And if you would say that it is certainly possible that she released all the semen, but Rava’s concern was that perhaps some of it might have remained, if so, he should have said: We are concerned that perhaps some semen remained and will be discharged, rather than: It is impossible for her not to discharge semen throughout this period.

Rather, according to Rava too, this is referring even to a case where others immersed her while she was still in bed and she remained there for three days. And the contradiction is not difficult: Here, in the statement of Rava, he is referring to a woman who turns around in bed from side to side. It is therefore certain that she will discharge semen over the course of three days. There, in the statement of Rabbi Shimon, he is speaking of a woman lying in bed who does not turn around from side to side. Such a woman will not discharge semen at all.

And the statement of Rava is referring to a verse in the Torah, and this is what he is saying: When the Merciful One writes in the Torah, with regard to a man and woman who engaged in intercourse: “They shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:18), which indicates that when evening comes the woman’s purification is complete, it is dealing with a case where she is in bed and does not turn around from side to side. But in a case where she does turn around, she is prohibited from partaking of teruma for the entire three days following the intercourse, as it is impossible for her not to discharge semen throughout this period.

Rav Shmuel bar Bisna asked Abaye: With regard to a woman who discharges semen, is her status that of one who experienced an emission of an impure substance, or is her status that of one who came into contact with an impure substance?

The practical difference between these two possibilities is threefold: Whether or not the discharge negates her counting of seven clean days at the end of the ziva period, whether or not it renders her impure by any amount, and whether or not it renders her impure while still inside her body as it would after emerging out of her body. If it is considered an emission of an impure substance, it negates her count of seven clean days, and it renders her impure even in the slightest amount, and it renders her impure even before it emerges from her body. If it renders her impure because she came into contact with it, it does not negate her count, it renders her impure only if a certain minimum amount emerges, and it renders her impure only after touching the outside of her body.

Before addressing the dilemma, the Gemara raises a difficulty with Rav Shmuel bar Bisna’s question itself: Whichever way you look at it, the question is problematic. If he had heard the baraita cited above, the answer is obvious: According to the Rabbis, her status is that of one who experienced an emission of an impure substance, as the baraita clearly states that in the Rabbis’ opinion the woman is rendered impure even before the semen emerges from her body. And according to Rabbi Shimon, her status is that of one who came into contact with the impure substance, as Rabbi Shimon states that the woman is impure only when the semen emerges from her body.

And if Rav Shmuel bar Bisna did not hear the baraita and was unaware of it, it is certainly more reasonable to assume that her status should be that of one who came into contact with the semen. Why would he think otherwise, as after all, the emitted substance did not originate in her body?

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav Shmuel bar Bisna had heard the baraita, and he did not raise the dilemma according to the opinion of the Rabbis. According to their opinion it is clear that the woman has the status of one who experienced an emission of an impure bodily substance. Rather, when he raises the dilemma, it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

And he does not raise the dilemma with regard to the question of whether or not the semen renders her impure when it is inside the body as it would after emerging outside the body, as Rabbi Shimon states explicitly that the woman is impure only when the semen leaves her body. Rather, when he raises the dilemma, it is only with regard to the other two issues mentioned above: Whether or not the discharge negates her counting of seven clean days at the end of the ziva period, and whether or not it renders her impure in any amount. He therefore asked: What is the status of her discharge of semen with respect to these two matters?

The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: It is possible that when Rabbi Shimon says: It is sufficient for her to be like the man who engaged in intercourse with her, this statement applies only with regard to the question of whether or not the semen renders her impure when it is inside the body as it would after emerging outside the body. It does not render her impure unless it touches her body on the outside. But with regard to the question of whether or not the discharge negates her counting of seven clean days at the end of the ziva period and whether or not it renders her impure in any amount, perhaps she is considered impure as one who experienced an emission of an impure substance. Or perhaps there is no difference. Rather, with regard to all three issues she has the status of one who came into contact with an impure substance.

There are those who say a different explanation of Rav Shmuel bar Bisna’s dilemma: Actually, he did not hear the baraita and was unaware of it. And as for the question of why he would think that the woman should have the status of one who experienced an emission of an impure bodily substance, this was his dilemma: Since the Merciful One was stringent before the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai with regard to men who had experienced a seminal emission, in that they were prohibited from attending that event, as it is stated: “Be ready on the third day; do not come near a woman” (Exodus 19:15), whereas those who had come into contact with other impure items were not prohibited from attending, perhaps the stringency of this particular source of impurity should likewise be applied to a woman who discharges semen. If so, her status should be like one who experienced a seminal emission, rather than one who merely came into contact with semen.

The Gemara explains the other side of the dilemma: Or perhaps we should not derive any halakhot from the instructions given before the revelation at Sinai, as that was a novelty. The Gemara cites a proof for this claim: As that was the case with regard to zavin and lepers, whose impurity is even more stringent than that of one who experiences a seminal emission, but nevertheless the Merciful One was not stringent with regard to them, as He permitted them to attend the ceremony of the giving of the Torah.

After clarifying Rav Shmuel bar Bisna’s dilemma, the Gemara cites Abaye’s answer to him. Abaye said to him: The woman’s status is that of one who experienced an emission of semen. Rav Shmuel bar Bisna came and asked Rava the same question, and he too said to him: The woman’s status is that of one who experienced an emission. He came before Rav Yosef, and he too said to him: Her status is that of one who experienced an emission. Rav Shmuel bar Bisna came back to Abaye and said to him: You are all spewing the same saliva. None of you are teaching anything new, as you all repeat the same unsatisfactory answer.

Abaye said to him: I said well to you, i.e., my response was correct. Rabbi Shimon says that it is sufficient for the woman to be like the man who engaged in intercourse with her only with regard to the question of whether or not the semen renders her impure while still inside her body as it would after emerging out of her body. Rabbi Shimon rules that it does not render her impure until it touches her on the outside. But with regard to the other two issues, i.e., negating the woman’s count of seven clean days at the end of a ziva period and rendering her impure in any amount, Rabbi Shimon maintains that the woman’s status is that of one who experienced an emission. Therefore, the discharge negates her count and renders her impure by any amount.

§ The Gemara continues to discuss types of ritual impurity that apply whether the impure substance is still inside the body or has been discharged from it. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a menstruating woman, a zava, a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge, and a woman after childbirth, they all become impure while the blood is still inside their bodies just as they would be when the blood emerges outside their bodies.

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to all those other cases, it is well, i.e., one can understand this ruling with regard to blood that has not left the body. But the halakha of a woman after childbirth is puzzling, since if this is referring to blood that she discharges in her days of menstruation, then she is a menstruating woman, and she is included in the earlier category. Likewise, if the baraita is referring to blood that she discharges in her days of ziva, she has the status of ziva, and once again is included in a previously mentioned category.

The Gemara answers: No, the mention of a woman after childbirth is necessary only in a case where the days of ritual impurity after childbirth, which are seven for a male and fourteen for a female, have passed, and the woman descended to immerse in a ritual bath in order to emerge from her status of impurity to purity.

And the halakha here is like that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: In the case of a woman after childbirth who descended to immerse in a ritual bath in order to emerge from her status of impurity to purity, and blood was uprooted from her uterus but it did not leave her body, her status is as follows: If this occurred on her descent to the ritual bath, she remains impure, as the immersion is ineffective. If it happened on her ascent from the bath, she is pure, as her period of purity, which is thirty-three days for a male and sixty-six for a female, has commenced.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira, with regard to this halakha: If the blood emerged on her descent to immerse, why is she impure? After all, the blood is a substance of impurity that is encapsulated inside a body, and there is a halakha that an encapsulated source of impurity does not impart impurity to other items (see Ḥullin 71a). Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Go and ask Rabbi Avin, as I explained to him the reason for this halakha, and he nodded [vekharkish] his head to me in the study hall, in affirmation of my explanation.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya indeed went and asked Rabbi Avin the reason, and Rabbi Avin said to Rabbi Yirmeya: The Sages rendered this blood like the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, which imparts impurity even to the garments of the one who eats it, when there is an olive-bulk of it in his throat, despite the fact that this source of impurity is encapsulated in his body. Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Avin: Are these cases comparable? How can one compare the impurity of a woman after childbirth to the impurity of one who eats the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird?