Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : and she descended to the ritual bath and immersed for the sake of conversion, what is the halakha?
וְיָרְדָה וְטָבְלָה — מַהוּ?
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר בָּתַר עֲקִירָה אָזְלִינַן, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמָצֵי נָקֵיט לְהוּ — הָנֵי מִילֵּי יִשְׂרְאֵלִית דִּטְמֵאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל גּוֹיָה זָבָה דִּטְמֵאָה דְּרַבָּנַן — לָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § 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).
וּמְטַמְּאִין בְּכֹל שֶׁהֵן. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זָב צָרִיךְ כַּחֲתִימַת פִּי הָאַמָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אוֹ הֶחְתִּים בְּשָׂרוֹ מִזּוֹבוֹ״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: מְטַמְּאִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן! הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי נָתָן, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: זָב צָרִיךְ כַּחֲתִימַת פִּי הָאַמָּה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אוֹ הֶחְתִּים בְּשָׂרוֹ מִזּוֹבוֹ״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ: לַח מְטַמֵּא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא יָבֵשׁ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.”
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? הָהוּא מֵ״רָר״ נָפְקָא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
וְרַבָּנַן? הָהוּא לְמִנְיָנָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא: ״זוֹבוֹ״ — חֲדָא, ״רָר בְּשָׂרוֹ״ — תְּרֵי, ״אֶת זוֹבוֹ״ — תְּלָת, לִימֵּד עַל זָב בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּקׇרְבָּן.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
״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 סִימַאי.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: מָנָה הַכָּתוּב שְׁתַּיִם וּקְרָאוֹ ״טָמֵא״, שָׁלֹשׁ וּקְרָאוֹ ״טָמֵא״. הָא כֵיצַד? שְׁתַּיִם לַטּוּמְאָה, וְשָׁלֹשׁ לַקׇּרְבָּן.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
וּלְמַאן דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מִ״זֹּאת תִּהְיֶה טוּמְאָתוֹ בְּזוֹבוֹ״, ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה זָב מִבְּשָׂרוֹ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִבְּשָׂרוֹ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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)? The Gemara explains that this 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.
״זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא״ לְמָה לִי? לִימֵּד עַל הַזּוֹב שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא.