Niddah

Resh Lakish ruled: If a reed was held in a fold of the body of a zab and he shook therewith a clean person the latter remains clean.  If a reed was held in the fold of the body of a clean person and he shook therewith a zab the former is unclean.  What is the reason?  Because Scripture said, And whomsoever he that hath issue  toucheth, without having rinsed his hands in water,  and this  refers to the shaking of a zab, a form of conveyance of uncleanness the like of which we do not find anywhere in all the Torah; and the All Merciful expressed this in the term of touching,  in order to tell that shaking and touching must be performed with a part of the body which is like one's hands; as one's hands are exposed  so must any other part of the body  be exposed. BUT A ZAB AND ONE WHO EMITTED SEMEN CONVEY NO UNCLEANNESS etc. A ZAB, because it is written in Scripture, When any man hath an issue out of his flesh,  [which implies that no uncleanness is conveyed] unless his issue emerged 'out of his flesh'; ONE WHO EMITTED SEMEN, because It is written, And if the flow of seed go out from a man. IF A MAN WAS EATING TERUMAH WHEN HE FELT etc. Was it not, however, taught: R. Eliezer stated, whoever holds his membrum when he makes water is as though he had brought a flood on the world?  — Abaye replied: One does it with a thick rag.  Raba stated: It may even be done with a soft rag, for once the semen has been detached the subsequent touch is of no consequence.  And Abaye?  — He takes into consideration the possibility of an additional discharge. And Raba? — He does not consider the possibility of an additional discharge. But does he not?  Was it not in fact taught: 'To what may this be compared? To the putting of a finger upon the eye when, so long as the finger remains on it, the eye continues to tear'? Now Raba?  — It is unusual to get heated twice in immediate succession. Samuel ruled, Any semen the emission of which is not felt throughout one's body causes no uncleanness. What is the reason? — The All Merciful has said, The flow of seed,  implying that the text  deals only with such as is fit to produce seed. An objection was raised: If a man was troubled with unchaste thoughts in the night and when he rose up he found his flesh heated, he is unclean!  — R. Huna explained this to apply to a man who dreamt of indulging in sexual intercourse, it being impossible to indulge in the act without experiencing the sensation. Another rendering: Samuel ruled, Any semen which does not shoot forth like an arrow causes no uncleanness. What is the practical difference between the latter reading and the former reading? — The practical difference between them is the case where the detachment of the semen was perceived but the emergence was not felt.  Now this ruling which was quite obvious to Samuel was a matter of enquiry for Raba. For Raba enquired: What is the law where the detachment of the semen was perceived but its emergence was not felt?  — Come and hear: If a man who emitted semen performed immersion  before he had made water, his uncleanness is resumed when he makes water!  — There it is different, since the emergence of most of the semen was perceived. Others have a different reading: Samuel ruled, Any semen which does not shoot forth like an arrow causes no fructification. It is only fructification that it does not cause but it does cause uncleanness, for it is said in Scripture. If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of that which chanceth him,  which implies: Even a chance emission  whatever its nature. Raba enquired: What is the law where an idolater indulged in sexual thoughts,  and then  he went down and performed ritual immersion?  If you were to find some case where we follow the time of detachment  [the question would arise]. Does this apply only where the law is thereby restricted,  but not here  where the law would thereby be relaxed,  or is it possible that no distinction is made? — This is undecided. Raba enquired: What is the ruling where the urine of a zabah had been detached from the source  and then she went down and performed ritual immersion?  If you were to find some case where we follow the time of the detachment [the question would arise], Does this apply only to semen, since it cannot be restrained,  but not to her urine which she is able to restrain,  or is it possible that no distinction is made? — This is undecided. Raba enquired: What is the law where the urine of an idolatress  who was a zabah had been detached