Niddah

The Master said, 'The semen of an Israelite is unclean everywhere, even in the bowels of an idolatress'. May you not thereby solve a question of R. Papa; for R. Papa enquired. 'What is the law regarding the semen of an Israelite in the bowels of an idolatress?' [Concerning a discharge] within three days  R. Papa raised no questions. His enquiry related only to one after three days.  What, he asked, is the law? Is it only in the case of Israelites, who are anxious to observe the commandments, that their bodies engender heat and the semen decomposes  but in the case of idolaters, who are not anxious to observe the commandments, their bodies engender no heat and their [semen] therefore does not decompose, or is it possible that on account of their consumption of forbidden animals and reptiles their bodies also engender heat and their semen also decomposes? — This remains undecided. THE CLEAN BLOOD OF A LEPROUS WOMAN, BETH SHAMMAI etc. What is Beth Hillel's reason? — R. Isaac replied: 'Whether it be a man'  includes  a male leper as regards his sources;  'or a woman'  includes  a female leper as regards her sources. Now what could be meant by 'her sources'? If it be suggested: Her other sources  [the objection could be made that the uncleanness of these] could be inferred from that of the male.  The reference consequently must be to [the uncleanness of] her blood,  to declare her 'CLEAN BLOOD' unclean. And Beth Shammai?  — [The uncleanness of] a female could not be deduced from that of a male, for it can be objected: The position of the male is different  since he is also required  to uncover his head and to rend his clothes  and he is also forbidden cohabitation; [how then could his uncleanness] be compared to that of a female  who is not [subject to his restrictions]?  And Beth Hillel?  — The All Merciful could have written down the restrictions in regard to the female and there would have been no need to repeat them in regard to the male; for it could have been argued: If in the case of a female,  who is not required to uncover her head or to rend her clothes and who is not forbidden cohabitation either, the All Merciful included her sources  how much more then should this be the rule  in the case of the male.  Now since the text serves no purpose in regard to the male,  apply it to the female; and since it can serve no purpose as far as her other sources  are concerned,  apply it to her blood, to declare her 'CLEAN BLOOD' unclean. And Beth Shammai?  — The uncleanness of a male cannot be deduced from that of a female, for it can be objected: The position of a female is different,  since she becomes unclean  even as a result of a mishap; [how then could her uncleanness] be compared to that of a male who is not [subject to such a restriction]? And Beth Hillel?  — The subject dealt with is the position of  the leper, how can they raise an objection against it from that of the zab?  And Beth Shammai?  — They raise objections from any form of uncleanness. And if you prefer I might reply that Beth Shammai can answer you: The expression  'whether it be a man'  is required for the following exposition: 'Whether it be a man' whosoever is a man irrespective of whether he is of age or only a minor.  And Beth Hillel?  — They derive this ruling from 'This is the law of him that hath an issue'  which implies, whether he be of age or a minor. R. Joseph stated: When R. Simeon b. Lakish discoursed on the zab he raised the following question.  Does the first observation  of a zab who was a minor convey uncleanness by contact? The All Merciful having said, This is the law of him that hath an issue and of him from whom the flow of seed goeth out,  therefore only if his 'flow of seed' causes uncleanness does his first observation also cause uncleanness, but the minor,  since his 'flow of seed' conveys no uncleanness, his first observation also conveys no uncleanness; or is it possible that it is unclean, since if he observed two discharges the two are combined?  — Raba replied. Come and hear: This is the law of him that have an issue,  implies, whether he is of age or a minor; as in the case of an adult a first observation conveys uncleanness so also in that of a minor a first observation conveys uncleanness. R. Joseph enquired: Does the blood of a first observation of a leper convey uncleanness by contact? Is the place of the zibah a source and, therefore, conveys uncleanness,  or is it possible that it is no source and, therefore, conveys no uncleanness?  — Raba replied, Come and hear: His issue is unclean,  this teaches concerning an issue of a zab that it is unclean.  Now of what kind of person has this been said? If it be suggested: Of one who is only a zab