## Niddah Daf 41b

###### Niddah 41b:1
[Niddah 41b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:1)

וְדָם דֶּרֶךְ רֶחֶם, וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ וְרַבָּנַן לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and blood** emerged **through the womb,** i.e., vaginally, during the three days preceding the birth. **And Rabbi Shimon** conforms **to his** line of **reasoning,** that a caesarean birth is a full-fledged birth, and therefore the blood that emerged prior to the birth is ritually pure, **and the Rabbis** conform **to their** line of **reasoning,** that a caesarean birth is not halakhically considered a birth, which means that the blood which emerged beforehand is considered the blood of *ziva*, and is ritually impure.


###### Niddah 41b:2
[Niddah 41b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:2)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: חֲדָא — דְּהַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא, וְעוֹד — ״מִשָּׁם״ מְקוֹם וָלָד מַשְׁמַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef objects to this** explanation: **One** difficulty is that according to this interpretation, the latter clause of the *baraita* is superfluous, **as** the dispute recorded there **is** identical to that of **the first clause. And furthermore,** the words: **From there,** in the phrase: The blood that emerges from there, **indicate** that this is referring to a place already mentioned in the *baraita*, i.e., the **place** from which the **offspring** emerged, which is the abdominal incision of the caesarean section, not the vagina.


###### Niddah 41b:3
[Niddah 41b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:3)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא וָלָד וְדָם דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Yosef said** that this is the explanation of the latter clause of the *baraita*: It is referring to a situation **where** both the **offspring and blood emerged through** the incision in the **abdomen.** It is in such a case that the first *tanna* deems the blood which emerged impure and Rabbi Shimon deems it pure.


###### Niddah 41b:4
[Niddah 41b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:4)

וּבְמָקוֹר מְקוֹמוֹ טָמֵא קָמִיפַּלְגִי; מָר סָבַר: מָקוֹר מְקוֹמוֹ טָמֵא, וּמָר סָבַר: מָקוֹר מְקוֹמוֹ טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the matter **with regard to** which they **disagree** is whether or not **the location** of a woman’s **source,** i.e., her uterus, is ritually **impure.** One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that **the location** of a woman’s **source** is ritually **impure,** and therefore any blood that emerges from it, regardless of how it came out of her body, is impure as well. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that **the location** of a woman’s **source** is **pure,** and blood that emerges from there is also pure. Only uterine blood which emerges vaginally is impure.


###### Niddah 41b:5
[Niddah 41b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:5)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לְדִבְרֵי הַמְטַמֵּא בַּדָּם — מְטַמֵּא בָּאִשָּׁה, לְדִבְרֵי הַמְטַהֵר בַּדָּם — מְטַהֵר בָּאִשָּׁה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף לְדִבְרֵי הַמְטַמֵּא בַּדָּם — מְטַהֵר בָּאִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Reish Lakish says: According to the statement of the one who deems the blood impure,** the first *tanna*, **he deems the woman impure** as well, as though it were blood of menstruation. Likewise, **according to the statement of the one who deems the blood pure,** Rabbi Shimon, **he deems the woman pure** as well. **But Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even according to the statement of the one who deems the blood impure,** the first *tanna*, **he deems the woman pure.**


###### Niddah 41b:6
[Niddah 41b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:6)

וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין אִשָּׁה טְמֵאָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מַדְוֶהָ דֶּרֶךְ עֶרְוָתָהּ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת אִשָּׁה דָּוָה וְגִלָּה אֶת עֶרְוָתָהּ אֶת מְקוֹרָהּ הֶעֱרָה״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין אִשָּׁה טְמֵאָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מַדְוֶהָ דֶּרֶךְ עֶרְוָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his** standard line of **reasoning** here, **as Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From where** is it derived **that a woman does not become impure** due to menstruation **unless the flow** of blood **emerges from her nakedness,** i.e., genitalia? **As it is stated: “And a man who lies with a woman having her flow, and shall uncover her nakedness, he has made naked her source”** (Leviticus 20:18) This **teaches that a woman is not impure** due to menstruation **unless** the **flow emerges from her nakedness.**


###### Niddah 41b:7
[Niddah 41b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:7)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה: מָקוֹר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר וְנָפַל לָאָרֶץ — טְמֵאָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יַעַן הִשָּׁפֵךְ נְחֻשְׁתֵּךְ וַתִּגָּלֶה עֶרְוָתֵךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia:** If a woman’s **source,** i.e., her uterus, **became dislodged and fell** out of her body **onto the ground, she is ritually impure, as it is stated: “Because your foundation was poured out, and your nakedness was uncovered”** (Ezekiel 16:36). The word “foundation” alludes to the uterus, and the verse is referring to it after it has been “poured out,” i.e., detached, as an uncovering of nakedness, which indicates that it is still a source of impurity even after it has been detached from its place.


###### Niddah 41b:8
[Niddah 41b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:8)

לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְטוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה — דָּם אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא חֲתִיכָה! אֶלָּא לְטוּמְאַת עֶרֶב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **To what** kind of impurity is this woman subject in this situation? **If we say** that she is subject **to the impurity of seven** days of menstruating women, that is impossible, as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah that such impurity is caused by **“blood”** (Leviticus 15:19), **and not a piece** of flesh. **Rather,** she is subject **to impurity** that lasts until the **evening,** as a result of the surface of her body having come into contact with the uterus, which is a source of impurity.


###### Niddah 41b:9
[Niddah 41b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָקוֹר שֶׁהִזִּיעַ כִּשְׁתֵּי טִיפֵּי מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת — טְמֵאָה. לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְטוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה — חֲמִשָּׁה דָּמִים טְמֵאִין בָּאִשָּׁה וְתוּ לָא! אֶלָּא לְטוּמְאַת עֶרֶב. וְדַוְוקָא תַּרְתֵּי, אֲבָל חֲדָא — אֵימָא מֵעָלְמָא אָתְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** In the case of a woman’s **source that discharged two** whitish, clear, **pearl-like [*margaliyyot*] drops, she is impure.** The Gemara asks: **To what** kind of impurity is this woman subject in this situation? **If we say** that she is subject **to the impurity of seven** days of menstruating women, that is impossible, as the mishna (*Nidda* 19a) states that there are **five** distinct colors of **ritually impure blood in a woman, but no more,** and pearly white is not one of those colors. **Rather,** she is subject **to impurity** that lasts until the **evening,** as a result of her body having come into contact with a discharge from the uterus, which is a source of impurity. **And** this is the *halakha* **specifically** if there were **two** drops, **but** if there was only **one** such drop she is not impure, as **I can say** that the drop **came from elsewhere,** not from the uterus.


###### Niddah 41b:10
[Niddah 41b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:10)

כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים מְטַמְּאִין בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן. הֵי נִיהוּ בַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כֹּל שֶׁתִּינוֹקֶת יוֹשֶׁבֶת וְנִרְאַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **All women become ritually impure** with the flow of blood from the uterus **into the outer chamber,** i.e., the vagina, as it is stated: “And her issue in her flesh shall be blood” (Leviticus 15:19). The Gemara asks: **What** exactly **is the outer chamber? Reish Lakish says: Any** place **which can be seen when a little girl sits** with her legs spread. When the blood reaches that area in the vagina, the woman becomes ritually impure.


###### Niddah 41b:11
[Niddah 41b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם גָּלוּי הוּא אֵצֶל שֶׁרֶץ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַד בֵּין הַשִּׁינַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said to** Reish Lakish in objection: **That place is** considered **exposed** even **with regard to** contact with the carcass of a **creeping animal.** If one comes into contact with the carcass of a creeping animal he becomes impure. This is the *halakha* only if the animal touches a part of the body that is exposed, not an internal cavity such as the inside of the mouth. Since the area of the vagina described by Reish Lakish is considered an exposed part of the body for the purposes of the impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal, it should not be necessary for the mishna to derive the *halakha* of her impurity from the expression “in her flesh.” **Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The term outer chamber extends **until** the area **between the teeth-**like projections inside the vagina.


###### Niddah 41b:12
[Niddah 41b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:12)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בֵּין הַשִּׁינַּיִם כְּלִפְנִים אוֹ כְּלַחוּץ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי זַכַּאי: עַד בֵּין הַשִּׁינַּיִם, בֵּין הַשִּׁינַּיִם עַצְמָן כְּלִפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Is the area **between the teeth-**like projections itself considered **as internal,** which would mean that blood there would not render the woman impure, **or as external? Come** and **hear** a resolution, **as Rabbi Zakkai teaches** a *baraita*: The term outer chamber extends **to** the area **between the teeth-**like projections, but the area **between the teeth-**like projections **themselves** is considered **as internal.**


###### Niddah 41b:13
[Niddah 41b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:13)

בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: מְקוֹם דִּישָׁה. מַאי ״מְקוֹם דִּישָׁה״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מְקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁמָּשׁ דָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught in a *baraita*** that a woman becomes impure when the blood reaches the **place of threshing,** which is a euphemism. The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of this euphemism, the **place of threshing? Rav Yehuda says:** It is referring to the **place** in the vagina **where the penis threshes,** i.e., reaches, during intercourse.


###### Niddah 41b:14
[Niddah 41b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:14)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה בִּפְנִים כְּבַחוּץ, וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא נִדָּה, זָבָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זָבָה בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: It is written concerning a menstruating woman: “And if a woman has an issue, and her flow in her flesh shall be blood, she shall be in her menstruation seven days” (Leviticus 15:19). The term **“in her flesh” teaches that she becomes impure** while the blood is still **inside** her flesh just **as** when the blood emerges **outside** her body. **I have** derived **only** that this applies in the case of **a menstruating woman. From where** is it derived that it applies to **a *zava*** as well? **The** same **verse states: “Her flow [*zovah*] in her flesh.”**


###### Niddah 41b:15
[Niddah 41b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:15)

פּוֹלֶטֶת שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִהְיֶה״. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: דַּיָּהּ כְּבוֹעֲלָהּ — מָה בּוֹעֲלָהּ אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא טוּמְאָה לַחוּץ, אַף הִיא אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא טוּמְאָתָהּ לַחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From where** is it derived that this also applies to a woman who **discharges semen** after intercourse? **The** same **verse states** the apparently superfluous term **“shall be.” And Rabbi Shimon says:** In the case of discharging semen, **it is sufficient for her** to be **like the man who engaged in intercourse with her: Just as the man who engaged in intercourse with her does not become impure until** the source of **impurity,** the semen, **emerges outside** his body, **so too, she does not become impure until her** source of **impurity,** the semen, **emerges outside** her body. It does not render her impure while it is still inside her body.


###### Niddah 41b:16
[Niddah 41b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:16)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דַּיָּהּ כְּבוֹעֲלָהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְרָחֲצוּ בַמַּיִם וְטָמְאוּ עַד הָעָרֶב״, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי מָה בָּא זֶה לְלַמְּדֵנוּ? אִם לְעִנְיַן נוֹגֵעַ בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע — הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר לְמַטָּה: ״אוֹ אִישׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does Rabbi Shimon** in fact **hold** that **it is sufficient for her** to be **like the man who engaged in intercourse with her? But isn’t it taught** to the contrary in a *baraita*: The verse states: “The woman also with whom a man shall lie carnally, **they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening”** (Leviticus 15:18). **Rabbi Shimon said: And what does this** verse **come to teach us? If** it teaches **with regard to** one who **comes into contact with semen** that they are impure, **it is already stated below** (Leviticus 22:4): **“Or a man** from whom the flow of seed goes out,” from which it is derived that coming into contact with semen renders one impure.


###### Niddah 41b:17
[Niddah 41b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:17)

אֶלָּא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁטּוּמְאַת בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים הִיא, וְטוּמְאַת בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁגְּזֵרַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this verse is necessary **because** in the case of intercourse the contact with the source of **impurity** occurs in **a concealed part** of the body, **and** contact with **impurity** by **a concealed part** of the body generally **does not render** one **impure. But** here **it is a Torah edict** that the woman does become impure in this manner. This *baraita* proves that according to Rabbi Shimon a woman is rendered impure by semen even when it is inside her body.


###### Niddah 41b:18
[Niddah 41b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:18)

לָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן בִּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת, כָּאן בְּפוֹלֶטֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that this is **not difficult. Here,** this second *baraita* is dealing **with** a woman who **engages in intercourse,** whereas **there,** the first *baraita* is dealing **with** a woman who **discharges** semen after intercourse. It is only during the act of intercourse that a woman becomes impure due to the semen. If she later discharges semen, she does not become impure, according to Rabbi Shimon, until the semen leaves her body and touches her on the outside.


###### Niddah 41b:19
[Niddah 41b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:19)

פּוֹלֶטֶת — תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ, דְּהָא שִׁמְּשָׁה! בְּשֶׁטָּבְלָה לְשִׁמּוּשָׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: But in the case of a woman who **discharges** semen, one can **derive** that she is impure **due to** the fact **that she engaged in intercourse** prior to the discharge. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon is referring to a case **where she immersed herself,** thereby purifying herself **from** the impurity **from her intercourse,** and she subsequently discharged semen.


###### Niddah 41b:20
[Niddah 41b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:20)

לְמֵימְרָא דִּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּטוּמְאַת עֶרֶב סַגִּי לַהּ? וְהָא אָמַר רָבָא: מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת — כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ שֶׁלֹּא תִּפְלוֹט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that** in the case of a woman who **engages in intercourse it is sufficient for her** to simply immerse herself, and then she is **in** a state of **impurity** only until **evening? But didn’t Rava say:** A woman who **engages in intercourse is prohibited from partaking of *teruma*,** even if she is married to a priest, for **the entire three days** following the intercourse, **as it is impossible for her not to discharge** semen throughout this period, and *teruma* may not be consumed by one who is impure?


###### Niddah 41b:21
[Niddah 41b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41b:21)

הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? שֶׁהִטְבִּילוּהָ בַּמִּטָּה, מִכְּלָל דְּכִי קָאָמַר רָבָא דְּאָזְלָה אִיהִי בְּכַרְעַהּ וְטָבְלָה, דִּילְמָא בַּהֲדֵי דְּקָאָזְלָה שְׁדֵיתֵאּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here we are dealing with** a case **where** others **immersed** the woman while she was still **in bed,** and she remained there. If she remains lying down, it is possible for her not to discharge semen following intercourse, and the immersion after intercourse purifies her. The Gemara asks: **By inference,** one can conclude **that when Rava said** that a woman is in a constant state of impurity for three days after intercourse, he was referring to a case **where she walked** to the ritual bath **by foot and immersed** herself. But if so, **perhaps while she was walking she released** all the semen in her body even before the three days were over, and therefore will not subsequently become impure.