## Niddah Daf 34b

###### Niddah 34b:1
[Niddah 34b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:1)

וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְעֵי גּוֹיָה. וְשֶׁל נׇכְרִי טְהוֹרָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְעֵי יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, חוּץ מִמֵּי רַגְלַיִם שֶׁבָּהּ.

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


###### Niddah 34b:2
[Niddah 34b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:2)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָכִי נָמֵי טְהוֹרָה מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל טְמֵאָה מִדְּרַבָּנַן. אַטּוּ מֵי רַגְלֶיהָ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִי מְטַמְּאוּ? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינָּה: טְהוֹרָה אֲפִילּוּ מִדְּרַבָּנַן. שְׁמַע מִינָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 34b:3
[Niddah 34b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:3)

אָמַר מָר: שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל טְמֵאָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְעֵי גּוֹיָה. תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּבָעֵי רַב פָּפָּא, דְּבָעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּמְעֵי גּוֹיָה מַהוּ?

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


###### Niddah 34b:4
[Niddah 34b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:4)

בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה — לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרַב פָּפָּא, כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ — לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Niddah 34b:5
[Niddah 34b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:5)

יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּדָיְּיגִי בְּמִצְוֹת — חֲבִיל גּוּפַיְיהוּ וּמַסְרִיחַ, גּוֹיִם דְּלָא דָּיְיגִי בְּמִצְוֹת — לָא חֲבִיל גּוּפַיְיהוּ וְלֹא מַסְרִיחַ, אוֹ דִילְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאָכְלִי שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים — חֲבִיל גּוּפַיְיהוּ וּמַסְרִיחַ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 34b:6
[Niddah 34b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:6)

דַּם טׇהֳרָה שֶׁל מְצוֹרַעַת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: ״לַזָּכָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת מְצוֹרָע לְמַעְיְנוֹתָיו, ״וְלַנְּקֵבָה״ — לְרַבּוֹת מְצוֹרַעַת לְמַעְיְנוֹתֶיהָ.

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


###### Niddah 34b:7
[Niddah 34b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:7)

מַאי מַעְיְנוֹתֶיהָ? אִילֵּימָא שְׁאָר מַעְיְנוֹתֶיהָ — מִזָּכָר נָפְקָא! אֶלָּא לְדָמָהּ, לְטַמֵּא דַּם טׇהֳרָה שֶׁלָּהּ.

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


###### Niddah 34b:8
[Niddah 34b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:8)

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? נְקֵבָה מִזָּכָר לָא אָתְיָא, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְזָכָר שֶׁכֵּן טָעוּן פְּרִיעָה וּפְרִימָה, וְאָסוּר בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, תֹּאמַר בַּנְּקֵבָה דְּלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 34b:9
[Niddah 34b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:9)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל? לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּנְקֵבָה וְלָא בָּעֵי זָכָר, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: וּמָה נְקֵבָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה פְּרִיעָה וּפְרִימָה, וְאֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה — רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא מַעְיְנוֹתֶיהָ, זָכָר — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Niddah 34b:10
[Niddah 34b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:10)

אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן ״לְזָכָר״ — תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִנְקֵבָה, וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְמַעְיְנוֹתֶיהָ — תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְדָמָהּ, לְטַמֵּא דַּם טׇהֳרָה שֶׁלָּהּ.

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


###### Niddah 34b:11
[Niddah 34b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:11)

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? זָכָר מִנְּקֵבָה לָא אָתֵיא, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִנְקֵבָה שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמְּאָה מֵאוֹנֶס, תֹּאמַר בְּזָכָר דְּלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Niddah 34b:12
[Niddah 34b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:12)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל? קָיְימִי בִּמְצוֹרָע, וּפָרְכִי מִילֵּי דְּזָב? וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? שׁוּם טוּמְאָה פָּרְכִי.

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


###### Niddah 34b:13
[Niddah 34b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:13)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, אָמְרִי לָךְ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: הַאי ״לְזָכָר״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, ״לְזָכָר״ — כֹּל שֶׁהוּא זָכָר, (הַאי), בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל, נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב״ — בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן.

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


###### Niddah 34b:14
[Niddah 34b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:14)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כִּי פָשֵׁיט רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּזָב, בָּעֵי הָכִי: רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל זָב קָטָן מַהוּ שֶׁתְּטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע? ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב וַאֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״ אֲמַר רַחֲמָנָא.

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


###### Niddah 34b:15
[Niddah 34b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:15)

כֹּל שֶׁשִּׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁלּוֹ (מטמא) [מְטַמְּאָה] — רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁלּוֹ מְטַמְּאָה, וְהַאי כֵּיוָן דְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁלּוֹ לֹא מְטַמְּאָה — רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה נָמֵי לֹא תְּטַמֵּא. אוֹ דִילְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ אִיהוּ חָזֵי תַּרְתֵּי — מִצְטַרְפָא, מְטַמְּיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 34b:16
[Niddah 34b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:16)

אָמַר רָבָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב״ — בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן, מָה גָּדוֹל — רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁלּוֹ מְטַמְּאָה, אַף קָטָן — רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה נָמֵי מְטַמְּאָה.

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


###### Niddah 34b:17
[Niddah 34b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:17)

בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע מַהוּ שֶׁתְּטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא? מְקוֹם זִיבָה מַעְיָן הוּא וּמְטַמֵּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָאו מַעְיָן הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 34b:18
[Niddah 34b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/34b:18)

אָמַר רָבָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, ״זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא הוּא״ — לִימֵּד עַל הַזּוֹב שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא. בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּזָב גְּרֵידָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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,