Commento su Levitico 15:33

והזב את זובו — This refers to anyone who has two appearances and to anyone who has three appearances, the law regarding whom is set forth above (cf. Rashi on v. 3).

והדוה בנדתה, the word דוה alludes to something sinful, hence she became ritually defiled.

One who has had two sightings. Rashi is answering the question: It compares a zov to one who had a seminal emission (v. 32) to let us know that his impurity is only like that of one who had a seminal emission, which is impurity until the evening. But afterwards it is written: “For the menstruant woman during her period of separation...” comparing him to a menstruant woman, whose impurity is more severe. On this Rashi explains that this refers to one who had two sightings, whose is impurity is more severe as explained above: One who has two sightings is compared to a menstruant woman who does not bring a sacrifice. By mentioning three [types of] persons with a discharge Scripture teaches that one who has had three sightings brings a sacrifice as well, as it is explained clearly in the section above (v. 14).

עם טמאה, “with a ritually impure woman, be she afflicted with emissions of blood at unusual times, or while she counts the days before purification.

והזב, the thoughts we must entertain when studying this subject is that we must reflect on the original sin.

את זובו לזכר ולנקבה, at this point we must consider the difference between the legislation governing a man’s involuntary seminal-like ejaculation, and that of a woman. A woman’s discharge confers impurity only if it is reddish, whereas the parallel discharge by a male confers impurity only if it is not reddish.

ולאיש אשר ישכב עם טמאה, here we also have to reflect on the subject of a man deliberately indulging in sexual intercourse with a ritually contaminated woman. The Torah had written (verse 24) ותהי נדתה עליו, “her state of menstrual separation will apply to him.” There is no parallel verse describing such a result as due to a ritually pure woman sleeping with a man who was a zav at the time. [the ritual impurity of the zav was induced by a diseased body, as opposed to menstruation which is a natural state ever since the original sin. Ed.] There appears to be a dichotomy there. The Torah teaches that when a man is violating sexual mores he causes more spiritually negative fallout to himself than when a woman does the same thing in reverse. At least, there appears to be a difference between sickness induced by individual sin, such as zav and zavah as well as in the case of tzoraat, which we explained as also a sickness due to individual sin, not to the spiritual state of man, the species, since the original sin. This is why voluntary carnal association with the menstruant woman is a greater sin than voluntary carnal association with zav or zavah.