Niddah 22aנדה כ״ב א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Niddah 22a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
22aכ״ב א

כי פליגי בחתיכה מר סבר דרכה של אשה לראות דם בחתיכה ומר סבר אין דרכה של אשה לראות דם בחתיכה

When they disagree, it is with regard to the case of blood that is found in a piece of tissue. One Sage, the first tanna, who follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, holds that it is the manner of a woman to see menstrual blood in a piece of tissue that she discharges. Therefore, the term “in her flesh” applies to the blood in the cracks. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that it is not the manner of a woman to see menstrual blood in a piece of tissue that she discharges. Therefore, the blood found in the piece of tissue is not considered menstrual blood, and it does not render the woman impure.

רבא אמר דכולי עלמא אין דרכה של אשה לראות דם בחתיכה

Rava says there is another explanation of this dispute: Everyone, both the first tanna and the Rabbis, agrees that it is not the manner of a woman to see menstrual blood in a piece of tissue that she discharges. Consequently, the blood that emerges from the cracks in the piece of tissue is not considered menstrual blood, and it does not render the woman impure.

והכא באשה טהורה ומקור מקומו טמא קמיפלגי דר' אליעזר סבר אשה טהורה ודם טמא דהא אתי דרך מקור ורבנן סברי אשה טהורה ומקור מקומו טהור

And here, they disagree as to whether it is possible that the woman herself is pure but the location of the source, i.e., the uterus, is impure. As Rabbi Eliezer holds that the woman is pure, i.e., she was not rendered a menstruating woman with the discharge of the blood, but the blood is impure, despite the fact that it emerged in a piece of tissue, as it emerged through the source, which is impure. Therefore, when the blood comes into contact with the woman’s body she contracts first-degree impurity, and the woman subsequently transmits impurity to foods that she touches. And the Rabbis hold that the woman is entirely pure, and the location of the source is also pure. Therefore, pure food that she touches is not rendered impure.

בעא מיניה רבה מרב הונא הרואה קרי בקיסם מהו {ויקרא טו } ממנו אמר רחמנא עד דנפיק מבשרו ולא בקיסם או דלמא האי ממנו עד שתצא טומאתו לחוץ ואפי' בקיסם נמי

§ Rabba asked Rav Huna a similar question to the case of the tube: With regard to a man who sees semen by extracting it from his penis with a sliver of wood, what is the halakha? Does he assume the impurity status of one who experiences a seminal emission? The Gemara explains the question. The verse states: “A man from whom the flow of semen emerges” (Leviticus 22:4). Since the Merciful One states: “From whom,” is it derived that the man is not impure unless the semen emerges from his flesh by itself, and not when it is extracted with a sliver of wood? Or perhaps from this term: “From whom,” it is derived merely that the man is not impure unless his impurity, i.e., his semen, emerges outside his body, but he is impure even if this is achieved with a sliver of wood.

אמר ליה תיפוק ליה דהוא עצמו אינו מטמא אלא בחתימת פי האמה

Rav Huna said to Rabba: Derive that the man is pure from the fact that semen itself becomes impure only in a case where the discharge is substantial enough to cause a blockage of the tip of the penis. Since this amount cannot be extracted with a sliver of wood, it is not impure.

למימרא דנוגע הוי אלא מעתה אל יסתור בזיבה

Rabba replied to Rav Huna: Since a minimum measure is required for this impurity, is this to say that the reason a man who experiences a seminal emission is impure is that his penis touches the semen after it is emitted? If he was rendered impure merely by the emission of the semen then no minimum measure would apply, as is the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman. But if that is so, then a seminal emission should not negate the count of seven clean days for a man who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva]. A zav does not stop his counting when he touches a source of impurity, e.g., the carcass of a creeping animal.

אלמה תניא (ויקרא טו, לב) זאת תורת הזב ואשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע מה זיבה סותרת אף שכבת זרע נמי סותר

If so, why is it taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse’s juxtaposition between a zav and one who experienced a seminal emission: “This is the law of the zav, and of one from whom the flow of semen emerges” (Leviticus 15:32), that just as ziva during the seven clean days negates the count, so too, a seminal emission negates the count. If it is not the emission itself that renders the man impure but only his contact with the semen, why does the emission negate the count of seven clean days?

אמר ליה סתירה היינו טעמא דסותר לפי שאי אפשר לה בלא צחצוחי זיבה

Rav Huna said to Rabba in response: The halakha of negation is not difficult, as this is the reason that a seminal emission negates the count of seven clean days: Because it is impossible for a zav to experience a seminal emission without it containing bits of [tzaḥtzoḥei] ziva.

אלא מעתה תסתור כל שבעה אלמה תניא זאת תורת הזב וגו' מה זיבה סותרת אף שכבת זרע סותר

Rabba further objected: If that is so, then a seminal emission should negate the entire count of seven clean days, just like an emission of ziva, not merely the day on which the seminal emission occurred. But then why is it taught in the baraita: It is derived from the verse: “This is the law of the zav, and of one from whom the flow of semen emerges, so that he is impure by it” (Leviticus 15:32), that just as ziva during the seven clean days negates the count, so too, a seminal emission negates the count.

אי מה זיבה סותרת כל ז' אף שכבת זרע נמי סותר כל ז' ת"ל (ויקרא טו, לב) לטמאה בה אין לך בה אלא מה שאמור בה סותרת יום אחד

The baraita continues: If a seminal emission is compared to ziva, then it might be suggested that just as ziva negates the entire count of seven days, so too, a seminal emission should also negate the entire count of seven days. Therefore, the verse states: “So that he is impure by it,” to teach that in the case of a seminal emission you have a negation of the count that is equivalent only to the impurity that is stated by it, i.e., impurity for one day. Accordingly, a seminal emission negates only one day of the count, not the entire count. This apparently contradicts Rav Huna’s statement that the reason a seminal emission negates the count at all is that the seminal emission of a zav always contains ziva.

אמר ליה גזירת הכתוב היא זיבה גמורה דלא ערבה בה שכבת זרע סותרת כל שבעה צחצוחי זיבה דערבה בה שכבת זרע לא סותרת אלא יום אחד

Rav Huna said to Rabba: It is a Torah edict that an emission that is purely ziva, when semen is not mixed in it, negates the entire count of seven days, whereas bits of ziva in which some semen is mixed negate only one day of the count.

בעא מיניה ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא מרבי אלעזר דם יבש מהו (ויקרא טו, כה) כי יזוב זוב דמה אמר רחמנא עד דמידב דייב ליה לח אין יבש לא או דלמא האי כי יזוב זוב דמה אורחא דמילתא היא ולעולם אפילו יבש נמי

§ Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, asked Rabbi Elazar: If a woman discharges dry blood, what is the halakha? Does she have the status of a menstruating woman? The Gemara explains the dilemma: Since the Merciful One states: “And if a woman has a flow of her blood many days” (Leviticus 15:25), does this indicate that the woman is not impure unless the blood flows, i.e., if it is wet, yes, she is impure, whereas if it is dry she is not impure? Or perhaps this phrase: “If a woman has a flow of her blood,” is merely referring to the normal manner that menstrual blood emerges, but actually even dry blood renders the woman impure.

א"ל תניתוה דם הנדה ובשר המת מטמאין לחים ויבשים אמר ליה לח ונעשה יבש לא קא מיבעיא לי כי מיבעיא לי יבש מעיקרא

Rabbi Elazar said to him: You learned the solution to your dilemma in a mishna (54b): The blood of a menstruating woman and the flesh of a corpse impart impurity whether they are wet or dry. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said to him in response: I do not raise the dilemma about blood that was wet when it came out and subsequently dried, as such blood is certainly impure. When I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to blood that was dry at the outset, when it emerged.

הא נמי תניתוה המפלת כמין קליפה כמין שערה כמין עפר כמין יבחושין אדומין תטיל למים

Rabbi Elazar responded: You learned the solution to this dilemma as well, in the mishna here: In the case of a woman who discharges an item similar to a shell, or similar to a hair, or similar to soil, or similar to mosquitoes, if these are red, she should cast them into water to ascertain their nature.