## Niddah Daf 43a

###### Niddah 43a:1
[Niddah 43a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:1)

וְלֹא תּוֹךְ תּוֹכוֹ — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and not** if it was in **the interior of its interior,** i.e., contained within something else, such as a fold, which is inside the vessel, therefore Rava **teaches us** that a fold in one’s body is not considered like the interior of the interior of a vessel. Rather, this definition applies only when the carcass of the creeping animal was actually inside another vessel whose opening was outside the oven.


###### Niddah 43a:2
[Niddah 43a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:2)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: קָנֶה בְּקוּמְטוֹ שֶׁל זָב, וְהֵסִיט בּוֹ אֶת הַטָּהוֹר — טָהוֹר. קָנֶה בְּקוּמְטוֹ שֶׁל טָהוֹר, וְהֵסִיט בּוֹ אֶת הַזָּב — טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the folds in the body with regard to ritual impurity. **Reish Lakish says:** If there was **a pole** or a stick placed **in the folds of** an individual impure with the impurity of **a *zav*, and he moved a ritually pure** person **with it,** that individual is **pure,** despite the fact that a *zav* imparts impurity by moving an item. If the **pole** was placed **in the folds of one who is pure, and he moved the *zav* with it,** the pure individual is thereby rendered **impure,** as is the *halakha* of one who carries a *zav*.


###### Niddah 43a:3
[Niddah 43a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:3)

מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בּוֹ הַזָּב וְיָדָיו לֹא שָׁטַף בַּמָּיִם״ — זֶהוּ הֱסֵיטוֹ שֶׁל זָב, שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ לוֹ טוּמְאָה בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** that if a *zav* moved another with a pole in his own folds he does not render the other person impure? **As the verse states: “And whoever a *zav* touches, without having rinsed his hands in water,** he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water” (Leviticus 15:11). **This is** referring to the impurity imparted by **the movement of a *zav*, as we have not found an impurity** similar **to it in the entire Torah.** Only a *zav* imparts impurity to items by moving them.


###### Niddah 43a:4
[Niddah 43a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:4)

וְאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן נְגִיעָה, לְמֵימְרָא דֶּהֱיסֵט וּנְגִיעָה כְּיָדָיו, מָה הָתָם מֵאַבָּרַאי, אַף הָכָא מֵאַבָּרַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Merciful One expresses** this impurity imparted **by** movement using **the language of touch,** in order **to say that** the **moving and touch** of a *zav* **are like his hands: Just as there,** with regard to the impurity imparted by contact with the hands, it occurs **external** to the body, **so too here,** impurity by means of movement applies only to moving an item with the **external** portions of the body of the *zav*.


###### Niddah 43a:5
[Niddah 43a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:5)

אֲבָל הַזָּב וּבַעַל קֶרִי אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין וְכוּ׳. זָב — דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי יִהְיֶה זָב מִבְּשָׂרוֹ״ — עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא זוֹבוֹ מִבְּשָׂרוֹ, בַּעַל קֶרִי — דִּכְתִיב ״וְאִישׁ כִּי תֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that a woman becomes ritually impure with the flow of blood from the uterus into the vagina, even if it did not leave the woman’s body. **But the *zav* and one who experiences a seminal emission do not become ritually impure** until their emission of impurity emerges outside the body. The Gemara explains: This is the *halakha* with regard to **a *zav*, as it is written: “When** any man **has an issue out of his flesh”** (Leviticus 15:2). The verse teaches that a *zav* is not impure **until his issue emerges out of his flesh.** With regard to **one who experiences a seminal emission,** the reason is **that it is written: “And if the flow of seed goes out from a man”** (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that the flow must exit his body.


###### Niddah 43a:6
[Niddah 43a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:6)

הָיָה אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה וְהִרְגִּישׁ וְכוּ׳. אוֹחֵז? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָאוֹחֵז בָּאַמָּה וּמַשְׁתִּין, כְּאִילּוּ מֵבִיא מַבּוּל לָעוֹלָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further states that if a priest **was partaking of *teruma* and sensed** a quaking in his limbs, indicating that a seminal emission was imminent, he should firmly hold his penis to prevent the emission from leaving his body, and swallow the *teruma* while ritually pure. The Gemara asks: May one **hold** his penis? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who holds** his **penis and urinates** is considered **as though he is bringing a deluge to the world,** as masturbation was one of the sins that led to the flood?


###### Niddah 43a:7
[Niddah 43a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:7)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמַטְלִית עָבָה. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּמַטְלִית רַכָּה, כֵּיוָן דַּעֲקַר — עֲקַר. וְאַבָּיֵי חָיֵישׁ דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְאוֹסוֹפֵי, וְרָבָא — לְאוֹסוֹפֵי לָא חָיֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said,** in resolution of this difficulty, that the mishna is referring to one who holds his penis **with a coarse cloth. Rava said: You** may **even say** that the mishna is referring to a priest who holds his penis **with a soft cloth,** and the reason it is permitted is that **once** the semen **has** already **been uprooted** from his body, it is **uprooted,** and his subsequent holding of the penis, even with a soft cloth, does not increase the flow of semen. **And Abaye** prohibits the use of a soft cloth, as he is **concerned** that **perhaps** one might **come to increase** the emission of semen, due to the contact of this cloth. **But Rava is not concerned** that one might **come to increase** the emission.


###### Niddah 43a:8
[Niddah 43a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:8)

וְהָתַנְיָא: לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה? לְנוֹתֵן אֶצְבַּע בָּעַיִן, שֶׁכׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶצְבַּע בְּעַיִן — מַדְמַעַת וְחוֹזֶרֶת וּמַדְמַעַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rava. **Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **To what is this** holding of a penis **comparable?** It is comparable **to** one who **places a finger in** his **eye,** in **that as long as** the **finger** is **in the eye,** the eye **will tear and continue to tear.** Here too, the priest’s action will lead to an increased emission of semen.


###### Niddah 43a:9
[Niddah 43a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:9)

וְרָבָא, כֹּל אִחֲמוֹמֵי וַהֲדַר אִחֲמוֹמֵי בְּשַׁעְתָּא — לָא שְׁכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Rava** would maintain that if the priest’s limbs were not quaking and the semen was coming out in drops, there is indeed a concern that holding the penis might increase the emission. But when he feels his limbs quaking, this concern does not apply. The reason is that **any** such event, i.e., **a heating** of the body that leads to a seminal emission **and** which is **then** followed by another **heating** of that kind **at the time** when the semen has been uprooted, is **uncommon.** Consequently, in this case the priest may hold his penis even with a soft cloth.


###### Niddah 43a:10
[Niddah 43a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:10)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁאֵין כׇּל גּוּפוֹ מַרְגִּישׁ בָּהּ אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — בִּרְאוּיָה לְהַזְרִיעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel says: Any** emission of **semen that is not felt by one’s entire body does not render** him **impure. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “The flow of seed”** (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that it is referring to an emission **that is fit to fertilize,** i.e., it is referring only to the kind of emission which is felt as it exits the body.


###### Niddah 43a:11
[Niddah 43a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:11)

מֵיתִיבִי: הָיָה מְהַרְהֵר בַּלַּיְלָה, וְעָמַד וּמָצָא בְּשָׂרוֹ חַם — טָמֵא! תַּרְגְּמַאּ רַב הוּנָא: בִּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ בַּחֲלוֹמוֹ, דְּאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּלֹא הַרְגָּשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a mishna (*Mikvaot* 8:3): If one **was having** sexual **thoughts at night and he arose and found** that **his flesh** was **warm, he is ritually impure,** despite the fact that he did not sense the emission of semen. This shows that the impurity of a seminal emission applies even if one did not feel it in his entire body. The Gemara answers: **Rav Huna interpreted** this mishna as referring **to** one who **engaged in intercourse in his dream. Since it is impossible to engage in intercourse without** the accompanying **sensation,** he certainly must have felt it, despite the fact that he was unaware of this when he awoke.


###### Niddah 43a:12
[Niddah 43a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:12)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין הַאי לִישָּׁנָא לְהַאי לִישָּׁנָא? אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ: נֶעֶקְרָה בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה וְיָצְאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites **another version** of the above statement. **Shmuel says: Any semen that is not shot like an arrow does not render** one **impure.** The Gemara asks: **What** practical difference **is there between this version** of Shmuel’s ruling **and that version** of Shmuel’s ruling? The Gemara answers that the difference **between them** is a case where the semen **was uprooted** accompanied **by a sensation, but it emerged without a sensation.** According to the first version the man is rendered impure, as he sensed the uprooting of the semen, whereas according to the second version he is not impure, as this is not considered semen shot like an arrow.


###### Niddah 43a:13
[Niddah 43a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:13)

מִילְּתָא דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל, מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא. דְּבָעֵי רָבָא: נֶעֶקְרָה בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה וְיָצְתָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that this **matter, which** is **obvious to Shmuel, is raised as a dilemma by Rava. As Rava raises a dilemma:** If semen **was uprooted** accompanied **by a sensation but it emerged without a sensation, what is** the *halakha*? Is the man ritually impure or not?


###### Niddah 43a:14
[Niddah 43a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּעַל קֶרִי שֶׁטָּבַל וְלֹא הֵטִיל מַיִם, לִכְשֶׁיָּטִיל מַיִם טָמֵא. שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּרוּבַּהּ בְּהַרְגָּשָׁה נְפַק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a mishna (*Mikvaot* 8:3): With regard to **one who experienced a seminal emission,** and **who** subsequently **immersed but did not urinate** before doing so, **when he** later **urinates** he is rendered **impure,** as some semen will also be emitted. The reason that he is rendered impure by this emission, which he does not sense, must be because the uprooting of the semen was accompanied by a sensation. The Gemara refutes this proof: **There it is different, as the majority** of the semen **emerged** accompanied **by a sensation,** and therefore he is rendered impure by this small amount even without a sensation.


###### Niddah 43a:15
[Niddah 43a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:15)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ אֵינָהּ מַזְרַעַת. אַזְרוֹעֵי הוּא דְּלָא מַזְרְעָא, הָא טַמּוֹיֵי מְטַמְּיָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה בְךָ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִהְיֶה טָהוֹר מִקְּרֵה״ — אֲפִילּוּ קֶרִי בָּעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say another version** of the previous discussion. **Shmuel says: Any semen that is not shot like an arrow cannot fertilize,** i.e., impregnate a woman. The Gemara infers: **It cannot fertilize, but it does render** the man who emits it **ritually impure, as it is stated: “If there be among you any man who is not ritually pure by reason of that which happened to him** by night” (Deuteronomy 23:11). This teaches that **even mere semen** which cannot fertilize renders one impure.


###### Niddah 43a:16
[Niddah 43a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:16)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִרְהֵר, וְיָרַד וְטָבַל — מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises** a similar **dilemma:** With regard to **a gentile who had** sexual **thoughts,** on account of which semen was uprooted but not emitted from his body, **and he** subsequently **descended and immersed** for the purpose of conversion, which means that he is now Jewish, and he then emitted semen, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to his status of ritual purity?


###### Niddah 43a:17
[Niddah 43a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:17)

אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר בָּתַר עֲקִירָה אָזְלִינַן, הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְחוּמְרָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דִּלְקוּלָּא — לָא אָמְרִינַן, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the dilemma: Even **if you say** that **we follow** the moment of **uprooting,** at which point he was still a gentile, one can maintain that **this statement** applies only when it entails **a stringency,** as is the case with regard to a born Jew. **But here, where** this would lead **to a leniency,** as the gentile would be ritually pure, perhaps **we do not say** that one follows the moment of uprooting. **Or perhaps** there **is no difference** in the application of this principle between a born Jew and a convert, but rather, one always follows the moment of uprooting. The Gemara concludes that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Niddah 43a:18
[Niddah 43a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:18)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: זָבָה שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ מֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ, וְיָרְדָה וְטָבְלָה — מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises** a further **dilemma:** With regard to **a woman who experienced a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [*zava*], whose urine,** which imparts impurity like all liquids that she discharges vaginally, **was uprooted** but not emitted from her body, **and she descended** to the ritual bath **and immersed** to purify herself from her *ziva*, and urinated afterward, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Niddah 43a:19
[Niddah 43a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:19)

אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר בָּתַר עֲקִירָה אָזְלִינַן, הָנֵי מִילֵּי שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, דְּלָא מָצֵי נָקֵיט לַהּ, אֲבָל מֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ, דְּמָצֵי נָקֵיט לַהּ — לָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Even **if you say** that generally **we follow** the moment of **uprooting,** and therefore she should be impure, since the urine was uprooted when she was a *zava*, nevertheless one can claim that **this statement** applies only with regard to **semen, as** the man **cannot hold it** back from emission. **But** with regard to the **urine of** a *zava*, **which she can hold in,** one does **not** follow the moment of uprooting. **Or perhaps** there **is no difference** in the application of this principle between urine and semen, but rather, in both cases one follows the moment of uprooting. Here too, the Gemara concludes that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Niddah 43a:20
[Niddah 43a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43a:20)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: גּוֹיָה זָבָה שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ מֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises** yet another **dilemma:** With regard to **a gentile *zava*,** who is not impure by Torah law, although by rabbinic law she is considered a *zava* in all regards, **whose urine was uprooted** when she was a gentile,