## Niddah Daf 22a

###### Niddah 22a:1
[Niddah 22a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:1)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי בַּחֲתִיכָה. מָר סָבַר: דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה לִרְאוֹת דָּם בַּחֲתִיכָה, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה לִרְאוֹת דָּם בַּחֲתִיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 22a:2
[Niddah 22a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:2)

רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה לִרְאוֹת דָּם בַּחֲתִיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 22a:3
[Niddah 22a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:3)

וְהָכָא, בְּאִשָּׁה טְהוֹרָה וּמְקוֹר מְקוֹמוֹ טָמֵא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: אִשָּׁה טְהוֹרָה וְדָם טָמֵא, דְּהָא אָתֵי דֶּרֶךְ מָקוֹר, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אִשָּׁה טְהוֹרָה, וּמָקוֹר מְקוֹמוֹ טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 22a:4
[Niddah 22a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:4)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבָּה מֵרַב הוּנָא: הָרוֹאֶה קֶרִי בְּקֵיסָם מַהוּ? מִמֶּנּוּ אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא — עַד דְּנָפֵיק מִבְּשָׂרוֹ, וְלֹא בְּקֵיסָם, אוֹ דִלְמָא הַאי ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ — עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא טוּמְאָתוֹ לַחוּץ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּקֵיסָם נָמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.**


###### Niddah 22a:5
[Niddah 22a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהוּא עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא בַּחֲתִימַת פִּי הָאַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 22a:6
[Niddah 22a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:6)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּנוֹגֵעַ הָוֵי? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אַל יִסְתּוֹר בְּזִיבָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 22a:7
[Niddah 22a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:7)

אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב וַאֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״ — מָה זִיבָה סוֹתֶרֶת, אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע נָמֵי סוֹתֵר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Niddah 22a:8
[Niddah 22a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סְתִירָה — הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּסוֹתֵר, לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ בְּלֹא צִחְצוּחֵי זִיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.**


###### Niddah 22a:9
[Niddah 22a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:9)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, תִּסְתּוֹר כׇּל שִׁבְעָה? אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב וְגוֹ׳״, מָה זִיבָה סוֹתֶרֶת, אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע סוֹתֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 22a:10
[Niddah 22a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:10)

אִי מָה זִיבָה סוֹתֶרֶת כׇּל שִׁבְעָה, אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע נָמֵי סוֹתֶרֶת כׇּל שִׁבְעָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְטׇמְאָה בָהּ״ — אֵין לְךָ בָּהּ אֶלָּא מָה שֶׁאָמוּר בָּהּ, סוֹתֶרֶת יוֹם אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Niddah 22a:11
[Niddah 22a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא, זִיבָה גְּמוּרָה דְּלָא עֲרִבָה בַּהּ שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע — סָתְרָא כׇּל שִׁבְעָה, צִחְצוּחֵי זִיבָה דַּעֲרִבָה בַּהּ שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע — לָא סָתְרָא אֶלָּא יוֹם אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 22a:12
[Niddah 22a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:12)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא מֵרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דָּם יָבֵשׁ מַהוּ? ״כִּי יָזוּב זוֹב דָּמָהּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — עַד דְּמֵידָב דָּיֵיב לֵיהּ, לַח — אִין, יָבֵשׁ — לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא: הַאי ״כִּי יָזוּב זָב דָּמָה״ אוֹרְחָא דְּמִילְּתָא הִיא, וּלְעוֹלָם אֲפִילּוּ יָבֵשׁ נָמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Niddah 22a:13
[Niddah 22a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, דַּם הַנִּדָּה וּבְשַׂר הַמֵּת מְטַמְּאִין לַחִים וִיבֵשִׁים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לַח וְנַעֲשָׂה יָבֵשׁ — לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי, כִּי מִיבַּעְיָא לִי — יָבֵשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 22a:14
[Niddah 22a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/22a:14)

הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין קְלִיפָּה, כְּמִין שְׂעָרָהּ, כְּמִין עָפָר, כְּמִין יַבְחוּשִׁין אֲדוּמִּין — תָּטִיל לַמַּיִם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.