## Niddah Daf 43b

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

וְיָרְדָה וְטָבְלָה — מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and she descended** to the ritual bath **and immersed** for the sake of conversion, **what is** the *halakha*?


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

אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר בָּתַר עֲקִירָה אָזְלִינַן, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמָצֵי נָקֵיט לְהוּ — הָנֵי מִילֵּי יִשְׂרְאֵלִית דִּטְמֵאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל גּוֹיָה זָבָה דִּטְמֵאָה דְּרַבָּנַן — לָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Once again, the Gemara explains the dilemma: **If you say** that **we follow** the moment of **uprooting even though she can hold in** the urine, nevertheless one can claim that **this statement** applies specifically to **a Jewish woman, who is impure by Torah law. But** with regard to **a gentile *zava*, who is impure by rabbinic law,** it is possible that one does **not** follow the moment of uprooting. **Or perhaps** there **is no difference** in the application of this principle between the case of a Jewish woman and a gentile woman, as in both cases one follows the moment of uprooting. The Gemara again concludes that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

וּמְטַמְּאִין בְּכֹל שֶׁהֵן. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זָב צָרִיךְ כַּחֲתִימַת פִּי הָאַמָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אוֹ הֶחְתִּים בְּשָׂרוֹ מִזּוֹבוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that the emission of a *zav* and a seminal emission **impart impurity in any amount. Shmuel says:** In order for **a *zav*** to become ritually impure, he **must** experience a discharge substantial enough **to** cause **a blockage of the tip of the penis, as it is stated:** “And this shall be his impurity in his issue: Whether his flesh run with his issue, **or his flesh be stopped from his issue,** it is his impurity” (Leviticus 15:3).


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

וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: מְטַמְּאִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן! הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי נָתָן, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: זָב צָרִיךְ כַּחֲתִימַת פִּי הָאַמָּה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna that the emission of a *zav* and a seminal emission **impart impurity in any amount?** The Gemara answers that Shmuel **said** his ruling **in accordance with** the statement of **Rabbi Natan, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Natan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:** In order for **a *zav*** to become ritually impure, he **must** experience a discharge substantial enough **to** cause **a blockage of the tip of the penis, but** the Rabbis **did not concede to his** opinion, as they maintain that any amount is sufficient. The *tanna* of the mishna agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis, whereas Shmuel agrees with the statement of Rabbi Natan in the name of Rabbi Yishmael.


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

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אוֹ הֶחְתִּים בְּשָׂרוֹ מִזּוֹבוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Yishmael,** i.e., what is the source in the Torah for his ruling? The Gemara answers: His source is, as mentioned above, **that the verse states:** “And this shall be his impurity in his issue: Whether his flesh run with his issue, **or his flesh be stopped from his issue,** it is his impurity” (Leviticus 15:3). This verse indicates that the emission must be enough to cause a blockage of his penis.


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

וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ: לַח מְטַמֵּא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא יָבֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael, what do they derive from this verse? The Gemara explains that according to the Rabbis, **that** verse **is necessary** to teach a different *halakha* with regard to a *zav*, that it is only a discharge which is **moist,** and which therefore could cause a blockage of the organ, that **imparts impurity, but a dry** discharge does **not impart impurity.**


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

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? הָהוּא מֵ״רָר״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** from where does **Rabbi Yishmael** derive that only a moist discharge imparts impurity? The Gemara answers: **That** *halakha* **is derived from** the word **“run”** in the verse “And this shall be his impurity in his issue: Whether his flesh run with his issue.”


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

וְרַבָּנַן? הָהוּא לְמִנְיָנָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא: ״זוֹבוֹ״ — חֲדָא, ״רָר בְּשָׂרוֹ״ — תְּרֵי, ״אֶת זוֹבוֹ״ — תְּלָת, לִימֵּד עַל זָב בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּקׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what do **the Rabbis** derive from this word? The Gemara explains that according to the Rabbis, **that** verse **comes to** teach the **number** of emissions by which a *zav* is rendered impure, as follows: The term **“his issue”** is **one** emission, the term **“his flesh run”** is another emission so that there are **two** emissions, and the term **“with his issue”** makes a total of **three** emissions. The verse thereby **teaches with regard to a *zav* who experienced three emissions that** he **is obligated to** bring **an offering** as part of his purification process.


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

״אוֹ הֶחְתִּים בְּשָׂרוֹ מִזּוֹבוֹ טָמֵא״, מִקְצָת זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא, לִימֵּד עַל זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב. וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מִנְיָנָא מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי סִימַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: From the last section of the verse: **“Or his flesh be stopped from his issue,** it is his **impurity,”** it is derived that one is **impure** even by means of **part of his issue,** i.e., even if he did not experience three emissions. Here the verse **teaches with regard to a *zav* who experienced two emissions that** although he is not obligated to bring an offering, he **renders** a surface designated for **lying and** a surface designated for **sitting ritually impure** by lying or sitting on them, even without touching them directly. The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Yishmael, from where does he** derive this *halakha* of the requisite **number** of emissions? The Gemara answers that **he derives it from that** which **Rabbi Simai** said.


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

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: מָנָה הַכָּתוּב שְׁתַּיִם וּקְרָאוֹ ״טָמֵא״, שָׁלֹשׁ וּקְרָאוֹ ״טָמֵא״. הָא כֵיצַד? שְׁתַּיִם לַטּוּמְאָה, וְשָׁלֹשׁ לַקׇּרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Simai says: The verse enumerated two** emissions **and called** the *zav* **impure:** “When any man has an emission out of his flesh, due to his issue he is impure” (Leviticus 15:2). And yet, another verse enumerates **three** emissions **and it** too **called him impure:** “And this shall be his impurity in his emission: Whether his flesh runs with his emission, or his flesh be stopped from his emission, it is his impurity” (Leviticus 15:3). **How** can **these** verses be reconciled? If one is impure after two emissions, for what purpose does the Torah mention three? It is to teach that **two** emissions are necessary **to** establish **impurity, and three** are necessary **to** render a *zav* liable to bring **an offering.**


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

וּלְמַאן דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מִ״זֹּאת תִּהְיֶה טוּמְאָתוֹ בְּזוֹבוֹ״, ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה זָב מִבְּשָׂרוֹ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִבְּשָׂרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to the one who derives both** the *halakha* of impurity and the obligation to bring an offering **from** the single verse: “And **this shall be his impurity in his issue,” what do they,** i.e., the Rabbis, **do with** the other verse: **“When any man has an emission out of his flesh”?** The Gemara answers that this verse is **necessary** to teach the *halakha* that a *zav* is not impure **unless** the discharge **emerges from his flesh.**


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

״זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא״ לְמָה לִי? לִימֵּד עַל הַזּוֹב שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **Why do I** need the last part of the previous verse, which can be read as: **His issue is impure** (Leviticus 15:2)? The Gemara explains that this **teaches with regard to the issue** itself **that it is impure,** i.e., not only does it render the man who emitted it impure, but the substance itself is impure and imparts impurity to others by contact.


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

אָמַר רַב חֲנִילַאי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע — לְרוֹאֶה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, לְנוֹגֵעַ בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. וְהָאֲנַן ״מְטַמְּאִין בְּכֹל שֶׁהֵן״ תְּנַן! מַאי לַָאו לְנוֹגֵעַ? לֹא, לְרוֹאֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the statement of the mishna that the issue of the *zav* and a seminal emission render them impure in any amount, **Rav Ḥanilai says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Semen** imparts impurity **to** the man who **emits** it **in any amount,** whereas **with regard to one who touches** semen, it imparts impurity only **in** the amount of **a lentil-bulk.** The Gemara asks: **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna that the emission of a *zav* and a seminal emission **impart impurity in any amount? What, is it not** referring to **one who touches** semen? The Gemara answers: **No,** the mishna is referring **to** the man who **emits** it.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: חוֹמֶר בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מִבְּשֶׁרֶץ, וָחוֹמֶר בְּשֶׁרֶץ מִבְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע. חוֹמֶר בְּשֶׁרֶץ — שֶׁהַשֶּׁרֶץ אֵין חֲלוּקָה טוּמְאָתוֹ, מָה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע. חוֹמֶר בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע — שֶׁהַשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מְטַמֵּא בְּכֹל שֶׁהוּא, מָה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשֶׁרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: There is an element of **stringency** which applies **to** the impurity of **semen that** does not apply **to** the impurity of the carcass of **a creeping animal, and** likewise there is an element of **stringency** which applies **to** the impurity of the carcass of **a creeping animal that** does not apply **to** the impurity of **semen.** The *baraita* elaborates: The **stringency** which applies **to** the carcass of **a creeping animal** but not to semen is **that** with regard to the carcass of **a creeping animal there is no differentiation in its impurity, which is not the case with regard to semen,** as certain types of semen impart impurity while others do not. The **stringency** which applies **to semen** but not to the carcass of a creeping animal is **that semen imparts impurity in any amount, which is not the case with regard to** the carcass of **a creeping animal,** which must be at least a lentil-bulk.


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

מַאי לַָאו לְנוֹגֵעַ? לָא, לְרוֹאֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this *baraita*: **What, is it not** referring **to one who touches** semen, and the *baraita* rules that he is rendered impure by any amount? The Gemara again answers: **No,** the *baraita* is speaking **of** the man who **emits** semen, whereas one who touches it becomes impure only if it is at least as large as a lentil-bulk.


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

וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דְּשֶׁרֶץ קָתָנֵי, מָה שֶׁרֶץ בִּנְגִיעָה — אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בִּנְגִיעָה! אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: שׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ קָתָנֵי, וְשׁוּם שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: **But** the *baraita* **teaches** the case of semen as **similar to** that of the carcass of **a creeping animal,** which indicates that **just as** the impurity of the carcass of **a creeping animal** is imparted **by contact, so too,** the impurity discussed in the *baraita* with regard to **semen** is imparted **by contact. Rav Adda bar Ahava said** in response: The *baraita* **teaches the category of** the carcass of **a creeping animal, and** it likewise **teaches the category of semen,** i.e., it is referring to these types of impurity in general, but this does not mean that these types of impurity are contracted in the same manner.


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

וְשֶׁרֶץ לָא מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ? וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: הָאֵבָרִים אֵין לָהֶם שִׁיעוּר, פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת, וּפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה, וּפָחוֹת מִכַּעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does** the carcass of **a creeping animal not impart impurity in any amount? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Oholot* 1:7): **The limbs** of impure bodies that are whole **have no** minimum **measure** with regard to imparting ritual impurity. Even if a limb is **less than an olive-bulk of** a human **corpse, or less than an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, or less than a lentil-bulk of** the carcass of **a creeping animal,** it imparts ritual impurity. If so, how can the *baraita* state that there is a minimum measure of a lentil-bulk with regard to the impurity of a creeping animal?


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

שָׁאנֵי אֵבֶר — דְּכוּלֵּיהּ בִּמְקוֹם עֲדָשָׁה קָאֵי, דְּהָא אִילּוּ חָסַר פּוּרְתָּא אֵבֶר — מִי קָמְטַמֵּיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that the *halakha* of **a limb is different, as** when **all of it** is intact **it stands in place of a lentil**-bulk, i.e., a whole limb is considered like a lentil-bulk of the carcass of a creeping animal, regardless of its actual size. The proof is **that if** it were **lacking** any slight **bit,** thereby causing this **limb** of a creeping animal to be less than a lentil-bulk, **would it impart impurity?** Certainly not. Clearly, then, the impurity of a limb is due to its wholeness, not its size.


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

שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע דַּחֲלוּקָה טוּמְאָתוֹ — מַאי הִיא? אִילֵימָא בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל לִדְגוֹיִם — הָכִי נָמֵי אִיכָּא עַכְבָּר דְּיָם וְעַכְבָּר דְּיַבָּשָׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: The stringency that applies to the carcass of a creeping animal but not to semen is that with regard to a creeping animal there is no differentiation concerning its impurity, which is not the case with regard to semen. The Gemara asks: **What is the differentiation** with regard to **the impurity of semen? If we say** that this is referring to the difference **between** the semen of **Jews,** to which this impurity applies, **and** the semen **of gentiles,** to which it does not apply, **there is also** a differentiation with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal between **a sea mouse,** which is not impure, and **a land mouse,** which is impure.


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

אֶלָּא, בֵּין קָטָן לְגָדוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *baraita* is referring to the differentiation **between** the emission of **a minor,** which is not classified as semen and which does not render him impure, **and** that of **an adult,** which does render him impure. By contrast, there is no such differentiation with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal, as it imparts impurity regardless of its age and size.


###### Niddah 43b:21
[Niddah 43b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43b:21)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּתַנָּאֵי, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת נוֹגֵעַ בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ אִישׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa said:** The amount of semen which imparts impurity to one who touches it is **subject to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as it is stated in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **that** the Torah **includes one who touches semen,** in addition to one who emits semen, as impure? **The verse states** with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal: **“Or whoever** touches any creeping animal, whereby he may become impure” (Leviticus 22:5). It is inferred from the inclusive phrase “or whoever” that one who touches semen is also impure.


###### Niddah 43b:22
[Niddah 43b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43b:22)

וּפְלִיגִי תַּנָּאֵי בְּעָלְמָא, דְּאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ, וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And in general, *tanna’im* disagree** with regard to the possibility of deriving a *halakha* in this manner. **As some say** with regard to a *halakha* that is inferred from another *halakha*: **Infer from it, and** derive the details of the *halakha* **from it** as well. **And some say** with regard to such a *halakha*: **Infer from it, but interpret** the *halakha* according **to its** own **place,** i.e., not all aspects of the source case are applied to this *halakha*.


###### Niddah 43b:23
[Niddah 43b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43b:23)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ — מָה שֶׁרֶץ בִּנְגִיעָה, אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בִּנְגִיעָה; וּמִינַּהּ — מָה שֶׁרֶץ בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains how this general dispute applies to the case at hand. **According to the one who says** that one **infers from it and** again **from it,** the derivation is as follows: **Just as** the carcass of **a creeping animal** imparts impurity **by contact, so too, semen** imparts impurity **by contact. And** one again infers **from** the impurity of the carcass of a creeping animal that **just as** the carcass of **a creeping animal** imparts impurity **in** the amount of **a lentil-bulk, so too, semen** imparts impurity **in** the amount of **a lentil-bulk.**


###### Niddah 43b:24
[Niddah 43b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43b:24)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ, מָה שֶׁרֶץ בִּנְגִיעָה — אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בִּנְגִיעָה, וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ — מָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע לָרוֹאֶה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, אַף לַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And according to the one who says: Infer from it, but interpret** the *halakha* according **to** its own **place,** one derives as follows: **Just as** the carcass of **a creeping animal** imparts impurity **by contact, so too, semen** imparts impurity **by contact. But** one must **interpret** the *halakha* according **to** its own **place: Just as semen** imparts impurity **to the one who emits** it **in any amount, so too,** it imparts impurity **to the one who touches** it **in any amount.**


###### Niddah 43b:25
[Niddah 43b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43b:25)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי דְּמֵ״אוֹ אִישׁ״ דְּשֶׁרֶץ קָמְרַבֵּי לֵיהּ? דִּילְמָא מֵ״אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״ קָמְרַבֵּי לֵיהּ, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: From where** do you infer **that** the *tanna* of the *baraita* **derives** the impurity of one who touches semen **from** the phrase **“or whoever”** that is stated with regard to the impurity **of** the carcass of **a creeping animal? Perhaps he derives it from** the previous verse: **“Or from whoever the flow of seed goes out”** (Leviticus 22:4), **and everyone** agrees that when a *halakha* is derived from a verse dealing with the same matter, one should **infer from it and** derive the details of the *halakha* **from it** as well. If so, the amount of semen that imparts impurity by contact should be derived from the amount that renders the one who emitted it impure, which is any amount.


###### Niddah 43b:26
[Niddah 43b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43b:26)

שַׁיְילִינְהוּ לְתַנָּאֵי, אִיכָּא דְּתָנֵי כְּרַב פָּפָּא, וְאִיכָּא דְּתָנֵי כְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that the Sages **asked the *tanna’im*,** i.e., those who recite *mishnayot* and *baraitot*, whether the derivation of the *baraita* is from the verse dealing with the carcass of a creeping animal or from the one dealing with semen. They discovered that **there are those who teach** this *halakha* **in accordance with** the assumption of **Rav Pappa,** that it is derived from a creeping animal, **and there are those who teach** this *halakha* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan,** that the source is the verse referring to semen.


###### Niddah 43b:27
[Niddah 43b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43b:27)

**מַתְנִי'** תִּנוֹקֶת בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד — מִטַּמְּאָה בְּנִדָּה. בַּת עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים — מִטַּמְּאָה בְּזִיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A baby girl,** even one who is **one day old,** who experiences an emission of blood, **becomes impure with** the impurity of **a menstruating woman.** A baby girl who is **ten days old** who experiences an emission of blood for three consecutive days after the conclusion of the seven days fit for menstruation **becomes impure with** the impurity of ***ziva*,** and is therefore obligated to observe seven clean days before immersion.


###### Niddah 43b:28
[Niddah 43b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/43b:28)

תִּנוֹק בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד — מִטַּמֵּא בְּזִיבָה, וּמִטַּמֵּא בִּנְגָעִים, וּמִטַּמֵּא בִּטְמֵא מֵת, וְזוֹקֵק לְיִבּוּם, וּפוֹטֵר מִן הַיִּבּוּם, וּמַאֲכִיל בִּתְרוּמָה, וּפוֹסֵל (אֶת) [מִן] הַתְּרוּמָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A baby boy,** even one who is **one day old, becomes impure with** the impurity of ***ziva*; and becomes impure with** the impurity of **leprous marks; and becomes impure with impurity** imparted by **a corpse; and he creates** a levirate bond requiring the widow of his childless brother **to** enter into **levirate marriage** with him; **and he exempts** his widowed mother **from the** obligation of **levirate marriage,** freeing her to marry anyone she chooses; **and he enables** his mother, an Israelite woman who is no longer married to his father, a priest, to continue **to partake of *teruma*; and he disqualifies** his mother, the daughter of a priest who is no longer married to his father, an Israelite man, **from** continuing to partake of ***teruma*,** because the child is unfit to partake of *teruma*;