1. Mishnah, Miqvaot, 8.3-8.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 8.3. If he emitted thick drops from his member, he is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar Hisma. If one had sexual dreams in the night and arose and found his flesh heated, he is unclean. If a woman discharged semen on the third day, she is clean, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Ishmael says: sometimes there are four time periods, and sometimes five, and sometimes six. Rabbi Akiva says: there are always five." 8.4. If a non-Jewish woman discharged semen from an Israelite, it is unclean. If an Israelite woman discharged semen from a non-Jewish man, it is clean. If a woman had intercourse and then went down and immersed herself but did not sweep out the house, it is as though she had not immersed herself. If a man who had a seminal emission immersed himself but did not first pass urine, he again becomes unclean when he passes urine. Rabbi Yose says: if he was sick or old he is unclean, but if he was young and healthy he remains clean." |
|
2. Mishnah, Niddah, 4.3, 7.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.3. The blood of a Gentile and the clean blood of a metzoraat (a woman with scale disease): Bet Shammai declares clean. And Bet Hillel holds that it is like her spittle or her urine. The blood of a woman after childbirth who did not immerse [in a mikveh]: Bet Shammai says it is like her spittle or her urine, But Bet Hillel says: it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry. They agree that if she gave birth while in zivah, it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry." 7.3. All bloodstains that come from Rekem are clean. Rabbi Judah declares them unclean, because the people who live there are proselytes though misguided. Those that come from non-Jews are clean. Those that come from Israelites or from Samaritans: Rabbi Meir declares them unclean, But the sages declare them clean because they are not suspected in regard to their stains." |
|
3. Mishnah, Zavim, 2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.3. One who had [a discharge of] semen does not defile due to zivah for a period of twenty-four hours. Rabbi Yose says: [only] that day. A non-Jew who had a discharge of semen and then converted, he immediately becomes unclean due to zivah. [A woman] who had [an issue] of blood, or had experienced difficulty [in childbirth], [the time prescribed] is twenty-four hours. One who strikes his slave, the \"day or two\" is twenty-four hours. A dog that eats a corpse's flesh, for three days from one time of day to the same time of day, it is considered to be in its natural state. |
|
4. Tosefta, Niddah, 2.2-2.4, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 2.2. A child may go on nursing for twenty-four months, and from that time forward, he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal--these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: a child may go on nursing even until he is a child of five years, but if he ceased and then returned (to nursing) after twenty-four months, behold he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal. 2.3. A woman is obligated to nurse her child for twenty-four months, whether her own or one who was given to her to wet-nurse. The woman given a child to wet-nurse should not do with him work and should not nurse another child with him. A child who recognizes his mother, they do not give him to nurse from someone else because of the danger to life. A child may nurse from an idol worshiper or from an unclean animal--he can nurse from anything, even on shabbat. But if he was an adult, it is prohibited. Abba Shaul says: we used to suckle from a clean animal on a holiday." |
|
5. Tosefta, Zavim, 2.1, 2.4, 5.6-5.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 34a. רגל הוה וטומאת עם הארץ ברגל כטהרה שוינהו רבנן דכתיב (שופטים כ, יא) ויאסף כל איש ישראל אל העיר כאיש אחד חברים הכתוב עשאן כולן חברים, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big דם עובדת כוכבים ודם טהרה של מצורעת ב"ש מטהרים ובית הלל אומרים כרוקה וכמימי רגליה,דם היולדת שלא טבלה ב"ש אומרים כרוקה וכמימי רגליה וב"ה אומרים מטמא לח ויבש,ומודים ביולדת בזוב שהיא מטמאה לח ויבש, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ולית להו לב"ש (ויקרא טו, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם איש איש כי יהיה זב בני ישראל מטמאין בזיבה ואין העובדי כוכבים מטמאין בזיבה אבל גזרו עליהן שיהו כזבין לכל דבריהם,אמרי לך ב"ש (ההוא בזכרים איתמר דאי בנקבות) היכי לעביד ליטמא לח ויבש עשיתו כשל תורה ליטמי לח ולא ליטמי יבש חלקת בשל תורה,אי הכי רוקה ומימי רגליה נמי כיון דעבדינן היכרא בדמה מידע ידיע דרוקה ומימי רגליה דרבנן,ולעביד היכרא ברוקה ומימי רגליה ולטמויי לדמה רוקה ומימי רגליה דשכיחי גזרו בהו רבנן דמה דלא שכיחא לא גזרו ביה רבנן,אמר רבא זובו טמא אפילו לב"ש קריו טהור אפילו לב"ה,זובו טמא אפילו לב"ש דהא איכא למעבד היכרא בקריו,קריו טהור אפי' לב"ה עבוד ביה רבנן היכרא כי היכי דלא לשרוף עליה תרומה וקדשים,ולעביד היכרא בזובו ולטמויי לקריו זובו דלא תלי במעשה גזרו ביה רבנן קריו דתלי במעשה לא גזרו ביה רבנן,לימא מסייע ליה עובדת כוכבים שפלטה שכבת זרע מישראל טמאה ובת ישראל שפלטה שכבת זרע מן העובד כוכבי' טהורה מאי לאו טהורה גמורה לא טהורה מדאורייתא טמאה מדרבנן,ת"ש נמצאת אומר שכבת זרע של ישראל טמאה בכל מקום | 34a. This incident occurred during ba pilgrimage Festival,either Passover, iSukkot /i, or iShavuot /i, band the Sages rendered the ritual impurity of an iam ha’aretzduring a pilgrimage Festival as purity. As it is written: “And all the men of Israel gathered to the city, like one man, united [ iḥaverim /i]”(Judges 20:11). Whenever all the Jewish people gather in a single place, such as on a pilgrimage Festival, bthe verse renders all of them iḥaverim /i,even one who is an iam ha’aretz /i. There was therefore no concern for impurity due to the saliva of an iam ha’aretz /i. Yet, the High Priest was concerned that this Sadducee was one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman., strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to the bblood ofa menstruating bgentile womanor a gentile izava /i, bandthe bblooddischarged bbya female Jewish bleperduring the days bof purityof a woman who gives birth, bBeit Shammai deemthem britually pure, and Beit Hillel say:The halakhic status of the blood of the gentile woman is blikethat of bher saliva and her urine,which impart impurity only while moist. Likewise, the blood discharged by a Jewish leper during the days of purity imparts impurity only when moist.,With regard to bthe blood of a woman who gave birthand reached the conclusion of her days of impurity, i.e., seven days after giving birth to a male or fourteen days after giving birth to a female, but bwho did notyet bimmersein a ritual bath, bBeit Shammai say:Although she has yet to immerse in a ritual bath, the blood does not retain the halakhic status of menstrual blood. Rather, the status of the blood is blikethat of bher saliva and her urine,and it imparts impurity only while moist. bAnd Beit Hillel say:Since she did not immerse in a ritual bath, her blood is considered like that of a menstruating woman, and it bimparts impuritywhether it is bmoist or dry. /b, bAndBeit Shammai bconcedeto Beit Hillel binthe case of ba woman who gives birth as a izava /i,where the woman must count seven clean days from the conclusion of her days of impurity, bthatany blood bshesees during those seven days bimparts impuritywhether it is bmoist or dry. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that according to Beit Shammai the blood of a gentile woman does not impart impurity. The Gemara objects: bAnd do Beit Shammai not acceptthat which is taught with regard to the verse: b“Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, when any man has an issue [ izav /i]out of his flesh, his issue is impure” (Leviticus 15:2), from which it is inferred: By Torah law, bthe children of Israel become impure through izivaand gentiles do not become impure through iziva /i, butthe Sages bdecreed concerning them that they shall be like izavinin all their mattersof ritual purity.,The Gemara responds: bBeit Shammaicould bsay to youthat bthis was statedonly bwith regard to males,not females. bAs, ifit was stated even bwith regard to females, how should one actwith regard to this impurity? bShouldtheir blood bimpart impuritywhether it is bmoist or dry?If so, byou have rendered it likeblood that imparts impurity bby Torahlaw, and people will mistakenly come to burn iterumathat comes into contact with it. Perhaps one will suggest that it bshould impart impurityonly while it is bmoist and it should not impart impuritywhen it is bdry.But if so, byouwill have bdifferentiatedbetween moist and dry blood even bwith regard toblood bthatis impure by bTorahlaw, i.e., one might mistakenly conclude that the blood of Jewish women imparts impurity only when it is moist, when in fact it imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.,The Gemara objects: bIf so,then with regard to bthe saliva and urine ofa gentile izava /i, which impart impurity by rabbinic law only when moist, Beit Shammai should balsorule that they do not impart impurity at all, in order to distinguish their saliva and urine from that of a Jewish izava /i, which by Torah law impart impurity only when moist (see 54b). The Gemara responds: bSince we implement a conspicuous marker with regard to the blood ofa gentile woman, i.e., it is clear that her status is different from that of a Jewish woman in that her blood does not impart impurity whatsoever, everyone bwill know thatthe impurity of bher saliva and her urineis only bby rabbiniclaw, and there is no concern that people might come to mistakenly burn iterumathat comes into contact with the saliva and urine of a gentile izava /i.,The Gemara persists: bAnd let them implement a conspicuous marker with regard to the saliva and urine ofa gentile woman, that they should not impart impurity whatsoever, band let them deem her blood impureeven when dry. In this manner, everyone will know that the impurity of a gentile woman applies only by rabbinic law, and they will not come to treat that which is impure by Torah law in the same manner. The Gemara responds: With regard to bher saliva and her urine, which arerelatively bcommon, the Sages decreedthat btheyare impure, but with regard to bher blood, which is notas bcommon, the Sages did not decreethat bitis impure.,§ With regard to a gentile man, bRava says: The izivaofa gentile man is britually impure, even according tothe opinion of bBeit Shammai,who maintain that the izivaof a gentile woman does not impart impurity whatsoever. By contrast, bthe semen ofa gentile is bpure, even according tothe opinion of bBeit Hillel,who hold that the blood of menstruating gentiles and the blood of their izivaimparts impurity when it is moist.,Rava elaborates: bThe izivaofa gentile man is bimpure, even according tothe opinion of bBeit Shammai, as it ispossible bto implement a conspicuous marker with his semen,i.e., since his semen does not impart impurity whatsoever, everyone will know that the impurity imparted by the izivaof a gentile applies by rabbinic law, and they will not come to burn iterumathat comes in contact with the izivaof a gentile.,And bthe semen ofa gentile is britually pure, even according tothe opinion of bBeit Hillel.This is because bthe Sageshad to bimplement a conspicuous marker with regard to itto indicate that the izivaof a gentile imparts impurity only by rabbinic law bin order that they will notcome bto burn iterumaand consecrateditems bthatcome into contact with their iziva /i, as must be performed with iterumaand consecrated items that contract impurity by Torah law.,The Gemara objects: bAnd letthe Sages bimplement a conspicuous marker with regard to the izivaofa gentile man, that it should not impart impurity whatsoever, band let them deem his semen impure.The Gemara explains: With regard to bhis iziva /i, which is not dependent on an actionhe performs but is emitted on its own, bthe Sages decreedthat bitis impure; with regard to bhis semen, which is dependent on an actionhe performs, bthe Sages did not decreethat bitis impure.,The Gemara suggests: bLet us saythat the following mishna ( iMikvaot8:4) bsupportsRava’s opinion: In the case of ba gentile woman who discharged sementhat came bfrom a Jewwho engaged in intercourse with her, the semen is bimpure,as it came from a Jew. bAndin the case of ba Jewish woman who discharged sementhat came bfrom a gentile,the semen is bpure. What, is it notcorrect to say that the mishna means the semen of the gentile is bentirely pure,in accordance with the opinion of Rava? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: bNo,perhaps the mishna means that the semen of a gentile is bpure by Torah lawbut bimpure by rabbinic law,whereas according to Rava, the semen of a gentile is pure even by rabbinic law.,The Gemara cites another source that possibly supports Rava’s opinion: bComeand bheara ibaraita /i: bYou are foundto bsay the semen of a Jew is impure whereverit is found |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 83a. ורבי עקיבא למאי הלכתא איתקש לנדה למשא לוקשיה לנבלה אין הכי נמי אלא מה נדה אינה לאברין אף ע"ז אינה לאברין אלא הא דבעי רב חמא בר גוריא ע"ז ישנה לאברים או אינה לאברים תיפשוט ליה מהא בין לרבנן בין לרבי עקיבא דאינה לאברים רב חמא בר גוריא כרבה מתני ובעי לה אליבא דרבי עקיבא,מיתיבי ע"ז כשרץ ומשמשיה כשרץ רבי עקיבא אומר ע"ז כנדה ומשמשיה כשרץ בשלמא לרבי אלעזר ניחא אלא לרבה קשיא אמר לך רבה מי אלימא ממתני' דקתני עציו ואבניו ועפריו מטמאין כשרץ ואוקימנא מאי כשרץ דלא מטמא באבן מסמא ה"נ דלא מטמא באבן מסמא,מיתיבי נכרי ונכרית ע"ז ומשמשיה הן ולא היסטן רבי עקיבא אומר הן והיסטן בשלמא לרבי אלעזר ניחא אלא לרבה קשיא אמר לך רבה וליטעמיך נכרי ונכרית נמי הן ולא היסטן והתניא (ויקרא טו, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל וגו' בני ישראל מטמאין בזיבה ואין נכרים מטמאין בזיבה אבל גזרו עליהן שיהו כזבין לכל דבריהן,אלא רבה מתרץ לטעמיה נכרי ונכרית הן והיסטן ואבן מסמא שלהן ע"ז היא והיסטה אבל לא אבן מסמא שלה רבי עקיבא אומר ע"ז היא והיסטה ואבן מסמא שלה ורבי אלעזר מתרץ לטעמיה נכרי ונכרית הן והיסטן ואבן מסמא שלהן ע"ז היא ולא היסטה ורבי עקיבא אומר ע"ז היא והיסטה,מתקיף לה רב אשי מאי הן אלא אמר רב אשי הכי קאמר נכרי ונכרית בין הן שהסיטו את אחרים ובין אחרים שהסיטו אותן טמאים ע"ז שהסיטה אחרים טהורין אחרים שהסיטו אותה טמאים משמשיה בין הן שהסיטו את אחרים ובין אחרים שהסיטו אותן טהורים רבי עקיבא אומר נכרי ונכרית וע"ז בין הן שהסיטו את אחרים ובין אחרים שהסיטו אותן טמאים משמשיה בין הן שהסיטו אחרים ובין אחרים שהסיטו אותן טהורין,ע"ז בשלמא אחרים שהסיטו אותה משכחת לה אלא היא שהסיטה את אחרים היכי משכחת לה אמר רמי בריה דרב ייבא כדתנן הזב בכף מאזנים ואוכלין ומשקין בכף שנייה כרע הזב טמאין | 83a. bAndaccording to the opinion of bRabbi Akiva,with regard bto what ihalakhawasidolatry bjuxtaposed to a menstruating woman?If it was to teach the ihalakhaof impurity imparted by bcarrying, let it be juxtaposed to ananimal bcarcassand not to a menstruating woman and creeping animals. The Gemara answers: bYes, it is indeed so. However,the juxtaposition to a menstruating woman teaches: bJust as a menstruating woman does nottransmit impurity bthroughher blimbs,as a menstruating woman who leans on an object by a single limb does not transmit impurity imparted by carrying (Ra’avad), bso too, an idol does nottransmit impurity bthroughits blimbs,and a section of an idol does not transmit impurity. The Gemara asks: bBut that which Rav Ḥama bar Guria raised as a dilemma: Does idolatry havethe capacity to transmit impurity through blimbs or does it nothave the capacity to transmit impurity bthrough its limbs; resolvethe dilemma bfrom this, as according to both the Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva, it does nottransmit impurity bthrough limbs.According to this explanation, Rabbi Akiva agrees with the Rabbis. The Gemara rejects this: bRav Ḥama bar Guria taught in accordance withthe explanation of bRabba and raised the dilemma in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Akiva. /b,The Gemara now clarifies the explanations of Rabba and Rabbi Elazar in light of other sources. The Gemara braises an objectionfrom that which was taught in a ibaraita /i: The ritual impurity of bidolatryis blikethat of ba creeping animal, andthe ritual impurity of bits accessoriesis blikethat of ba creeping animal. Rabbi Akiva says:The ritual impurity of bidolatryis blikethat of ba menstruating woman, andthe ritual impurity of bits accessoriesis blikethat of ba creeping animal. Granted,according btothe opinion of bRabbi Elazar,it works out bwell. However,according btothe opinion of bRabba, it is difficult.The dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis in this ibaraitais whether idolatry is likened to a creeping animal and does not transmit impurity imparted by carrying or whether it is likened to a menstruating woman and it does transmit impurity imparted by carrying. According to Rabba, the Rabbis agree that it does transmit impurity imparted by carrying. bRabbacould have bsaid to you: Isthe proof from this ibaraita bstronger thanthe bmishnain tractate iAvoda Zara /i, bwhich taught: Its wood and stones and dirt transmit impurity like a creeping animal?With regard to that mishna bwe established: Whatis the meaning of blike a creeping animal?It means that it is like a creeping animal in the sense bthat it does not transmit impurity by means of a very heavy stone. Here too,the analogy to a creeping animal in the ibaraitais in the sense that bit does not transmit impurity via a very heavy stone. /b,The Gemara braises an objectionfrom what we learned: bA gentile man and a gentile woman,with regard to whom the Rabbis issued a decree that they transmit impurity like a izav /i, bidolatry and its accessories,all transmit impurity. bTheytransmit impurity, band not their movement,i.e., they do not transmit impurity to one who moves them. bRabbi Akiva says:Both bthey and their movementtransmit impurity. bGranted,according btothe explanation of bRabbi Elazar,this works out bwell; however,according btothe explanation of bRabba, it is difficult. Rabbacould have bsaid to you: And according to your reasoning,with regard to ba gentile man and a gentile woman as well,do btheytransmit impurity band their movementdoes bnottransmit impurity? bWasn’t it taughtin a ibaraitawith regard to the verse: b“Speak to the children of Israeland say to them, when any man has an emission from his body, his emission is impure” (Leviticus 15:2), by Torah law, only bthe children of Israel become impure throughthe bemission of a izav /i, and gentiles do not become impure throughthe bemission of a izav /i? Butthe Sages bdecreed that they should beconsidered blike a izavfor all theirhalakhic bmatters.Since gentiles have the legal status of a izav /i, they should transmit impurity through carrying. Therefore, the ibaraitathat states that gentiles do not transmit impurity through carrying is corrupted and must be emended., bRather, Rabba explainsand adds to the ibaraita bin accordance with his reasoning: A gentile man and a gentile womantransmit impurity, bthey and their movement and their very heavy stone.And bidolatrytransmits impurity, bit and its movement but not its very heavy stone. Rabbi Akiva says: Idolatrytransmits impurity, bit and its movement and its very heavy stone. And Rabbi Elazar explainsand adds to the ibaraita bin accordance with his reasoningas follows: bA gentile man and a gentile womantransmit impurity, bthey and their movement and their very heavy stone. Idolatrytransmits impurity, bit and not its movement. And Rabbi Akiva says: Idolatrytransmits impurity, bit and its movement. /b, bRav Ashi strongly objects tothis explanation: According to this explanation, bwhatis the meaning of the word btheyin the context of this ibaraita /i? It would have been sufficient to say that their movement transmits impurity. The fact that the gentiles themselves are ritually impure is obvious. Apparently, the word they is emphasized in order to teach an additional ihalakha /i. bRather, Rav Ashi said, this is whatthe ibaraita bis saying:With regard to ba gentile man and a gentile woman, whether they moved others or others moved them,the others bare ritually impure.The impurity of a gentile is like that of a izav /i, which is unique in that anything that a izavmoves becomes impure even if he did not touch it directly. bIdolatry that moved others,the others remain britually pure;however, bothers who moved it are ritually impure.With regard to bits accessories, whether they moved others or others moved them,the others remain britually pure. Rabbi Akiva says: A gentile man and a gentile woman and idolatry, whether they moved others or others moved them,the others bare ritually impure. Its accessories, whether they moved others or others moved them,the others remain britually pure.According to this explanation, both the word they and the word movement, both of which appear in the ibaraita /i, are significant.,Rav Ashi’s explanation explains the ibaraita /i, but the Gemara questions the matter itself. With regard to bidolatry, granted,a case bwhere others moved itcan be easily bfound. However,a case where the idolatry bmoved others,under what circumstances bcan it be found?How can an idol move another object? bRami, son of Rav Yeiva, said,a case like that is possible, bas we learnedin a mishna: In a case where bthe izav /isat bonone bpan of abalance bscale, and food and drinkswere bonthe bsecond pan,if bthe izavtippedthe scales, the food and drinks on the other pan bare ritually impurebecause the izavmoved them. |
|
