and not if it was in the interior of its interior, i.e., contained within something else, such as a fold, which is inside the vessel, therefore Rava teaches us that a fold in one’s body is not considered like the interior of the interior of a vessel. Rather, this definition applies only when the carcass of the creeping animal was actually inside another vessel whose opening was outside the oven.

§ The Gemara continues to discuss the folds in the body with regard to ritual impurity. Reish Lakish says: If there was a pole or a stick placed in the folds of an individual impure with the impurity of a zav, and he moved a ritually pure person with it, that individual is pure, despite the fact that a zav imparts impurity by moving an item. If the pole was placed in the folds of one who is pure, and he moved the zav with it, the pure individual is thereby rendered impure, as is the halakha of one who carries a zav.

The Gemara explains: What is the reason that if a zav moved another with a pole in his own folds he does not render the other person impure? As the verse states: “And whoever a zav touches, without having rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water” (Leviticus 15:11). This is referring to the impurity imparted by the movement of a zav, as we have not found an impurity similar to it in the entire Torah. Only a zav imparts impurity to items by moving them.

And the Merciful One expresses this impurity imparted by movement using the language of touch, in order to say that the moving and touch of a zav are like his hands: Just as there, with regard to the impurity imparted by contact with the hands, it occurs external to the body, so too here, impurity by means of movement applies only to moving an item with the external portions of the body of the zav.

§ The mishna teaches that a woman becomes ritually impure with the flow of blood from the uterus into the vagina, even if it did not leave the woman’s body. But the zav and one who experiences a seminal emission do not become ritually impure until their emission of impurity emerges outside the body. The Gemara explains: This is the halakha with regard to a zav, as it is written: “When any man has an issue out of his flesh” (Leviticus 15:2). The verse teaches that a zav is not impure until his issue emerges out of his flesh. With regard to one who experiences a seminal emission, the reason is that it is written: “And if the flow of seed goes out from a man” (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that the flow must exit his body.

§ The mishna further states that if a priest was partaking of teruma and sensed a quaking in his limbs, indicating that a seminal emission was imminent, he should firmly hold his penis to prevent the emission from leaving his body, and swallow the teruma while ritually pure. The Gemara asks: May one hold his penis? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who holds his penis and urinates is considered as though he is bringing a deluge to the world, as masturbation was one of the sins that led to the flood?

Abaye said, in resolution of this difficulty, that the mishna is referring to one who holds his penis with a coarse cloth. Rava said: You may even say that the mishna is referring to a priest who holds his penis with a soft cloth, and the reason it is permitted is that once the semen has already been uprooted from his body, it is uprooted, and his subsequent holding of the penis, even with a soft cloth, does not increase the flow of semen. And Abaye prohibits the use of a soft cloth, as he is concerned that perhaps one might come to increase the emission of semen, due to the contact of this cloth. But Rava is not concerned that one might come to increase the emission.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rava. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: To what is this holding of a penis comparable? It is comparable to one who places a finger in his eye, in that as long as the finger is in the eye, the eye will tear and continue to tear. Here too, the priest’s action will lead to an increased emission of semen.

The Gemara answers that Rava would maintain that if the priest’s limbs were not quaking and the semen was coming out in drops, there is indeed a concern that holding the penis might increase the emission. But when he feels his limbs quaking, this concern does not apply. The reason is that any such event, i.e., a heating of the body that leads to a seminal emission and which is then followed by another heating of that kind at the time when the semen has been uprooted, is uncommon. Consequently, in this case the priest may hold his penis even with a soft cloth.

Shmuel says: Any emission of semen that is not felt by one’s entire body does not render him impure. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “The flow of seed” (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that it is referring to an emission that is fit to fertilize, i.e., it is referring only to the kind of emission which is felt as it exits the body.

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Mikvaot 8:3): If one was having sexual thoughts at night and he arose and found that his flesh was warm, he is ritually impure, despite the fact that he did not sense the emission of semen. This shows that the impurity of a seminal emission applies even if one did not feel it in his entire body. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna interpreted this mishna as referring to one who engaged in intercourse in his dream. Since it is impossible to engage in intercourse without the accompanying sensation, he certainly must have felt it, despite the fact that he was unaware of this when he awoke.

The Gemara cites another version of the above statement. Shmuel says: Any semen that is not shot like an arrow does not render one impure. The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between this version of Shmuel’s ruling and that version of Shmuel’s ruling? The Gemara answers that the difference between them is a case where the semen was uprooted accompanied by a sensation, but it emerged without a sensation. According to the first version the man is rendered impure, as he sensed the uprooting of the semen, whereas according to the second version he is not impure, as this is not considered semen shot like an arrow.

The Gemara notes that this matter, which is obvious to Shmuel, is raised as a dilemma by Rava. As Rava raises a dilemma: If semen was uprooted accompanied by a sensation but it emerged without a sensation, what is the halakha? Is the man ritually impure or not?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Mikvaot 8:3): With regard to one who experienced a seminal emission, and who subsequently immersed but did not urinate before doing so, when he later urinates he is rendered impure, as some semen will also be emitted. The reason that he is rendered impure by this emission, which he does not sense, must be because the uprooting of the semen was accompanied by a sensation. The Gemara refutes this proof: There it is different, as the majority of the semen emerged accompanied by a sensation, and therefore he is rendered impure by this small amount even without a sensation.

Some say another version of the previous discussion. Shmuel says: Any semen that is not shot like an arrow cannot fertilize, i.e., impregnate a woman. The Gemara infers: It cannot fertilize, but it does render the man who emits it ritually impure, as it is stated: “If there be among you any man who is not ritually pure by reason of that which happened to him by night” (Deuteronomy 23:11). This teaches that even mere semen which cannot fertilize renders one impure.

Rava raises a similar dilemma: With regard to a gentile who had sexual thoughts, on account of which semen was uprooted but not emitted from his body, and he subsequently descended and immersed for the purpose of conversion, which means that he is now Jewish, and he then emitted semen, what is the halakha with regard to his status of ritual purity?

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Even if you say that we follow the moment of uprooting, at which point he was still a gentile, one can maintain that this statement applies only when it entails a stringency, as is the case with regard to a born Jew. But here, where this would lead to a leniency, as the gentile would be ritually pure, perhaps we do not say that one follows the moment of uprooting. Or perhaps there is no difference in the application of this principle between a born Jew and a convert, but rather, one always follows the moment of uprooting. The Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Rava raises a further dilemma: With regard to a woman who experienced a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava], whose urine, which imparts impurity like all liquids that she discharges vaginally, was uprooted but not emitted from her body, and she descended to the ritual bath and immersed to purify herself from her ziva, and urinated afterward, what is the halakha?

The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Even if you say that generally we follow the moment of uprooting, and therefore she should be impure, since the urine was uprooted when she was a zava, nevertheless one can claim that this statement applies only with regard to semen, as the man cannot hold it back from emission. But with regard to the urine of a zava, which she can hold in, one does not follow the moment of uprooting. Or perhaps there is no difference in the application of this principle between urine and semen, but rather, in both cases one follows the moment of uprooting. Here too, the Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Rava raises yet another dilemma: With regard to a gentile zava, who is not impure by Torah law, although by rabbinic law she is considered a zava in all regards, whose urine was uprooted when she was a gentile,