וְיָרְדָה וְטָבְלָה, מַהוּ?

and she descended to the ritual bath and immersed for the sake of conversion, what is the halakha ?

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

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.

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

§ 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).

וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: מִטַּמְּאִין בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן! הוּא דַּאֲמַר כְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: זָב צָרִיךְ כַּחֲתִימַת פִּי הָאַמָּה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ.

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.

מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? דַּאֲמַר קְרָא ״אוֹ הֶחְתִּים בְּשָׂרוֹ מִזּוֹבוֹ״.

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.

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

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.

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? הַהוּא מֵ״רָר״ נָפְקָא.

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.”

וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא לְמִנְיָנָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא: ״זוֹבוֹ״ – חֲדָא, ״רָר בְּשָׂרוֹ״ – תְּרֵי, ״אֶת זוֹבוֹ״ – תְּלָת, לִימֵּד עַל זָב בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּקָרְבָּן.

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.

״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 סִימָאי,

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.

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי סִימָאי אוֹמֵר: מָנָה הַכָּתוּב שְׁתַּיִם – וּקְרָאוֹ ״טָמֵא״, שָׁלֹשׁ – וּקְרָאוֹ ״טָמֵא״. הָא כֵּיצַד? שְׁתַּיִם – לְטוּמְאָה, וְשָׁלֹשׁ – לְקָרְבָּן.

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.

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

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.

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

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)? 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.

אָמַר רַב חֲנִילָאי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, לָרוֹאֶה – בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, לַנּוֹגֵעַ – בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. וְהָאֲנַן ״מְטַמְּאִין בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן״ תְּנַן! מַאי לָאו – לַנּוֹגֵעַ? לָא, לָרוֹאֶה.

§ 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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: חוֹמֶר בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מִבְּשֶׁרֶץ, וְחוֹמֶר בְּשֶׁרֶץ מִבְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע. חוֹמֶר בְּשֶׁרֶץ – שֶׁהַשֶּׁרֶץ אֵין חֲלוּקָה טוּמְאָתוֹ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע. חוֹמֶר בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע – שֶׁהַשִּׁכְבַת זֶרַע מְטַמַּא בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשֶׁרֶץ.

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.

מַאי לָאו – לַנּוֹגֵעַ? לָא, לָרוֹאֶה.

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.

וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דְּשֶׁרֶץ קָתָנֵי, מַה שֶּׁרֶץ – בִּנְגִיעָה, אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע – בִּנְגִיעָה! אֲמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: שׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ קָתָנֵי, וְשׁוּם שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע קָתָנֵי.

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.

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

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?

שָׁאנֵי אֵבֶר – דְּכוּלֵּיהּ בִּמְקוֹם עֲדָשָׁה קָאֵי, דְּהָא אִילּוּ חָסֵר פּוּרְתָּא – אֵבֶר מִי קָמִטַּמְּיָא?

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.

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

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.

אֶלָּא – בֵּין קָטָן לְגָדוֹל.

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.

אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: כְּתַנָּאֵי, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת נוֹגֵעַ בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ אִישׁ״.

§ 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.

וּפְלִיגִי תַּנָּאֵי בְּעָלְמָא, דְּאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי דּוֹן מִינָּהּ וּמִינָּהּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי דּוֹן מִינָּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרָא.

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 .

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דּוֹן מִינָּהּ וּמִינָּהּ: מַה שֶּׁרֶץ – בִּנְגִיעָה, אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע – בִּנְגִיעָה. וּמִינָּהּ, מַה שֶּׁרֶץ – בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע – בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה.

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.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר דּוֹן מִינָּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרָא: מַה שֶּׁרֶץ – בִּנְגִיעָה, אַף שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע – בִּנְגִיעָה. וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרָא: מַה שִּׁכְבַת זֶרַע לָרוֹאֶה – בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, אַף לַנּוֹגֵעַ – בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פַּפָּא: מִמַּאי דְּמֵ״אוֹ אִישׁ״ דְּשֶׁרֶץ קָמְרַבֵּי לֵיהּ, דִּילְמָא מֵ״אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״ קָמְרַבֵּי לֵיהּ. וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דּוֹן מִינָּהּ וּמִינָּהּ?

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.

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

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.

מתני׳ תִּנוֹקֶת בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד – מִטַּמְּאָה בְּנִדָּה, בַּת עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים – מִטַּמְּאָה בְּזִיבָה.

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.

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

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 ;