נדה דף לד

רגל הוה, וטומאת עם הארץ ברגל כטהרה שויוה רבנן, דכתיב: ״ויאסף כל איש ישראל אל העיר כאיש אחד חברים״, הכתוב עשאן כולן חברים.

This incident occurred during a pilgrimage Festival, either Passover, Sukkot, or Shavuot, and the Sages rendered the ritual impurity of an am ha’aretz during a pilgrimage Festival as purity. As it is written: “And all the men of Israel gathered to the city, like one man, united [ḥaverim]” (Judges 20:11). Whenever all the Jewish people gather in a single place, such as on a pilgrimage Festival, the verse renders all of them ḥaverim, even one who is an am ha’aretz. There was therefore no concern for impurity due to the saliva of an am ha’aretz. Yet, the High Priest was concerned that this Sadducee was one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman.

מתני' דם נכרית ודם טהרה של מצורעת, בית שמאי מטהרים, ובית הלל אומרים: כרוקה וכמימי רגליה.

MISHNA: With regard to the blood of a menstruating gentile woman or a gentile zava, and the blood discharged by a female Jewish leper during the days of purity of a woman who gives birth, Beit Shammai deem them ritually pure, and Beit Hillel say: The halakhic status of the blood of the gentile woman is like that of her saliva and her urine, which impart impurity only while moist. Likewise, the blood discharged by a Jewish leper during the days of purity imparts impurity only when moist.

דם היולדת שלא טבלה, בית שמאי אומרים: כרוקה וכמימי רגליה, ובית הלל אומרים: מטמא לח ויבש.

With regard to the blood of a woman who gave birth and reached the conclusion of her days of impurity, i.e., seven days after giving birth to a male or fourteen days after giving birth to a female, but who did not yet immerse in a ritual bath, Beit Shammai say: Although she has yet to immerse in a ritual bath, the blood does not retain the halakhic status of menstrual blood. Rather, the status of the blood is like that of her saliva and her urine, and it imparts impurity only while moist. And Beit Hillel say: Since she did not immerse in a ritual bath, her blood is considered like that of a menstruating woman, and it imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.

ומודים ביולדת בזוב שהיא מטמאה לח ויבש.

And Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel in the case of a woman who gives birth as a zava, where the woman must count seven clean days from the conclusion of her days of impurity, that any blood she sees during those seven days imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.

גמ' ולית להו לבית שמאי ״דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם איש איש כי יהיה זב״ — בני ישראל מטמאין בזיבה, ואין הגוים מטמאין בזיבה,

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Beit Shammai the blood of a gentile woman does not impart impurity. The Gemara objects: And do Beit Shammai not accept that which is taught with regard to the verse: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, when any man has an issue [zav] out of his flesh, his issue is impure” (Leviticus 15:2), from which it is inferred: By Torah law, the children of Israel become impure through ziva and gentiles do not become impure through ziva, but the Sages decreed concerning them that they shall be like zavin in all their matters of ritual purity.

אבל גזרו עליהן שיהו כזבין לכל דבריהם?

אמרי לך בית שמאי: (ההוא בזכרים איתמר, דאי בנקבות) היכי לעביד? ליטמא לח ויבש — עשיתו כשל תורה, ליטמי לח ולא ליטמי יבש — חלקת בשל תורה.

The Gemara responds: Beit Shammai could say to you that this was stated only with regard to males, not females. As, if it was stated even with regard to females, how should one act with regard to this impurity? Should their blood impart impurity whether it is moist or dry? If so, you have rendered it like blood that imparts impurity by Torah law, and people will mistakenly come to burn teruma that comes into contact with it. Perhaps one will suggest that it should impart impurity only while it is moist and it should not impart impurity when it is dry. But if so, you will have differentiated between moist and dry blood even with regard to blood that is impure by Torah law, i.e., one might mistakenly conclude that the blood of Jewish women imparts impurity only when it is moist, when in fact it imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.

אי הכי, רוקה ומימי רגליה נמי! כיון דעבדינן היכרא בדמה, מידע ידיע דרוקה ומימי רגליה דרבנן.

The Gemara objects: If so, then with regard to the saliva and urine of a gentile zava, which impart impurity by rabbinic law only when moist, Beit Shammai should also rule that they do not impart impurity at all, in order to distinguish their saliva and urine from that of a Jewish zava, which by Torah law impart impurity only when moist (see 54b). The Gemara responds: Since we implement a conspicuous marker with regard to the blood of a gentile woman, i.e., it is clear that her status is different from that of a Jewish woman in that her blood does not impart impurity whatsoever, everyone will know that the impurity of her saliva and her urine is only by rabbinic law, and there is no concern that people might come to mistakenly burn teruma that comes into contact with the saliva and urine of a gentile zava.

ולעביד היכרא ברוקה ומימי רגליה, ולטמויי לדמה? רוקה ומימי רגליה דשכיחי — גזרו בהו רבנן, דמה דלא שכיח — לא גזרו ביה רבנן.

The Gemara persists: And let them implement a conspicuous marker with regard to the saliva and urine of a gentile woman, that they should not impart impurity whatsoever, and let them deem her blood impure even when dry. In this manner, everyone will know that the impurity of a gentile woman applies only by rabbinic law, and they will not come to treat that which is impure by Torah law in the same manner. The Gemara responds: With regard to her saliva and her urine, which are relatively common, the Sages decreed that they are impure, but with regard to her blood, which is not as common, the Sages did not decree that it is impure.

אמר רבא: זובו טמא, אפילו לבית שמאי; קריו טהור, אפילו לבית הלל.

§ With regard to a gentile man, Rava says: The ziva of a gentile man is ritually impure, even according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, who maintain that the ziva of a gentile woman does not impart impurity whatsoever. By contrast, the semen of a gentile is pure, even according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, who hold that the blood of menstruating gentiles and the blood of their ziva imparts impurity when it is moist.

זובו טמא, אפילו לבית שמאי — דהא איכא למעבד היכרא בקריו.

Rava elaborates: The ziva of a gentile man is impure, even according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, as it is possible to implement a conspicuous marker with his semen, i.e., since his semen does not impart impurity whatsoever, everyone will know that the impurity imparted by the ziva of a gentile applies by rabbinic law, and they will not come to burn teruma that comes in contact with the ziva of a gentile.

קריו טהור, אפילו לבית הלל — עבוד ביה רבנן היכרא, כי היכי דלא לשרוף עליה תרומה וקדשים.

And the semen of a gentile is ritually pure, even according to the opinion of Beit Hillel. This is because the Sages had to implement a conspicuous marker with regard to it to indicate that the ziva of a gentile imparts impurity only by rabbinic law in order that they will not come to burn teruma and consecrated items that come into contact with their ziva, as must be performed with teruma and consecrated items that contract impurity by Torah law.

ולעביד היכרא בזובו, ולטמויי לקריו? זובו דלא תלי במעשה — גזרו ביה רבנן, קריו דתלי במעשה — לא גזרו ביה רבנן.

The Gemara objects: And let the Sages implement a conspicuous marker with regard to the ziva of a gentile man, that it should not impart impurity whatsoever, and let them deem his semen impure. The Gemara explains: With regard to his ziva, which is not dependent on an action he performs but is emitted on its own, the Sages decreed that it is impure; with regard to his semen, which is dependent on an action he performs, the Sages did not decree that it is impure.

לימא מסייע ליה: נכרית שפלטה שכבת זרע מישראל — טמאה, ובת ישראל שפלטה שכבת זרע מן הנכרי — טהורה. מאי לאו טהורה גמורה? לא, טהורה מדאורייתא, טמאה מדרבנן.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following mishna (Mikvaot 8:4) supports Rava’s opinion: In the case of a gentile woman who discharged semen that came from a Jew who engaged in intercourse with her, the semen is impure, as it came from a Jew. And in the case of a Jewish woman who discharged semen that came from a gentile, the semen is pure. What, is it not correct to say that the mishna means the semen of the gentile is entirely pure, in accordance with the opinion of Rava? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No, perhaps the mishna means that the semen of a gentile is pure by Torah law but impure by rabbinic law, whereas according to Rava, the semen of a gentile is pure even by rabbinic law.

תא שמע: נמצאת אומר, שכבת זרע של ישראל טמאה בכל מקום,

The Gemara cites another source that possibly supports Rava’s opinion: Come and hear a baraita: You are found to say the semen of a Jew is impure wherever it is found,

ואפילו במעי גויה. ושל נכרי טהורה בכל מקום, ואפילו במעי ישראלית, חוץ ממי רגלים שבה.

even if it is in the womb of a gentile woman. If she discharges this semen, it imparts ritual impurity. And by contrast, the semen of a gentile is ritually pure wherever it is found, even if it is in the womb of a Jewish woman, except for any urine that intermingled with it. In other words, if the semen of a gentile intermingled with his urine, the mixture is impure due to the urine it contains, as the Sages decreed that a gentile is considered like a zav in all matters. Consequently, his urine imparts impurity.

וכי תימא, הכי נמי טהורה מדאורייתא, אבל טמאה מדרבנן. אטו מי רגליה מדאורייתא מי מטמאו? אלא שמע מינה: טהורה אפילו מדרבנן. שמע מינה.

The Gemara continues: And if you would say in rejection of this proof: Here as well, the baraita means that the semen of a gentile is ritually pure by Torah law but impure by rabbinic law, one may respond: Since the baraita states that the urine of a gentile is impure, is that to say that her urine, i.e., the urine of the gentile that intermingled with his semen and is now inside the womb of the Jewish woman, is ritually impure by Torah law? Isn’t it impure only by rabbinic law? Rather, conclude from the baraita that the semen of a gentile is pure even by rabbinic law. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

אמר מר: שכבת זרע של ישראל טמאה בכל מקום, אפילו במעי גויה. תפשוט דבעי רב פפא, דבעי רב פפא: שכבת זרע של ישראל במעי גויה מהו?

The Master said above in a baraita: The semen of a Jew is impure wherever it is found, even if it is in the womb of a gentile woman. The Gemara suggests: Let one resolve from this baraita a dilemma that Rav Pappa raises. As Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the semen of a Jew in the womb of a gentile woman? Let one conclude from the baraita that the semen is impure.

בתוך שלשה — לא קמיבעיא ליה לרב פפא, כי קמיבעיא ליה — לאחר שלשה מאי?

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Rav Pappa does not raise his dilemma with regard to the semen of a Jew that is in the womb of a gentile woman within three days of their intercourse, as such semen is impure. Rather, when Rav Pappa raises his dilemma it is with regard to semen in the womb of the gentile more than three days after their intercourse. What is the halakha in such a case?

ישראל דדייגי במצות — חביל גופייהו ומסריח, גוים דלא דייגי במצות — לא חביל גופייהו ולא מסריח, או דילמא: כיון דאכלי שקצים ורמשים — חביל גופייהו ומסריח? תיקו.

The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we say that as Jewish women are concerned about the proper fulfillment of mitzvot, their bodies are hot and semen in their wombs becomes foul within three days, whereas gentile women are not concerned about the proper fulfillment of mitzvot and therefore their bodies are not hot and semen in their wombs does not become foul within three days? Or perhaps, since gentiles eat repugnant creatures and creeping animals, their bodies are also hot and semen in their wombs becomes foul within three days? Since no resolution is found, the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

דם טהרה של מצורעת, בית שמאי כו׳. מאי טעמא דבית הלל? אמר רבי יצחק: ״לזכר״ — לרבות מצורע למעינותיו, ״ולנקבה״ — לרבות מצורעת למעינותיה.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to blood discharged by a female Jewish leper during the days of purity of a woman who gives birth, Beit Shammai deem it ritually pure and Beit Hillel say it imparts impurity only while moist. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Beit Hillel, i.e., from where is their opinion derived? Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The verse states at the conclusion of the passage discussing impure individuals: “Whether it be a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:33). “Whether it be a male” serves to include the sources of bodily emissions of a male leper, teaching that they also impart impurity. Likewise, the phrase “or a female” serves to include the sources of bodily emissions of a female leper, teaching that they too impart impurity.

מאי מעינותיה? אילימא שאר מעינותיה — מזכר נפקא! אלא לדמה, לטמא דם טהרה שלה.

What is meant by the sources of bodily emissions of a female leper? If we say that this is referring to the rest of her sources, e.g., her saliva and urine, this can be derived from the halakha of a male leper. Rather, it is referring to her blood, and the verse serves to render impure the blood of a leper discharged during the days of her purity.

ובית שמאי? נקבה מזכר לא אתיא, דאיכא למיפרך: מה לזכר שכן טעון פריעה ופרימה, ואסור בתשמיש המטה, תאמר בנקבה דלא.

The Gemara asks: And how do Beit Shammai, who maintain the blood is ritually pure, interpret the verse? They contend that the halakha with regard to the emissions of a female leper cannot be derived from that of a male leper, as such a comparison can be refuted as follows: What is unique about a male leper? He is unique in that he is required to let his hair grow and rend his garments, and he is prohibited to engage in sexual intercourse. Can you say, then, that the same halakhot should apply to the emissions of a female leper, to whom all the aforementioned requirements do not apply? Consequently, the verse is necessary to teach that the saliva and urine of a female leper are impure.

ובית הלל? לכתוב רחמנא בנקבה ולא בעי זכר, ואנא אמינא: ומה נקבה, שאינה טעונה פריעה ופרימה, ואינה אסורה בתשמיש המטה — רבי רחמנא מעינותיה,

The Gemara asks: And how do Beit Hillel respond? They respond as follows: If the verse serves to include only the saliva and urine of a female leper, then let the Merciful One write this halakha only with regard to a female leper. And there will be no need to write it with regard to a male leper, as I will say that the saliva and urine of a male leper are impure by an a fortiori inference: And what, if with regard to a female leper, who is not required to let her hair grow and rend her garments, and it is not prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse, the Merciful One nevertheless includes her sources of bodily emissions as impure, then in the case of a male leper, to whom all the aforementioned requirements apply, is it not all the more so that his emissions are impure?

זכר — לא כל שכן?

אם אינו ענין ״לזכר״ — תנהו ענין לנקבה, ואם אינו ענין למעינותיה — תנהו ענין לדמה, לטמא דם טהרה שלה.

Therefore, if the phrase “whether it be a male” is not needed for the matter of a male leper, as this halakha may be derived by an a fortiori inference, apply it to the matter of a female leper. And if it is not needed for the matter of her other sources of bodily emissions, as they are derived from the phrase “or a female,” apply it to the matter of her blood, i.e., to render impure the blood of her days of purity.

ובית שמאי? זכר מנקבה לא אתיא, דאיכא למיפרך: מה לנקבה שכן מטמאה מאונס, תאמר בזכר דלא.

The Gemara asks: And how do Beit Shammai respond? They would answer that the halakha with regard to the emissions of a male leper cannot be derived by an a fortiori inference from the halakha of a female leper, as it can be refuted as follows: What is unique about a female? She is unique in that she is rendered impure as a zava even by sightings that occur due to circumstances beyond her control. Can you say that the same halakhot should apply to the emissions of a male, for whom this is not the case?

ובית הלל? קיימי במצורע, ופרכי מילי דזב? ובית שמאי? שום טומאה פרכי.

The Gemara asks: And how do Beit Hillel respond? They respond as follows: Can it be that we are standing and dealing with the halakhot of a leper, and Beit Shammai are attempting to refute the a fortiori inference by citing matters pertaining to a zav? The Gemara asks: And as for Beit Shammai? According to Beit Shammai, this is a legitimate refutation of the a fortiori inference, as they refute it through the common name of impurity that applies to both a leper and a zav.

ואיבעית אימא, אמרי לך בית שמאי: האי ״לזכר״ מיבעי ליה, ״לזכר״ — כל שהוא זכר, (האי), בין גדול בין קטן. ובית הלל,

And if you wish, say that Beit Shammai could say to you: That phrase “whether it be a male” is necessary to teach another halakha, that the phrase “whether it be a male” serves to include anyone who is a male, whether an adult or a minor, in the halakhot of a zav. And how do Beit Hillel respond? They derive this halakha from the following verse: “This is the law of the zav, and of him from whom the flow of seed goes out, so that he is unclean through it” (Leviticus 15:32). The verse indicates that the halakhot of a zav apply to any male, whether he is an adult or whether he is a minor.

נפקא להו מ״זאת תורת הזב״ — בין גדול בין קטן.

אמר רב יוסף: כי פשיט רבי שמעון בן לקיש בזב, בעי הכי: ראייה ראשונה של זב קטן מהו שתטמא במגע? ״זאת תורת הזב ואשר תצא ממנו שכבת

§ The Gemara mentioned earlier that a minor is included in the halakhot of a zav. In this regard Rav Yosef says: When Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish taught the halakhot of a zav, he raised this dilemma: With regard to the first sighting of ziva of a zav who is a minor, what is the halakha as to whether it imparts impurity through contact? Does one say that as the Merciful One states: “This is the law of the zav, and of him from whom the flow of seed goes out” (Leviticus 15:32), one’s ziva is thereby compared to his semen?

זרע״ אמר רחמנא.

כל ששכבת זרע שלו (מטמא) [מטמאה] — ראייה ראשונה שלו מטמאה, והאי כיון דשכבת זרע שלו לא מטמאה — ראייה ראשונה נמי לא תטמא. או דילמא,

Accordingly, with regard to any male whose semen imparts impurity, his first sighting of ziva imparts impurity. And with regard to this minor, since his semen does not impart impurity, his first sighting does not impart impurity either. Or perhaps, since if this minor sees two emissions of ziva the first sighting combines with the second sighting to render him impure as a zav for seven days, this indicates that the first sighting of a minor is significant, and consequently it should render him impure until the evening, just like an adult male.

כיון דאילו איהו חזי תרתי — מצטרפא, מטמיא?

אמר רבא: תא שמע, ״זאת תורת הזב״ — בין גדול בין קטן, מה גדול — ראייה ראשונה שלו מטמאה, אף קטן — ראייה ראשונה נמי מטמאה.

Rava says: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: “This is the law of the zav,” whether he is an adult or whether he is a minor. Since the verse equates an adult and a minor, just as with regard to an adult his first sighting imparts impurity, so too, with regard to a minor, his first sighting imparts impurity as well.

בעי רב יוסף: ראייה ראשונה של מצורע מהו שתטמא במשא? מקום זיבה מעין הוא ומטמא, או דילמא לאו מעין הוא?

The Gemara earlier stated that the phrase “whether it be a male” serves to include the sources of bodily emissions of a male leper, teaching that they impart impurity. In this regard Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: Granted, the first sighting of ziva of an otherwise ritually pure individual imparts impurity only through contact, as stated above, and only the second sighting imparts impurity through carrying. But with regard to the first sighting of ziva of a leper, what is the halakha as to whether it imparts impurity even through carrying? Does one say that the place of ziva in one’s body is considered a source, and therefore his ziva imparts impurity through carrying, like all the sources of bodily emissions of a leper? Or perhaps the place of ziva is not considered a source, in which case the first sighting of ziva does not impart impurity through carrying.

אמר רבא: תא שמע, ״זובו טמא הוא״ — לימד על הזוב שהוא טמא. במאי? אילימא בזב גרידא

Rava says: Come and hear proof from a baraita: The verse states: “When any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue [zovo] is unclean” (Leviticus 15:2). The verse teaches with regard to the zov that it is impure, and that it imparts impurity through carrying. To what case is the verse referring? If we say it is referring to one who is just a zav and not a leper as well, and the verse is teaching that any drop of ziva emitted by him imparts impurity through carrying,