impure, for removing it and clearing it away is less burdensome than purifying oneself on its account. If the more burdensome obligation is required, the lighter one is all the more warranted. This applies especially according to those who hold that the private parts must be cleansed after its discharge, since such cleansing consists of removing it and clearing it away. If removing it from its point of discharge is obligatory, removing it from elsewhere is even more warranted.

The third argument:

It belongs to the same category as pre-ejaculatory fluid and is therefore impure, like that fluid. Pre-ejaculatory fluid emerges during the initial stages of sexual arousal, whereas semen—the source of that fluid—emerges when arousal reaches its fullness. It passes through the same channel and emerges from the same opening. If the derivative is deemed impure, then its source is all the more deserving of that ruling.

The fourth argument:

It is discharged from the penis, or from the front passage, and is therefore impure, like all other discharges, such as urine, pre-ejaculatory fluid, and post-urinary discharge. This is because the ruling of impurity depends on the outlet. Do you not see that waste substances discharged from the upper parts of the body are not impure, whereas those discharged from its lower parts are impure, even though both undergo transformation within the body?

The fifth argument:

It is transformed blood, for it is blood that sexual desire has bleached. This is why it emerges red when intercourse is frequent. Blood is impure, and, according to you, an impure substance does not become pure through transformation.