. ');">³⁷</span>

ת"ש

or is it possible that no distinction is made? — This is undecided.

בעל קרי שטבל ולא הטיל מים לכשיטיל מים טמא

Raba enquired: What is the ruling where the urine of a zabah had been detached from the source<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a 'father of uncleanness'. ');">³⁸</span>

שאני התם דרובה בהרגשה נפק

and then she went down and performed ritual immersion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby she is freed from her uncleanness; and then she made the water. Is she, it is asked, unclean because at the time of the detachment she was unclean or is she clean because the emergence took place when she was already in a condition of cleanness? ');">³⁹</span>

לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה אמר שמואל

If you were to find some case where we follow the time of the detachment [the question would arise], Does this apply only to semen, since it cannot be restrained,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which detachment must be regarded as virtual emergence. ');">⁴⁰</span>

כל שכבת זרע שאינו יורה כחץ אינה מזרעת אזרועי הוא דלא מזרעא הא טמויי מטמיא שנאמר (דברים כג, יא) כי יהיה בך איש אשר לא יהיה טהור מקרה אפילו קרי בעולם

but not to her urine which she is able to restrain,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the emergence is a separate process which, having taken place after immersion, causes no uncleanness. ');">⁴¹</span>

בעי רבא

or is it possible that no distinction is made? — This is undecided.

עובד כוכבים שהרהר וירד וטבל מהו

Raba enquired: What is the law where the urine of an idolatress<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is Rabbinically unclean. ');">⁴²</span>

אם תמצי לומר בתר עקירה אזלינן הני מילי לחומרא אבל הכא דלקולא לא אמרינן או דילמא לא שנא

who was a zabah had been detached

תיקו

בעי רבא

זבה שנעקרו מימי רגליה וירדה וטבלה מהו

אם תמצא לומר בתר עקירה אזלינן הני מילי שכבת זרע דלא מצי נקיט לה אבל מימי רגליה דמצי נקיט לה לא או דילמא לא שנא

תיקו

בעי רבא

עובדת כוכבים זבה שנעקרו מימי רגליה