Midrash su Levitico 15:78

(Gen. 6:9:) THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH. [Let our master instruct us: For how many transgressions do women die at the time of their childbirth? Thus] have our masters taught (in Shab. 2:6):¹Tanh., Gen. 2:1. WOMEN DIE AT THE TIME OF THEIR CHILDBIRTH FOR THREE TRANSGRESSIONS: [BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CAREFUL IN REGARD TO MENSTRUATION, IN REGARD TO THE HALLAH,²I.e., the priest’s share of the dough. AND IN REGARD TO THE LIGHTING OF THE < SABBATH > LAMP. These three commandments are also from the Torah.] Where is it shown about menstruation? Where it is stated (in Lev. 15:25): AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD. And where is it shown about the hallah? Where it is stated (in Numb. 15:20): YOU SHALL SET ASIDE THE FIRST OF YOUR DOUGH AS A HALLAH OFFERING. And where is it shown about the Sabbath lamp? Where it is stated (in Is. 58:13): AND YOU CALL THE SABBATH A DELIGHT. And why are the women charged with regard to these commandments?³Gen.R. 17:8; yShab. 2:4 (5b). Our sages have said: In the creation of the world Adam was first. Then came Eve, and she shed his blood in that he had heeded her. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 3:19): FOR DUST YOU ARE AND TO DUST YOU SHALL RETURN. The Holy One said: Let her be given the commandment of menstrual blood [so that she may have atonement] for that blood which she shed. And why the commandment of the hallah? Because Adam was the hallah of the world when she came and defiled him,⁴Cf. Gen. R. 14:1. the Holy One said: Let her be given the commandment of hallah so that she may have atonement for the hallah of the world, which she defiled. And where is it shown that Adam is the hallah of the world? Thus have our masters taught (in Hal. 3:1): ONCE THE WOMAN PUTS WATER into the dough, SHE IS TO REMOVE HER HALLAH. Thus did the Holy One do. R. Jose ben Qetsarta said: Once the Holy One put water on the ground, he immediately removed Adam as his hallah from the ground. Thus it says (in Gen. 2:6): BUT A MIST ('D) WENT UP FROM THE EARTH. THEN immediately (in vs. 7) THE LORD GOD FORMED < THE HUMAN ('DM) OUT OF DUST FROM THE GROUND >…. And the commandment of the lamp exists because Adam was the lamp of the Holy One, as stated (in Prov. 20:27): THE LAMP OF {GOD} [THE LORD] IS THE BREATH OF ADAM. But Eve came and extinguished it. The Holy One said: Let her be given the commandment of the lamp in order that she may have atonement for the lamp which she extinguished. Thus women have been charged with the commandments of the Sabbath lamp. The Holy One said: If you are careful with the Sabbath lamp, I also will be shining for you, as stated (in Is. 60:19): FOR THE LORD SHALL BE YOUR EVERLASTING LIGHT.

Pesachim (Fol. 3) R. Joshua b. Levi said: "A man should never bring forth from his mouth an unfit word, for the Scripture uses a circumlocution of eight [extra] letters in order to avoid an ugly word; for it is said (Gen. 4, 2) Of the clean beasts and of the beasts that are not clean." R. Papa said: "A circumlocution of nine letters is found in the Scripture; for it is said (Deu. 23, 11) If there be among thee, any man that is not clean." Rabina said: "Ten letters [is the circumlocution]; for in the same text there is also an extra letter, Vav." R. Acha b. Jacob said: "Sixteen extra letters are used [in order to avoid an unfit word], as it is said (I Sam. 20, 26) For he thought something hath befallen him, he is not clean, because he has not yet purified himself [in order to avoid the word impure]." At the academy of R. Ishmael, it was taught that a man should always speak in clean language, since the seat of a male zab the passage calls (Lev. 15, 9) saddle, and the seat of a female zab the passage calls (Ib.) sitting place. This principle is also supported by the following passage (Job 15, 5 ) So that thou choosest the language of the prudent. Also by another passage (Ib. 33, 3) And my lips utter knowledge clearly. Why does he cite all these passages [is not the first one sufficient]? You will perhaps say that this applies only to Biblical matters, but for Rabbinical matters any language might be used. Come, listen; it is said, So that thou choosest a language of the prudent. And if you will say that this applies only to Rabbinical matters, but for secular affairs, any language might be used. Come, Listen to this passage; And my lips utter knowledge clearly.

These are: The duty with regard to menstruation,¹A woman must remain apart from her husband during her menstrual period. for it is written: And if a woman have an issue of her blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days (Lev. 15:25); the duty of the levy of dough,²A portion of the dough, removed before baking bread, that is dedicated to God. During the Temple period it was given to the priest, but after the destruction of the Temple it was burned. for it is written: Of the first of your dough ye shall set apart a cake for a gift (Num. 15:20); and the duty of lighting the Sabbath lights, for it is written: And call the Sabbath a delight (Isa. 58:13). If one chooses to sit in darkness, the Sabbath would not then be a delight, since darkness is imposed upon those condemned to Gehenna,³Hell. One of the seven things formed two thousand years before creation. as it says: A land of thick darkness, as darkness itself (Job 10:22).

This is the source for the sages' gradations of partitions (mechitzoth). Wherever zav confers tumah, metzora (leper) confers tumah. metzora is of greater stringency (than zav) in that it confers tumah upon one who enters (a house afflicted with tzara'ath [viz. Vayikra 14:46] [— wherefore a metzora is sent out of all three camps]). Wherever tamei meth confers tumah, zav confers tumah. zav is of greater stringency (than tamei meth) in that it confers tumah under an even mesama (a stone beneath which there is a cavity [viz. Vayikra 15:9] [— wherefore a zav is sent out of two camps]). Wherever tvul yom (one who has immersed in the daytime [pending purification in the evening]) confers tumah, tamei meth confers tumah. tamei meth is of greater stringency (than tvul yom) in that it confers tumah upon a man (who touches him, viz. [Bamidbar 19:22] [— wherefore a tamei meth is sent out of one camp]). Wherever one's lacking atonement (through an offering) renders (him) unfit (for eating consecrated food) tvul yom renders (him) unfit. tvul yom is of greater stringency (than one's lacking atonement) in that he renders terumah unfit.

(Fol. 14a) Our Rabbis taught that: "The sea which Solomon made was as large as one hundred and fifty Mikvaoth." Now, let us see what the size of a Mikva is? Forty Seali, as we are taught. Then shall he bathe his whole body in water (Lev. 15, 16), i.e., In water of a Mikva; His whole body (Ib.), i.e., so much water shall be used that it shall cover the whole body. How much does that require? A square cubic by three cubics in height. And the Rabbis have estimated the quantity of the water in a Mikva to be forty Seah.

1) "And He called to Moses and the L–rd spoke to him, etc." "to him" — to exclude Aaron. R. Yehudah b. Betheira said: Thirteen dibroth (accompanied by a command) were stated in the Torah to Moses and Aaron, and, corresponding to them, thirteen limitations, to teach us that they were not spoken to Aaron, but to Moses, to tell them to Aaron. (The dibroth: 1) [Shemoth 6:13]; 2) [Shemoth 7:8]; 3) [Shemoth 9:8]; 4) [Shemoth 12:1]; 5) [Shemoth 12:43]; 6) [Vayikra 11:1]; 7) [Vayikra 13:1]; 8) [Vayikra 14:33]; 9 [Vayikra 15:1]; 10 [Bamidbar 2:1]; 11 [Bamidbar 4:1]; 12 [Bamidbar 4:18]; 13) [Bamidbar 19:2].)

1) (Vayikra 15:10) ("And whoever touches anything that is beneath him shall be unclean until the evening, and one who carries them shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.") "And whoever touches anything that is beneath him": beneath the zav (i.e., if one touches the saddle). I might think (that the meaning is) "beneath it," the saddle. It follows a fortiori (that this cannot be said), for if the zav (himself), the stringent (instance), does not confer tumah upon vessels requiring rinsing (to release them from tumah) except by touch (of the zav himself), then the saddle, the less stringent (instance), how much more so does it not confer tumah upon vessels requiring rinsing, except by touch. How, then, am I to understand "And whoever touches anything that is tachtav? As meaning "beneath him," the zav, (i.e., if one touches the saddle).

1) (Vayikra 15:12) ("And an earthen vessel which the zav touches shall be broken, and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water.") "earthen vessel": This tells me only of an earthen vessel. Whence do I derive for inclusion a vessel made of alum crystals? From "And an earthen vessel. "which the zav touches": I might think even if he touches it from the back it becomes tamei. But (why is a verse needed for this?) It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a dead body, the stringent instance (of tumah), does not confer tumah upon an earthen vessel from the back, then zav, the lesser instance, how much more so does it not confer tumah upon an earthen vessel from the back! — No, this may be so with a dead body, which does not effect (tumah of) mishkav and moshav, as opposed to a zav, which does effect such tumah. And since it does, I would think that since it does so, it would confer tumah upon earthen vessels from the back. It is, therefore, written (lit.,) "which the zav touches bo" ["in it"], and, elsewhere (Vayikra 6:21) (lit.,) "which is cooked bo." Just as there, the meaning is "in its atmosphere", here, too, the meaning is "in its atmosphere" (and not if he touches it from the back).

1) (Vayikra 15:13) ("And when the zav is cleansed of his flux, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be clean.") "and when the zav is cleansed of his flux": when his flux ceases. "of his flux": of his flux and not of his plague-spot (If in addition to his flux he had a [leprous] plague-spot, he need not wait until he is also healed of his plague-spot, but he may count the seven days for it immediately and be cleansed thereby from the specific tumah conferred by a zav.) "of his flux and he shall count": Even a partial flux (i.e., fewer than three) requires the seven-day count.

1) (Vayikra 15:16) ("And a man, if there issue from him semen, then he shall bathe all of his flesh with water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.") "And a man": excluding a minor. I might think to exclude, then, a minor of nine years and one day, (who may have viable semen); it is, therefore, written "and a man" (to include the foregoing).

1) (Vayikra 15:19) ("And a woman, if she will have a flow, (if) blood shall be her flow in her flesh, seven days shall she be in her niddah state, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.") "And a woman": This tells me only of a woman. Whence do we derive that even a one-day-old child (is included in this context of niddah)? From "And a woman" — whence they ruled: A one-day-old child for niddah; a ten-day-old child for zivah (seven days of niddah flow and three additional days of zivah flow).

1) I might think that if she sees (a flow) three (consecutive days) in the beginning (i.e., before the onset of her niddah time) she becomes a zavah (to count seven clean days and to bring an offering). And how will I understand (Vayikra 15:19) "And a woman, if she has a flow, etc." (where seven clean days and an offering are not required)? As referring to (her seeing for) one day; but if she sees for three days in the beginning (as above) she would become a zavah (for counting clean days and for an offering). It is, therefore written (Vayikra 15 verse 25) "above her niddah state" — She becomes tamei (for the above purposes) after her niddah state, and not in the beginning (i.e., before the onset of her niddah time.)

1) (Vayikra 15:2) ("Speak to the children of Israel, etc.") The children of Israel become tamei with zivah (a type of genital discharge); gentiles do not become tamei with zivah (by edict of the Torah). But even though they do not become tamei with zivah, they confer tumah as zavim (by Rabbinical enactment). And terumah is burned because of them (by their touching it), and there is no liability because of them for entering the sanctuary (i.e., If a gentile zav touched a Jew and he entered the sanctuary unwittingly, he is not liable to bring an offering.) If "the children of Israel," this tells me only of (native) Israelites. Whence do I derive for inclusion proselytes and bondsmen? From "and you shall say to them." "a man": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive a minor for inclusion? From "a man, a man." These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon b. R. Yochanan b. B'rokah says: It is written (Vayikra 15:22) "and of one who flows his flux for male or for female." "for male": anyone (even a minor) who is a male. "or for female": whether grown or a minor.

1) (Vayikra 15:2) ("Speak to the children of Israel, etc.") The children of Israel become tamei with zivah (a type of genital discharge); gentiles do not become tamei with zivah (by edict of the Torah). But even though they do not become tamei with zivah, they confer tumah as zavim (by Rabbinical enactment). And terumah is burned because of them (by their touching it), and there is no liability because of them for entering the sanctuary (i.e., If a gentile zav touched a Jew and he entered the sanctuary unwittingly, he is not liable to bring an offering.) If "the children of Israel," this tells me only of (native) Israelites. Whence do I derive for inclusion proselytes and bondsmen? From "and you shall say to them." "a man": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive a minor for inclusion? From "a man, a man." These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon b. R. Yochanan b. B'rokah says: It is written (Vayikra 15:22) "and of one who flows his flux for male or for female." "for male": anyone (even a minor) who is a male. "or for female": whether grown or a minor.

1) (Vayikra 15:24) ("And if a man lie, lie, with her, then her niddah state shall be upon him, and he shall be unclean for seven days; and every mishkav on which he lies shall be unclean.") "lie, lie": to include two manners of lying (i.e., natural coitus and unnatural [sodomy]). "And if lie, lie": to include peripheral (non consummated) contact. "a man": to exclude a minor. I might think to exclude one of nine years and a day (or older). It is, therefore, written "and if he lie, lie." (and one of that age comes within the context of "lying.")

1) (Vayikra 15:25) ("And a woman, if the flow of her blood flows many days, not in the time of her niddah period; or if she flows beyond her niddah period, then all the days of the flow of her uncleanliness, as the days of her niddah state shall she be; she is unclean.") "a woman": whether a Jewess, or a convert, or a maidservant, or a free maid-servant. "if there flows the flow of her blood": "her blood": the blood which is attributable to her, and not that which is attributable to the onset of childbirth (in the possible zivah days, i.e., the three days after the seven-day niddah period). — But perhaps the meaning is: because of herself (i.e., her bodily state [including the onset of childbirth]), and not her blood which is attributable to some (external) accident! — (This cannot be,) for the redundant "flow" includes external accidents. How then am I to understand "her blood"? As that which is attributable to her, and not to the (pressure of) the fetus.

1) I might think that if she sees (a flow) three (consecutive days) in the beginning (i.e., before the onset of her niddah time) she becomes a zavah (to count seven clean days and to bring an offering). And how will I understand (Vayikra 15:19) "And a woman, if she has a flow, etc." (where seven clean days and an offering are not required)? As referring to (her seeing for) one day; but if she sees for three days in the beginning (as above) she would become a zavah (for counting clean days and for an offering). It is, therefore written (Vayikra 15 verse 25) "above her niddah state" — She becomes tamei (for the above purposes) after her niddah state, and not in the beginning (i.e., before the onset of her niddah time.)

1) (Vayikra 15:28) "And if she is cleansed of her flow, then she shall count for herself seven days, and after, she shall be clean.") "And if she is cleansed of her flow": (The meaning is) "when (her flow) ceases" (and not "when she has immersed herself"). "of her flow": and not of her flow and her plague-spot. (viz. Chapter 5:1). "then she shall count for her": for herself (i.e., she may be trusted to do so). "seven (clean) days": I might think (that they may be either consecutive or scattered [i.e., with unclean days intervening between them]). It is, therefore, written "and after, she shall be clean": after all of the (consecutive seven days, she shall be clean).

1) "And this shall be his tumah in his flux": His tumah is contingent upon his flux (i.e., sightings) and not upon (the passage of) days (— two sightings for tumah, three for an offering.)

1) (Vayikra 12:2) ("Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman give forth seed and bear a male, she shall be unclean seven days; as the days of her menstrual flow shall she be unclean.") This applies to "the children of Israel" and not to gentiles (even if she converted within the days of uncleanliness). "the children of Israel": This tells me only of the children of Israel. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) proselytes and maidservants, whether freed or not freed? From (the generic) "a woman." Variantly: Because it is written (Vayikra 15:31): "And you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanliness, that they not die in their uncleanliness by defiling My sanctuary which is in their midst," I might think, whether from its midst or from its back; it is, therefore, written in respect to a yoledeth (a woman after childbirth) (Vayikra 12:4): "And into the sanctuary she shall not come."

1) (Vayikra 20:18) ("And a man who lies with a woman in her flow and reveals her nakedness — he has bared her fountain and she has revealed the fountain of her blood; and both of them shall be cut off from the midst of their people.") "And a man": to exclude a minor. "who lies with a woman in her flow" (davah): "davah" is "niddah," as it is written (Vayikra 15:33) "And she who flows (davah) with her niddah flow, and he who flows with his discharge."

1) (Vayikra 15:4) ("Every [object of] lying which the zav lies down upon shall be tamei, and every implement of sitting which he sits upon shall be tamei.") "which the zav lies down upon": I might think even if he lies on a pit cover or on a door; it is, therefore, written (object of) "lying"; not on a pit cover and not on a door.

1) (Vayikra 15:5) ("And a man who touches what he lay upon shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.") A man who touches a zav's couch confers tumah to his garments; but a zav's couch that touches (another) couch does not confer tumah to garments (lying upon it). (For if not for the verse,) would it not follow a fortiori that it (the other couch) should confer tumah to garments, viz.: If in a place where a man lying under a zav does not become tamei to confer tumah upon men and garments, a couch under a zav does become tamei to confer tumah upon men and garments, then in a place where a man becomes tamei by touching his couch to confer tumah to his garments, how much more so should a couch become tamei by touching a zav's couch to confer tumah to garments (lying upon it)! It must, therefore, be written: "And a man who touches what he lay upon shall wash his clothes" — A man who touches a zav's couch confers tumah to his garments; but a zav's couch that touches (another) couch does not confer tumah to garments (lying upon it).

1) (Vayikra 15:6) ("And one who sits upon the object that the zav sat upon shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.") "and one who sits upon the object that the zav sat upon … shall be unclean.": This tells me only of his sitting upon it and touching it. Whence do I derive the same for ten layers (interposing between him and the couch of the zav beneath them, he sitting on top), even if he is sitting atop a stone? It is, therefore, written "And one who sits upon the object that the zav sat upon … shall become tamei." The (same kind of) place that the zav sits upon and confers tumah (to the couch below), the clean man sits upon and becomes tamei (by the couch of the zav below).

“Many days” – days of suffering, and similarly: “It was during those many days…the children of Israel sighed due to the work, and they cried out, and their plea rose to God from the work” (Exodus 2:23). Were they, in fact, many days? Rather, because they were days of suffering, Scripture related to them as though they were many days.
Similarly: “Many days passed, and the word of the Lord was with Elijah in the third year...”²The third year of a drought decreed by Elijah. (I Kings 18:1). Were they, in fact, many days? Rather, because they were days of suffering, Scripture calls them many days. How many were they? Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: One month in the first year, one month in the last year, and twelve months in the middle, for a total of fourteen months.
And similarly: “[And a woman, if her bloody discharge shall flow] many days” (Leviticus 15:25). Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Days – two, many – three. Are they, in fact, many? Rather, because they are days of suffering, Scripture calls them many days.

“The Lord demolished and had no compassion for all the abodes of Jacob; He destroyed, in His ire, the strongholds of the daughter of Judah. He brought them to the ground; He profaned a kingdom and its princes” (Lamentations 2:2).
“The Lord demolished and had no compassion for all the abodes of Jacob.” Rabbi Pinḥas said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: There were four hundred and eighty synagogues in Jerusalem. From where [is that derived]? “Filled with [mele’ati] justice” (Isaiah 1:21), meleti³¹The word is written without the alef, such that its numerical value is 480: mem–40, lamed–30, tav–400, yod–ten = 480. However, it should be noted that the word does appear with an alef in extant versions of the book of Isaiah. It is possible that the Sages of the midrash had the word without an alef in their editions (Yefe Anaf). Alternatively, since the alef is not pronounced, it is as though it was written without the alef (Midrash HaMevoar). is written. Each one of them had a school and an academy, a school for Bible and an academy for Mishna.
Another matter, “the Lord demolished and had no compassion for all the abodes [neot] of Jacob,” all the pleasant ones [neotav] of Jacob, like Rabbi Yishmael, Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Yeshevav, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, Rabbi Ḥutzpit the disseminator, Rabbi Yehuda the baker, Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon, Rabbi Akiva, ben Azai, and Rabbi Tarfon. Some remove Rabbi Tarfon and insert Rabbi Elazar Ḥarsena.
Rabbi Yoḥanan would expound sixty aspects of “the Lord demolished and had no compassion.” Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] would expound twenty-four aspects. It is not that Rabbi Yoḥanan was superior to Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi], but rather, since Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] was close to the destruction of the Temple, he would remember, expound, cry, and be consoled.³²He would mourn the destruction of the Temple in a more personal way, and the elder Sages with him had personal memories of the Temple and they would all cry. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would then cease expounding the ways in which God did not have compassion, and would share words of consolation (Etz Yosef).
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] would expound: “A star will arise from Jacob” (Numbers 24:17), do not read it as star [kokhav], but rather as fraudulent [kozav]. Rabbi Akiva, when he would look at that bar Koziva,³³Shimon bar Kokhva. he would say: ‘This is the messianic king.’ Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Torata said to him: ‘Akiva, grass will grow in your cheeks and he still will not have come.’ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “The voice is the voice of Jacob [and the hands are the hands of Esau]” (Genesis 27:22), “the voice”—the emperor Hadrian killed eight hundred million people in Beitar.³⁴Thus, “the voice of Jacob” cried out due to the massacre committed by “the hands of Esau” in Beitar (Etz Yosef). Eighty thousand sounders of horns were laying siege to Beitar. Bar Koziva was there, and he had two hundred thousand men with severed fingers.³⁵He would test the courage and commitment of prospective recruits by having them bite off a finger. The Sages sent to him: ‘Until when will you cause Israel to be blemished?’ He said to them: ‘How then can they be tested?’ They said to him: ‘Anyone who does not uproot a Lebanese cedar, let him not be written on your military roster.’³⁶Their strength could be tested by whether or not they could uproot a cedar with their bare hands. He had two hundred thousand of these and two hundred thousand of those. When they would go out to war they would say:³⁷To God. ‘Do not help and do not hinder.’ That is what is written: “Is it not You, God, who had abandoned us, You, God, who would not go out with our armies?” (Psalms 60:12). What would ben Koziva do? He would catch a catapult stone on one of his knees and propel it and kill several of their people.³⁸When the enemy would catapult stones, he would kick them with his knee back to them, and not only would he not be injured, but he would kill several enemy soldiers. This was a demonstration of his incredible strength. It was due to this that Rabbi Akiva said that.³⁹That is why Rabbi Akiva thought he would be the messianic king.
For three and a half years, the emperor Hadrian surrounded Beitar. Rabbi Elazar Hamoda'i was there, engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting. Each and every day, he would pray and say: ‘Master of the universe, do not sit in judgment today.’ Ultimately, [Hadrian] made up his mind to return.⁴⁰Hadrian decided to return to Rome. A certain Cuthite came and found him and said to him: ‘My lord, every day that this chicken wallows in the ashes,⁴¹As long as Rabbi Elazar Hamoda’i continues fasting and wearing sackcloth, which is generally also be accompanied by placing ashes on oneself. you will not conquer it. But wait for me, as I will arrange for you to conquer it today.’ Immediately, he entered through the sewer system of the city. He found Rabbi Elazar, who was standing and praying. He made himself look as though he was whispering into the ear of Rabbi Elazar Hamoda'i. They went and told bar Koziva: ‘Your uncle, Rabbi Elazar, seeks to yield the city to Hadrian.’⁴²The Cuthites were enemies of the Jews, and therefore it looked suspicious for the Cuthite to be whispering into Rabbi Elazar’s ear. He sent and had that Cuthite brought [to him]. He said to him: ‘What did you say to him?’ He said to him: ‘If I tell you, the emperor will kill me.⁴³Literally, “that man.” If I do not tell you, you will kill me. But it is preferable that I have myself killed than having the secrets of the empire revealed.’
Ben Koziva thought that he⁴⁴Rabbi Elazar Hamoda’i. wanted to yield the city. When Rabbi Elazar concluded his prayer, he sent and had him brought. He said to him: ‘What did that Cuthite say to you?’ He said to him: ‘I do not know what he whispered in my ear, and I did not hear anything from him, as I was standing in prayer and I do not know what he was saying.’ Ben Koziva was filled with rage. He gave him one kick with his foot and killed him. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “Woe to the worthless shepherd who abandons the flock; a sword upon his arm and upon his right eye” (Zechariah 11:17). It said to him: ‘You paralyzed the arm of Israel and blinded their right eye; therefore, the arm of this man “will wither and his right eye will go blind”’ (Zechariah 11:17). Immediately, the iniquities caused Beitar to be captured. Ben Koziva was killed and they brought his head to Hadrian. He said: ‘Who killed this one?’ A certain Gontite⁴⁵According to most commentaries, this is another name for the Cuthites. Some interpret the word to mean soldier. said: ‘I killed this one.’ He said: ‘Go and bring him to me.’⁴⁶Hadrian asked for the rest of ben Koziva’s body to be brought to him. He went to bring him, and he found a serpent wrapped around his neck. [Hadrian] said to him: ‘Had his God not killed him, who could have overcome him?’ He applied to him the verse: “If not that their Rock had sold them” (Deuteronomy 32:30).
They were killing them until the horse was submerged in blood until its nostrils. The blood would roll boulders [weighing] forty se’a and would flow four mil into the sea. And lest you say it is proximate to the sea, it is a distance of four mil from the sea. Hadrian had a large vineyard eighteen mil by eighteen mil, like the distance between Tiberias and Tzippori. He surrounded it with a fence of the slain of Beitar.⁴⁷This was to fertilize the vineyard with the flesh and blood. He did not issue a decree [allowing the dead] to be buried, until a certain [new] emperor arose and issued a decree in their regard, and they buried them. Rabbi Huna said: The day that the slain of Beitar were brought to burial, [the blessing]: Who is good and does good, was instituted.⁴⁸The Sages added this blessing to Grace after Meals. Who is good, because they did not decompose, Who does good, because they were brought to burial.
Beitar existed for fifty-two years after the destruction of the Temple. Why was it destroyed? Because they kindled lamps over the destruction of the Temple.⁴⁹Kindling lamps was a sign of celebration. Why did they kindle them? They said: The ruling aristocracy of Jerusalem would sit in the center of the city, and when one of them would ascend to pray,⁵⁰When a resident of Beitar would ascend to Jerusalem to pray at the Temple. one of them would say to him: ‘Do you wish to become a member of the ruling aristocracy?’ He would say: ‘No.’ ‘Do you wish to become a local governor?’ He would say to him: ‘No.’ [The aristocrat] would say to him: ‘I heard that you have an estate; do you wish to sell it to me?’ He would say to him: ‘I do not intend to do so.’ He would write and send his bill of sale to a member of his household: ‘If so and so comes, do not allow him to enter the estate because he sold it to me.’⁵¹After offering the resident of Beitar an elevated status or a position of authority so that he would agree to sell his estate, and being rebuffed nevertheless, the corrupt aristocrats would take matters into their own hands and write false documents of sale on behalf of the Beitar resident. That man would say: ‘If only that man’s leg would have been broken and he would not have ascended to that corner.’⁵²The resident of Beitar whose estate was taken would say: ‘If only I had not come to pray at the Temple.’ That is what is written: “They hunted [tzadu] our steps [from walking in our squares]” (Lamentations 4:18); may the roads be desolate [tzadya] of [people] walking to those plazas.⁵³The people of Beitar hoped that people would stop traveling to the Temple. “Our end approaches” (Lamentations 4:18); the end of that Temple,⁵⁴They hoped that the Temple would be destroyed. “our days are filled” (Lamentations 4:18); the days of that Temple. They, too, their good did not last, as it is written: “One who rejoices at calamity will not be absolved” (Proverbs 17:5).
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Three hundred babies’ brains were found on a single rock, and three hundred baskets of phylacteries boxes were found in Beitar, each and every one of them holding three se’a. When you arrive at a tally, you find that there were three hundred se’a.⁵⁵Each basket held three hundred se’a, for a total of nine hundred se’a.
Rabban Gamliel said: There were five hundred elementary schools in Beitar, and the smallest among them had no fewer than three hundred children. They would say: ‘If our enemies come against us, we will emerge and stab them with these quills.’ When the iniquities were the cause and the enemies came, they wrapped each and every one of them in his scroll and they burned them, and I am the only one of them who survived. He applied to himself the verse: “My eye distressed my soul…” (Lamentations 3:51).
There were two brothers in Kefar Ḥaruva and they would not allow a Roman to pass there whom they did not kill. They said: ‘The entire objective of the matter is to take Hadrian’s crown and place it on Shimon’s head.’⁵⁶The reference is to Shimon bar Kokhva. The Romans came, and when they went out [to fight them], a certain elder encountered them and said to them: ‘May the Creator come to your aid against them.’ They said to him: ‘Let Him not help and let Him not hinder.’ Immediately, their iniquities were the cause and they were killed. [The Roman soldiers] brought their heads to Hadrian. He said: ‘Who killed these?’ A certain Gontite⁵⁷According to most commentaries, this is another name for the Cuthites. Some interpret the word to mean soldier. said to him: ‘I killed them.’ He said to him: ‘Go bring me their bodies.’ He went and found a serpent wrapped around their necks. [Hadrian] said: ‘Had their God not killed them, who could have overcome them?’ He applied to them the verse: “If not that their Rock had sold them” (Deuteronomy 32:30).
There were two cedars on the Mount of Olives, and beneath one of them there were four stores of sellers of ritually pure items. From one [store], they would take out forty se’a of fledglings each month, which would supply pairs of birds for Israel.⁵⁸In some instances, one who is ritually impure must sacrifice a pair of birds as part of his purification process; see, e.g., Leviticus 15:29. Mount Shimon would produce three hundred barrels.⁵⁹Many commentaries suggest that the text should read: Three hundred barrels of wine (see, e.g., Yefe Enayim). Why were they destroyed? If you say it was because of the prostitutes, but was there not only one young woman there and they expelled her? Rabbi Huna said: It is because they would play ball on Shabbat.
There were ten thousand towns on the King’s Mountain. Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsom owned one thousand of them. Corresponding to them, he had one thousand ships at sea. Three of those towns, Kavul, Shiḥin, and Magdela, their taxes would be taken up to Jerusalem.⁶⁰Many commentaries assert that the text should read: Taken up to Jerusalem in a wagon (see, e.g., Yefe Enayim). This is an indication that the load was heavy. Why were they destroyed? Kavul, due to strife; Shiḥin, due to sorcery; Magdela, due to prostitution.
There were three towns in the south that would produce twice the number of those who departed from Egypt, and they were: Kefar Bish, Kefar Shaḥalayim, and Kefar Dikhrin. Kefar Bish, why was its name called Kefar Bish?⁶¹This name literally means “bad village.” Because they did not receive guests. Kefar Shaḥalayim, why was its name called Kefar Shaḥalayim?⁶²Shaḥalayim means cress. Because they would produce numerous children, like cress.⁶³Cress is an edible herb that grows quickly. Kefar Dikhrin, why was its name called Kefar Dikhrin?⁶⁴Dikhrin means males in Aramaic. Because every woman there would give birth to male [dikhrin] children. Any woman who wished to bear a female would go outside the town and bear a female. Any other woman who wished to bear a male son, would go there and bear a male. But now, when you attempt to plant six hundred thousand reeds there, the space will not suffice.⁶⁵How could there have been twice that number of people in these towns? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Land of Israel has contracted.
Rav Huna said: There were three hundred stores of sellers of ritually pure items in Magdela of the Dyers, and three hundred stores of weavers of curtains in Kefar Nimra. Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiya bar Abba: There were eighty brothers who were priests, who married eighty sisters who were daughters of priests on one night in Gufna, not including brothers not to sisters, not including sisters not to brothers, not including Levites, and not including Israelites.⁶⁶Eighty pairs of brothers who were priests married eighty pairs of sisters who were the daughters of priests on one night, and this tally did not include marriages between priestly families in which a single son married a single daughter, and did not include weddings of those who were not priests. The fact that so many weddings occurred on one night indicates how large the population must have been.
Eighty thousand young priests were killed over the blood of Zekharya.⁶⁷Zekharya was a priest and prophet who rebuked the Judean aristocracy for their idolatrous practices and was killed on the Temple Mount; see II Chronicles 24:20–22. Rabbi Yudan asked Rabbi Aḥa: ‘Where did they kill Zekharya, in the Israelite courtyard or the women’s courtyard?’ He said to him: ‘Neither in the Israelite courtyard nor in the women’s courtyard, but rather in the priestly courtyard.’ They did not treat his blood like the blood of a gazelle nor like the blood of a deer. There it is written: “Any man from the children of Israel, or from the strangers who resides among them, who shall hunt game of a beast…he shall [pour out its blood and] cover it with dirt” (Leviticus 17:13). However, here it is written: “For its blood was within it; on a bare rock it placed it. It did not pour it on the ground to cover it with dirt” (Ezekiel 24:7). Why to that extent? “To arouse fury to take vengeance, I placed its blood upon the bare rock that it not be covered” (Ezekiel 24:8).
Israel performed seven transgressions on that day: They killed a priest, a prophet, and a judge, they spilled innocent blood, they desecrated the Name, they impurified the Temple courtyard, and it was Shabbat and Yom Kippur. When Nevuzaradan ascended, he saw that the blood of Zekharya was boiling. He said to them: ‘What is this?’ They said to him: ‘It is the blood of bulls and sheep.’ He brought bulls and sheep but [their blood] was not similar. He said to them: ‘If you tell me, fine. But if not, I will comb the flesh of these people with a comb of iron,’ but they did not tell him. When he said this to them,⁶⁸When he continued to threaten them after realizing that the blood was clearly not the blood of bulls and sheep. they said to him: ‘Why should we conceal it from you? We had a prophet, a priest, who would reprimand us in the name of Heaven, [saying] ‘Accept [my words],’ but we did not accept it from him. Rather, we rose against him and killed him.’ He said to them: ‘I will assuage it.’ He brought the Great Sanhedrin and slaughtered them onto it, but it did not rest.⁶⁹He slaughtered the members of the Great Sanhedrin over the blood of Zekharya but the blood continued to boil. He slaughtered the lesser Sanhedrin onto it, but it did not rest. He brought young priests and slaughtered them onto it, but it did not rest. He slaughtered schoolchildren onto it, but it did not rest. He said to it: ‘Zekharya, I have eliminated the best of your people. Is it your will that all of them will be eliminated?’ Immediately, it rested. That wicked one contemplated repentance, and said: ‘One who eliminates a single Israelite soul, it is written in his regard: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, his blood will be spilled by man” (Genesis 9:6), this man who eliminated many souls, all the more so.’ Immediately, the Holy One blessed be He became filled with mercy for them, and He intimated to the blood, and it was absorbed in its place.
Eighty thousand young priests breached the armies of Nebuchadnezzar with gold shields in their hands.⁷⁰They escaped the siege imposed by the Babylonian army. They went to the Ishmaelites, who took out salty foods and inflated wineskins. They said to [the Ishmaelites]: ‘Let us drink first.’ They said to them: ‘Eat first and then you will drink.’ After they ate, each and every one of them took the wineskin, placed it in his mouth, and the wind entered his stomach and burst it. That is what is written: “A prophecy of Arabia: In the forest in Arabia you will stay the night, caravans of Dedanites. Bring water to the thirsty. The inhabitants of the land of Teima greeted the wanderer with his bread [for they wandered due to swords, due to the drawn sword and to the bent bow]” (Isaiah 21:13–15). The one who is located “in the forest” of Lebanon “will stay the night.”⁷¹The Israelites, particularly the priests, who ordinarily spend time in the “forest of Lebanon,” i.e. the Temple, would stay the night amongst the Arabs. But “caravans of the Dedanites,” is it the way of cousins to act this way?⁷²The Dedanites are identified as the Ishmaelites, who are cousins [benei Dedanaya] of the Israelites. Is this what their Father⁷³God. did to your ancestor? What is written regarding your ancestor? “God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. She went and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad to drink” (Genesis 21:19). But you did not fulfill: “Bring water to the thirsty.” Was it because it was good for them that they came to you? “For they wandered due to swords” (Isaiah 21:15), it is due to the sword of Nebuchadnezzar that they wandered.
“Due to a drawn [netusha] sword” (Isaiah 21:15), it is because they did not observe their Sabbatical Years properly, just as it is said: “But the seventh, you shall leave it fallow and relinquish it [untashtah]” (Exodus 23:11). “And to the bent [derukha] bow” (Isaiah 21:15), it is because they did not observe Shabbat properly, just as it is said: “In those days I saw in Judah some treading [dorekhim] winepresses on the Shabbat” (Nehemiah 13:15). “And due to the rigor of the war” (Isaiah 21:15), because they did not engage in the give and take of the war of Torah, of which it is written: “Therefore, it is said in the book of the Wars of the Lord” (Numbers 21:14).
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From Giveton to Antipatris there were six hundred thousand cities, the smallest of which was Beit Shemesh. That is what is written: “He smote among the men of Beit Shemesh…[and He smote of the people seventy men and fifty thousand men]” (I Samuel 6:19).⁷⁴This demonstrates that this area was very well populated. Now, there are not even one hundred reeds there. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Its priestly watch was the smallest of the priestly watches and would produce eighty thousand young priests.
How many attacks did Hadrian launch? Two amora’im, one said fifty-two and one said fifty-four. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Happy is he who saw the downfall of Tadmor. Why? Because it played a role in two destructions.⁷⁵The destructions of the two Temples. Rabbi Yudan said: In the first destruction it provided eighty thousand archers and in the second it provided forty thousand archers. Rav Huna said: In the latter destruction they were like the first.

(Fol. 18b) Our Rabbis were taught: (Lev. 15, 31) Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness. R. Joshua said: "From this you may derive a warning that the children of Israel should separate themselves from their wives near the period of menstruation." And for how long? Said Raba: "For twelve hours" [prior to open period]. R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "He who does not separate himself from his wife at the said period, even if his children are equal to the sons of Aaron, they will die, for it is written (Ib.) Then ye shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness, … and of her that is sick from her impurity, and immediately follows the mention of the death of Aaron's children." R. Chiya b. Acha said in the name of R. Jochanan "He who does separate himself for that period will be rewarded with male children, as it is written (Ib. 11, 47) To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and immediately follows (Ib. 12, 2) If a woman … and born a male child." R. Joshua b. Levi added: "He will be rewarded with sons who will be fit to decide law questions, as it is written (Ib. 10, 10-11) So that ye may be able to distinguish … to teach." R. Chiya b. Abba said in the name of R. Jochanan: "Whoever pronounces Habdala over a cup of wine on the eve of Sabbath, will be rewarded with male children, as it is written (Ib. 10, 10) To distinguish, and also (Ib. 11, 17) To make a distinction between, etc., and immediately follows (Ib. 12, 2) If a woman … and born a male child."

2) "and one who carries them": What is the intent of this? I might think that only merkav alone confers tumah by being carried. Whence do I derive the same for mishkav and moshav? (But a verse is not necessary for this.) I know it a fortiori, viz.: It merkav, which does not confer tumah upon garments by being touched, does confer tumah upon garments by being carried, then mishkav and moshav, which do confer tumah upon garments by being touched, how much more so do they do so by being carried! — (No,) this is refuted by the upper board and the side board of a coffin (viz. Bamidbar 19:16), which do confer tumah upon garments by being touched, but which do not do so by being carried.

2) Now that we have learned that tumah is conferred upon it from its atmosphere (i.e., even without touching it), what is the intent of "which he touches"? As if he "touches" all of it (i.e., If he moves it without touching it) — "heset" — (all of it must be moved).

2) to include one who has two zav sightings as requiring the seven-day count. (Why do we need a verse for this?) Does it not follow (of itself)? If he confers mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings, should he not require the seven-day count with two sightings? (No, this is refuted by zavah, who confers mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings, but does not count (seven days) for two sightings (See below, Chapter 8:6).

2) "if there issue from him semen": (He does not become unclean) until his semen comes outside his flesh. From here they ruled: One who was eating terumah and felt the onset of a zav discharge holds his organ (to prevent it from issuing forth) and swallows the terumah.

2) "if she will have": from the pronouncement on. "a flow": I might think even if she flows from any place she is tamei; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 20:18) "and she has revealed the source of her blood." This teaches us about (her) blood that (it causes uncleanliness) only if it comes from the source.

2) "if there be a flux (zov) from his flesh": from the command on. (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow (inductively)? viz.: There is plague-spot tumah and there is zav tumah. Just as plague-spot tumah does not obtain before the command, so zav tumah does not obtain before the command. (And, furthermore, it follows) a fortiori, viz.: If plague-spot tumah, where tumah obtains (even) through external causes, does not obtain before the command, then zav tumah, which does not obtain through external causes (viz. Vayikra 15:7 below) — how much more so should it not obtain before the command! — No, this may be so with plague-spots, whose tumah and taharah obtains only by (declaration of) a Cohein, as opposed to zavim, whose tumah and taharah obtains through (ascertainment of ) any man. This being the case, I would think that it obtains (even) before the command. It must, therefore, be written "if there be a flux" — from the command on.

2) "with her" (a niddah): to exclude a woman leper (i.e., If one has coitus with her, her state of "leper" is not upon him.) (For without a verse) would it not follow a fortiori (that her state is upon him, viz.:) If a niddah, who does not confer tumah (upon all that is in a house), by entering it, does confer tumah upon one who cohabits with her, then a leprous woman, who does confer tumah by entry, how much more so should she confer tumah upon one who cohabits with her! It is, therefore, written "with her" (a niddah), to exclude a woman leper.

2) How long (before birth) may she be in kishui (protracted travail) and the blood of that kishui be attributable to the fetus alone (and not to a zivah flow)? R. Meir says: Even forty-five days. R. Yehudah says: Her (ninth) month suffices (for that assumption). (Non-zivah) kishui may be assumed for more than two weeks (preceding childbirth). Therefore, if she was in kishui for seventeen days (preceding childbirth), the first three are susceptible of zivah, and she is presumed to have given birth in a state of zivah.

2) This tells me only (of her seeing) conjoined with her niddah time (i.e., on days eight, nine and ten after her seven-day niddah time). Whence do I derive the same for her "skipping" from her niddah time (i.e., not seeing on day eight and seeing on days nine, ten, and eleven)? From "or if she flows." This tells me only of a one-day skipping. Whence do I derive the same for a skipping of two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine days (before beginning her three day consecutive count for zivah)? (We derive it) from what we find to be true of the fourth day (after her niddah time). That since it is fit for counting (of seven clean days) it is fit for zivah. I, accordingly, include the aforementioned days, which being fit for counting are fit for zivah.

2) R. Shimon says: "and after she shall be clean": after the act of immersion, (when part of the seventh day has passed), she shall be clean. Once she has immersed herself, she is permitted to occupy herself with taharoth (sacred food [and to live with her husband]); but the sages said: She should not do this lest she bring herself to doubt (i.e., lest she see blood after her immersion in the daytime and contravene the count).

2) (For without this verse we would say:) Now if a zavah, who confers tumah upon one who lives with her, (as a niddah does,) requires (stringent) tumah, three sightings on three days, then a zav, who does not confer tumah upon one he lives with, how much more so should he require for (stringent) tumah three sightings on three days. It is, therefore, written "And this shall be his tumah in his flux." His tumah is contingent upon his flux (i.e., sightings) and not upon (the passage of) days.

2) I might think that a yoledeth, (whose tumah is) of lesser stringency, confers tumah (only) from its (the sanctuary's) midst, and all others who are tamei, both from its midst and from its back. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:31) "the children of Israel." The children of Israel are being compared (in context) to a yoledeth. Just as a yoledeth confers tumah only from its midst, so, all (the children of Israel) confer tumah only from its midst.

2) I would exclude these, but I would not exclude a mat of reeds or shoots; it is, therefore written "the lying" (connoting something which is) customarily used (for lying on).

2) (But now we have) an a fortiori argument that a man lying under a zav should become tamei to confer tumah to men and garments! viz.: If in a place where a couch does not become tamei by touching a zav's couch to confer tumah to garments (lying upon it), a man does become tamei by touching a zav's couch to confer tumah to his garments, then in a place where a couch becomes tamei under a zav to confer tumah to a man and his garments, how much more so should a man lying under a zav become tamei to confer tumah to men and garments! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:4) "Every couch on which a zav lies … shall be unclean." A couch becomes tamei under a zav to confer tumah to men and garments, but a man lying under a zav does not become tamei to confer tumah to men and garments.

2) (But now we have) an a fortiori argument that a man lying under a zav should become tamei to confer tumah to men and garments! viz.: If in a place where a couch does not become tamei by touching a zav's couch to confer tumah to garments (lying upon it), a man does become tamei by touching a zav's couch to confer tumah to his garments, then in a place where a couch becomes tamei under a zav to confer tumah to a man and his garments, how much more so should a man lying under a zav become tamei to confer tumah to men and garments! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:4) "Every couch on which a zav lies … shall be unclean." A couch becomes tamei under a zav to confer tumah to men and garments, but a man lying under a zav does not become tamei to confer tumah to men and garments.

2) This tells me only of his sitting there while the zav is (sitting) there. Whence do I derive an equivalence between "empty" (the zav's not sitting there) and "full" (the zav's sitting there)? From "the object" (i.e., the object is the criterion, and not "fullness" or "emptiness"), making "empty" equivalent to "full."

2) "if there be a flux (zov) from his flesh": from the command on. (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow (inductively)? viz.: There is plague-spot tumah and there is zav tumah. Just as plague-spot tumah does not obtain before the command, so zav tumah does not obtain before the command. (And, furthermore, it follows) a fortiori, viz.: If plague-spot tumah, where tumah obtains (even) through external causes, does not obtain before the command, then zav tumah, which does not obtain through external causes (viz. Vayikra 15:7 below) — how much more so should it not obtain before the command! — No, this may be so with plague-spots, whose tumah and taharah obtains only by (declaration of) a Cohein, as opposed to zavim, whose tumah and taharah obtains through (ascertainment of ) any man. This being the case, I would think that it obtains (even) before the command. It must, therefore, be written "if there be a flux" — from the command on.

And God said [further to him], put your hand into your breast (Shemot 4:6). They said to him, just as when the snake badmouthed I struck it with tzara'at, as it says "you shall be more cursed than all the beasts" (Bereishit 3:14), as it is said "a blemish of tzara'at" (Vayikra 13:51) [therefore, when you badmouth, I will strike you similarly]. Rabbi Elazar said, these coins tat are in it are tzara'at, and so you too are worthy of being struck with tzara'at. And why did he put it into his breast? Because it's the way of evil speech to be said in private. And so it says, "he who slanders his friend in secret, I will destroy" (Tehillim 101:5). There is no "I will destroy" [אַצְמִית atzmit]: rather, it is tzara'at [צָרַעַת], as it is said "[the land may not be sold] permanently" [לִצְמִתֻת litzmitut], and we translate it "permanently" [לַחֲלוּטִין lachlutin]. And we teach "there is no difference between a quarantined/doubtful metzora and a confirmed metzora" (Mishna Megilla 1:7). And he put his hand into his breast and brought it out, and behold his hand was afflicted with tzara'at as snow (Shemot 4:6) - he got his, since he badmouthed. Rabbi Yehoshua Dischinan, in the name of Rabbi Levi, said: from here you may learn that everyone who unjustly suspects their fellow of something is struck in their body. And They said, return your hand to your breast (ibid.) - for what sign would this be to Yisrael? Go and tell them, just as a metzora causes impurity, so too the Mitzriyim are making you impure. And just as it is purified, so too will the Holy Blessed One purify Yisrael, as it is written "And behold his hand was afflicted with tzara'at as snow (Shemot 4:6), and of healing it is written "And he brought it out from his breast and behold it had returned [to be] as his flesh" (Shemot 4:7). Our sages said in order not to provoke insult on the flesh of Moshe, thus the hand wasnot struck with tzara'at until he had brought it out from his flesh, but for healing, from within his breast it was healed. An alternative take: from here we learn that punishments wait for the righteous to come, but the attribute of good is swift to come. "And it will be, if they do not believe these two signs" (Shemot 4:9) - why did the Holy Blessed One give him three signs? Corresponding to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. "And take from the waters of the Y'or" (ibid.) - alludes to the fact that by means of something that was spoke to Yisra'el, the water will be in the future turned to blood, and he will be struck by their hands, as it is written "Listen, you rebels" (Bemidbar 20:10). And he struck the rock and it brought forth, as it says "Then he struck the rock and it oozed [וַיָּזוּבוּ vayazuvu] water" (Tehillim 78:20) - "oozing" always indicates blood, as it is said "And a woman who oozes an oozing [יָזוּב זוֹב, yazuv zov] of her blood" (Vayikra 15:25). And for this reason he struck the rock twice - initially it brought forth blood, and only eventually water. With the first two signs, you find that they returned to their original state, but with the blood it never returned to how it was, since he didn't want to forgive Moshe for the sin of the water. And what sign was this for Yisrael? He said to them, with this sign will the Mitzriyim be struck originally.

3) Do not wonder, then, if mishkav and moshav do not confer tumah by being carried even though they do confer tumah by being touched. It must, therefore, be written "and one who carries them," to include mishkav and moshav.

3) "it shall be scoured and rinsed": I might think that just as "rinsing" elsewhere (Vayikra 15:11) is in forty sa'ah; here, too, it is in forty sa'ah; it is, therefore, written "with water" — any amount; "with water" — and not with wine; "with water" — and not with a dilution (of wine and water); "with water" — all water (and not just "living waters"); and it follows a fortiori that kiyor (laver) water (may be used).

3) "and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water": R. Shimon said: What does this come to teach us? If that he (the zav) confers tumah upon vessels requiring rinsing, by touching (them), is it not already written (Vayikra 6 verse 7) "and he who touches the flesh of the zav shall wash his clothes"? If one who touches the zav, thereby confers tumah upon vessels requiring rinsing, then if he himself (touches them), how much more so should he confer tumah upon them! What, then, is the intent of "and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water"? This refers to the food, drink, and vessels on top of the zav.

3) Do not wonder then about a zav, even though he confers mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings, if he would not require the seven-day count with two sightings. It must, therefore, be written "of his flux and he shall count." Even a partial flux requires the seven-day count, to include one who has two sightings as requiring the seven-day count.

3) (Vayikra 5:7) "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering": (The dedication of) the sin-offering must precede (the dedication of) the burnt-offering. Alternately: that the burnt-offering be of the same species as the sin-offering (turtle-dove or young pigeon, respectively) (and that) if he separated his sin-offering and died, his heirs bring his burnt-offering. Alternately: What is the intent of "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering?" I might think that since two (birds) are brought in place of a (lamb) sin-offering, they should both be sin-offerings, it is, therefore, written "one for a sin-offering" — and not two; "one for a burnt-offering" — and not two.

3) "and he shall bathe with water": even in the water of a mikveh. "all of his flesh": Nothing must intervene between his flesh and the "water" in which all of his flesh can be immersed. How much is that? A cubit by a cubit at a height of three cubits, so that the capacity of a mikveh is found to be forty sa'ah.

3) I might think any color of flow is tamei; it is, therefore, written "blood." If "blood," I would think one color of blood (i.e., red), (but) ("and she shall be cleansed from the source of her) bloods" (Vayikra 12:7) teaches us that many bloods are tamei in her: red, black, bright-colored crocus, (and the color of) earth-water, and mixed wine. Beth Shammai say: Even like that of fenugrec and roast flesh extract. Beth Hillel rule the latter to be tahor.

3) "if there be a flux": I might think even if it flows from any place (i.e., from his nose or from his mouth), he becomes tamei. But it follows (that this is not so, for) there is tumah with a zav (a male) and tumah with a zavah (a female). Just as with a zavah, the place (the uterus) from which she becomes tamei with lesser tumah, (that of niddah, which does not require seven clean days or an offering), she becomes tamei with stringent tumah, (that of zivuth, which requires seven clean days and an offering) — so, with a zav, the place (the penis) from which he becomes tamei with lesser tumah (that of keri [an accidental seminal discharge]), he becomes tamei with stringent tumah (that of zivuth).

3) "then her niddah state shall be upon him." I might think that he followed her schedule (e.g., if he cohabited with her on her third day, he completes another four days as she does, and immerses and becomes tahor); it is, therefore, written "and he shall be unclean for seven days" (even if he cohabited with her on her seventh day). Let it be written "and he shall be tamei seven days." Why "then her niddah state shall be upon him?" I might think that he does not confer tumah upon men and earthen vessels; it is, therefore, written "then her niddah state shall be upon him" — Just as she confers tumah upon men and earthen vessels, so does he. I might then think that just as she confers tumah upon a mishkav to confer tumah upon men and garments, so does he. It is, therefore, written "then her niddah state shall be upon him, and every mishkav on which he lies shall be unclean." Let this ("and every mishkav, etc.") not be written, (for we can learn this from "then her niddah state, etc.") Its purpose must be, then, to cut him off from stringent tumah (that his mishkav not be as stringent as hers, to confer tumah upon men and vessels upon it) and to bring him to lesser tumah, that (his mishkav) confer tumah only upon food and drink.

3) And there are those in kishui for twenty-five days and yet are not in a state of zivah because of them: two out of her niddah time (i.e., in the eleven days separating her niddah periods), seven of her niddah time, two after her niddah time, and fourteen days in which the fetus cleanses her (i.e., days which are attributable to kishui and not to zivah). But it is impossible that she be (bleeding) in kishui for twenty-six days without giving birth in a state of zivah.

3) Whence is it derived that the eleventh day is included (for a zivah of three consecutive days even though it is not fit for the counting of seven clean days for the first three days of zivah)? From "not in the time of her niddah period." I might then think to include the twelfth day, (so that if she saw on ten, eleven, and twelve she would be accounted a confirmed zavah and her twelfth day flow would not be accounted a flow of niddah but a flow of zivah). No, this is not to be maintained. Why is it seen fit to include the eleventh (in zivah) and to exclude the twelfth? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the eleventh as being counted in "or if she flows (beyond her niddah period"), and I exclude the twelfth as not being counted therein.

"I lost the three shepherds in one month" (Zecharia 11:8); and thus, in one month, Aaron, Miriam, and Moses died. Miriam died on the 1st of the month of Nisan, and the well closed up; and in the second of Nissan, Aaron's sons died; On the first of Av, Aaron died, and the clouds of glory dissipated; On the seventh of Adar Moses our teacher, and God's servant, died. Even though they didn't all die in the same month, it's considered as if it were one month. Each had a gift that they gave to the Israelites. By the merit of Miriam, God gave the well, by the merit of Aaron, the clouds of glory, By the merit of Moses, the Mana. When Miriam died, the well closed so the Israelites could see that it was by her merit that God granted them the well. Moses and Aaron bewailed her internally, and the Israelites did so publicly. Moses didn't know about the Israelites mourning until after six hours, when the Israelites came to them and said: "how long will you sit and mourn?" He said to them "should I not continue to mourn my sister who has died." "They said to him: "just as you mourn for one soul, all the more so mourn for all of us." He said to them: "why" They said to him "because we do not have water to drink." He stood and went and saw that there was no water in the well, and he began to argue with them, he said:"did I not say to you that I can't carry this people on my own, did I not appoint for you officers for the thousands, and officers for the hundreds, and the fifties, and the twenties, I gave you officials, and chiefs, and great elders, and they are to busy themselves with your problems." They said to him: "Everything is on you, for you are the one who brought us out of Egypt and brought us to this terrible place, if you give us water, everything will be fine, but if you don't, then we will stone you." When Moses heard this, he fled from them and went into the tent of meeting. God said to him "Moses what is going on?" Moses said before the Master of the World: "your children want to stone me, and were I not to have fled, I would have already been stoned to death." God said said: "how long will will you speak ill of my children, was it not enough for you that I told you at Horeb, just a little more and they will stone you. Now go and pass before them and see whether they will actually stone you, and it is said the Torah: "God said to Moses, pass before the people." Moses went first and his cohort after him, and Moses didn't know which rock God had intended to give to them for bringing out water. The Israelites found a rock that was dripping, and they stood upon it. When Moses saw them standing on it, he turned around and said to God "how long will you put our lives at risk?" He said to them, "until I bring water out of the rock." The Israelites said: "give us water so that we can drink!" Moses responded to them "How long will you continue to rebel? Does a creation rebel against its creator? As such, you are rebelling against God. Moses said: "God wants to give you water." The Israelites said: "you are the prophet who shepherds us in the dessert and now you say you don't know which rock God intends you to bring water out of? Moses and Aaron gathered the people around a different rock, as it says in the Torah "Moses and Aaron gathered the community at the face of the rock." Moses said to himself: "If I command the rock to bring out water and it doesn't, I'll be embarrassed before the community, and they will say to me, 'Moses, where is your alleged wisdom.'" At the very same moment Moses told the Israelites, "you know that God can do miracles for you, and you know that miracles are beyond me. For when the knowledge of man is divinely inspired, it is not his own knowledge or wisdom. Moses brought down his staff upon the back of the rock, and he did so himself, as he spoke to the israelites , as it says in the Torah "from this rock, we will bring you water." The rock began to fill itself to bring out water, and when Moses saw it, he lifted his arm again and struck the rock, as it says in the Torah "he hit the rock twice with his staff." This time though, blood came out, as it says in the Psalms, "yes, he hit the rock and the waters flowed (Psalm 78:20)." It's a flow of blood, as we see from the laws of menstruation "when a woman has a discharge of blood (Leviticus 15:25)." Moses came and said to God "the rock isn't bringing out water, only blood." God said to the rock: "why are you only bringing out blood, and not water?" The rock said "Master of the Universe, why did Moses hit me?" God then asked Moses, "why did you hit the rock?" Moses responded: "In order to bring out water." God said: "Did I tell you to hit the rock? Did I not tell you to speak to it with words?" Moses responded: "I did speak to it, but nothing came out!" God responded "did you not command all of Israel "in justice you shall judge your people (Leviticus 19)? Thus, why didn't you judge the rock with justice? This is how I raised you in Egypt, as it says in scripture 'God fed him honey from the rock, (Deuteronomy 32:13).' It befits you to lead, and thus say to my children "listen you rebels!" Don't read "rebels" rather "idiots" shotim (also a hominem for drinkers). They are idiots, and you have your eyes open. A nation of idiots will not enter the land of Israel, as it says in the Torah "you will not bring this community . . ." Therefore God said to Moses, "tell the rock to turn it's blood into water." It is thus written in scripture: "who turned the rock into a pool of water, the flinty rock into a spring (Psalm 114:8)." (Note this is a Psalm recited during Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, the beginning of the month). When they reached the beginning of the month, God said to Moses, "your time has come to an end." Moses said before him, "please God, let it not be soon." "It is tomorrow" responded God, thus Moses was distressed all day, for he didn't know when exactly his death would come. ...

3) (Vayikra 15:29) ("And on the eighth day she shall take for her two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, and she shall bring them to the Cohein, to the door of the tent of meeting.") See Chapter 5:13.

3) (Vayikra 15:3) "in his flux … his flux … with his flux": We are hereby taught that he acquires (stringent) tumah with three sightings. This ("flux") tells me only of long (flows). Whence do I derive (the same for) short ones? From "shall be" — any amount. "his flesh drips" — any amount. "his flesh be stopped up" — any amount. "his flesh" — any amount. If short ones are mentioned, why mention long ones? To set a (time) limit for long ones. So that if he sees one (flux) as (long as) three (short ones) — (the time it takes to walk) from Gidiyon to Shiloach, corresponding to two immersings and two wipings — he is a confirmed zav.

3) (Vayikra 5:7) "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering": (The dedication of) the sin-offering must precede (the dedication of) the burnt-offering. Alternately: that the burnt-offering be of the same species as the sin-offering (turtle-dove or young pigeon, respectively) (and that) if he separated his sin-offering and died, his heirs bring his burnt-offering. Alternately: What is the intent of "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering?" I might think that since two (birds) are brought in place of a (lamb) sin-offering, they should both be sin-offerings, it is, therefore, written "one for a sin-offering" — and not two; "one for a burnt-offering" — and not two.

3) I might think that this (exhortation against defilement of the sanctuary) applies only to grave tumah, (which comes from one's body) as (in the instance of) a yoledeth. Whence do I derive the same for lesser tumah, (which does not come directly from one's body, such as that of touching a dead body, cohabiting with a niddah, and all that confers tumah upon a man? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:31) "by defiling My sanctuary which is in their midst," to include all.

3) This tells me only of a bed or a garment. Whence do I include a sagus (a kind of cloak), a wrap, a frock, a talith, a fodder basket of four kabim, a traveling bag of five kabim, a crituth (a type of bag) of a sa'ah, and a chemeth (a type of bag) of seven kabim? From "all the lying." I might then think that I include the sarud (a shelf stand), the baker's frame, and the large kneading trough in which the niddoth wash? It is, therefore, written "which he shall lie upon," something intended for lying, and not something about which he is told: "Get up and let us do our work!"

3) "And a man who touches his (a zav's) couch": (It should have been written) "the couch" (and not "his couch," and we would understand from the context that it is his couch. It must come to teach us then) that if it breaks (after the zav has lain on it [so that it is no longer "his couch," that he has lain on]), it is tahor. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If an earthen vessel, which cannot be cleaned of its tumah (in a mikvah), becomes tahor if it breaks, then a zav's couch, which can be cleansed of its tumah, how much more so should it be tahor if it breaks! — No, this may be true of an earthen vessel, which does not become an av (i.e., a progenitor) of tumah to confer tumah upon men and vessels, as opposed to the zav's couch, which does become an av of tumah to confer tumah upon men and vessels. Since this is the case, we would say that if it breaks, it does not become tahor. It must, therefore, be written "his couch," (to indicate that) if it broke (after he lay upon it), it is tahor.

3) This tells me only of the mishkav ([the couch] of the zav, that one who sits upon it becomes tamei to confer tumah upon garments.) Whence do we derive the same for the merkav ([the saddle] of the zav)? It follows by induction, viz.: Just as we find that Scripture did not distinguish between the carrier of and the "carried by" the mishkav (of the zav, so it does not distinguish between the carrier of and the "carried by" the merkav (of the zav). (No, this may be refuted, viz.:) Why did Scripture not distinguish between the carrier of and the "carried by" the mishkav? Because it did not distinguish between touching it and carrying it, (both conferring tumah to impart tumah to garments). Should we then not distinguish between the carrier of and the "carried by" the merkav, where Scripture did distinguish touching from carrying, (the touching not imparting tumah to garments, as opposed to the carrier, who does)! It is, therefore, written "the object," to include the merkav.

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” Let our master instruct us: For how many things does leprosy come? Thus have our masters taught: The affliction comes [upon one] for eleven things:²³Cf. Numb. R. 7:5; Lev. 17:3; ‘Arakh. 16a. (1) For idolatry, (2) for desecration of the name [of God], (3) for unchastity, (4) for theft, (5) for slander, (6) for false witness, (7) upon²⁴In this passage “for” and “upon” translate the same Hebrew word (‘al). the judge who perverts justice, (8) for swearing in vain, (9) upon one who enters a domain which is not his, (10) upon one who thinks false thoughts, and (11) upon one who instigates quarrels among brothers. And some also say, “for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly).” How is it shown [that leprosy comes] for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua')”; and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45), “his head shall be unkempt (parua').” And how is it shown [that leprosy comes] for cursing the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8), “Choose a man ('ish) for yourselves.” Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3), “The Lord is a man ('ish) of war.” It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) “This day [the Lord] will deliver (rt.: sgr) you.” Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5), “the priest shall isolate (rt.: sgr) him.” And how is it shown for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:[16-]17), “[Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with extended neck and roving eyes…]. Therefore the Lord will smite with sores (sph) the scalps [of the daughters of Zion].”²⁵Vs. 17 differs here from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD). Now sores (sph) can only be leprosy, as stated (in Lev. 14:56), “For a swelling and for a sore (rt.: sph) and for a bright spot.” How is it shown for theft? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4), “I have sent it (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) forth, says the Lord of hosts; and it shall come unto the house of the thief.” Hence, for theft. How is it shown for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4, cont.), “and unto the house of the one who swears falsely in My name; and it shall lodge within his house; and it shall consume it, [even] with its timbers and stones.” What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? Rabbi says, “This is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy (in Lev. 14:45), ‘And he shall break down the house with its timbers and stones.’” And how is it shown for slander? From Miriam [of whom] it is written (in Numb. 12:10), “so when Aaron turned unto Miriam, there she was, stricken with leprosy.” It is written (in Lev. 14:1), “This shall be the law of the leper (hametsora'),” [i.e.] the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra'). And how is it shown for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified falsely and said (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel,” they were struck with leprosy, as stated, “Instruct the Israelites to remove from the camp….” It also states (Exodus 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua').”²⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘). And [how is it shown] for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24), “And it shall be that as a tongue of fire consumes straw, and as chaff sinks down in a flame, their root shall be like the rot, and their blossom shall rise up like the dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts.” Their blossom (prh) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12), “If the leprosy should blossom out widely (rt.: prh).” And how is it shown for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, who entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:19), “then leprosy appeared on his forehead.” And how is it shown for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? From Pharaoh, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), “Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh,” because he had taken Sarah from Abraham. And [how is it shown] for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly)? R. Isaac said, “When someone's eye is too evil (i.e., when someone is too miserly) to lend out his possessions. When someone comes and says to him, ‘Lend me your scythe, lend me your ax, or any object,’ he says to him, ‘Cursed is the one who has a scythe, cursed is the one has an axe’ (meaning, ‘I do not have one’). What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do?²⁷Cf. Yoma 11b. He afflicts [his house] with leprosy. When he comes to the priest and says to him, ‘Something like a plague has appeared in the house belonging to me,’ he commands (according to Lev. 14:45), ‘Let him break down the house with its timbers and stones.’ Then everybody will see his implements, when they lug them and bring them outside. So they publicize²⁸Mepharsemin, from PRSM, a verb related to the Greek, parresiazesthai (“to speak freely”). his implements, and they all say, ‘Did he not say, “I do not have a scythe; I do not have an ax?” See, he does have such and such an object, but he did not want to lend it.’ So his eye is evil (i.e., he is miserly), to lend.” (Leviticus 14:37:) “And [the priest] says, ‘[The walls are] deeply colored (shkarurot).’” Do not read it [such], but rather read it as he brought down curses (shaka arurot). As he said, “Cursed,” and he brought down his house. And everyone saw his curses, as stated (in Job 20:28), “The produce of his house shall depart, poured out in the day of His wrath.” [Moreover,] there are also some who say, [leprosy] also [comes] for haughtiness. How is it shown? From Naaman, as stated (in II Kings 5:1), “Now Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram […] a valiant warrior, was a leper,” because he was haughty. [Leprosy] also [comes] upon the one who says something against his colleague that is not true about him. Thus you find it so in the case of Moses our master, when he said (in Exod. 4:1), “But [surely] they shall not believe me.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “They are believers [and] children of believers”: [Believers] (in Exod. 4:31), “And the people believed”; the children of believers, as stated (in Gen. 15:6), “And he (Abram) believed in the Lord.” However, it is necessary [for you] to be afflicted, since the one who suspects the innocent is afflicted in his body. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:6), “Then [the Lord…] said, ‘Please put your hand in your bosom’; so he put his hand in his bosom, and when he withdrew it, behold, it was leprous as snow.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Look at the difference between you and the peoples of the world. When they sin, I afflict them first in their bodies and after that in their houses, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), ‘Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh with great plagues,’ and afterwards, ‘and his house.’ But if you sin, I afflict your houses first.” Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” (Lev. 14:34:) “And I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted? It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:[32-]34), “[He turns….] A fruitful land into a salt marsh because of the evil [of those who dwell in it].” Why? Because of the evil [of the people]. And so does it state (Isaiah 26:9), “with Your judgements upon the earth, so will those that dwell in the inhabitation learn justice.” Why do punishments come upon the world? For the creatures, so that they would look, consider, and say, “Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted.” So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look [at them] and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, intended to exile them at once before the [other] nations. But He said, “If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations.” What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the wicked upon all the [other] nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14), “My hand (the hand of Sennacherib) has found the wealth of the peoples like a nest.” It is also written (in vs. 13), “and I (Sennacherib) have removed the borders of peoples.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear My judgment.” It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6), “I have rooted out the nations; their corner towers are desolate.” And after it is written (in vs. 7), “I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, they will learn rebuke!’” When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, warns them and [first] afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” For him to repent is preferable; but if not, he is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2), “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh….” Hence, the stones are struck first. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47), “When the plague of leprosy is in a garment.” Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40), “When someone's head becomes hairless [so that he is bald, he is clean]”; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18), “And when one has boils on the skin of his flesh and is healed.”²⁹The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. Boils is [worse] than balding of the head. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges: swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.³⁰Numb. R. 14:4. Scripture has said (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes for the back of fools.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Before I created the human, I prepared all these for him.” [The situation] is comparable to an evil slave who was about to be sold. When his master went to buy him, he knew that he was a bad salve. [So] he took along chains and whips so that if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him, “Did you not know that I was a bad slave? Why did you buy me?” He said to him, “Because I knew that you are difficult, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them.” So too the Holy One, blessed be He [and] blessed be His name forever, before He created the human one, He prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) He knows that³¹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” “the instinct of one's heart is evil from his youth.” He therefore prepared all these for him, so that if he rebelled, He would subdue him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes (mahalumot) for the back of fools.” What are mahalumot? Mahah lamoot (strike to death). Warn him first; it is preferable if he repents. But if not, strike his body. How is it shown? From that which we read about the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.”

4) R. Elazar says: What is the intent of "and one who carries them"? I might think that only these (merkav, mishkav, and moshav) confer tumah by being carried. Whence do I derive the same for the discharge of the zav and his spittle and his urine and his semen and the menstrual blood of the niddah? From "and one who carries them" — to include all that is mentioned in that context.

4) (And the verse is necessary to teach us this) for (without it) would it not follow a fortiori (that he should not confer tumah to the vessels above him that he is not in direct contact with)? Viz.: If where Scripture made vessels under him that are fit for mishkav (reclining) subject to mishkav tumah, it did not make vessels under him that are unfit for mishkav subject to middaf (indirect contact tumah) — then, above him, where Scripture did not make even vessels fit for mishkav subject to mishkav tumah, how much more so should vessels (above him) not be subject to middaf tumah! It must, therefore, be written "and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water," to teach that the vessels above him are subject to middaf tumah.

4) "then he shall count for him" (i.e., for himself — whence they ruled: If a zav and a zavah examined themselves on the first day and found themselves tahor, and on the seventh day and found themselves tahor, and did not examine themselves in all the intervening days — R. Eliezer says: They are presumed to be tahor. R. Yehoshua says: They have this status for the first and seventh days alone (and must count five additional days). R. Akiva says: They have only the seventh day alone. (We suspect that the status of the first day may have been countermanded by a flux on one of the intervening days.)

4) "in her flesh": We are hereby taught that she confers tumah internally (by her blood issuing from her source and being contained within her) as well as externally (by appearing on the outside.) For (without this verse) would it not follow that she does not confer tumah internally as well as externally, viz.: If a zav, who requires running water (for his cleansing, viz. Vayikra 15:13), does not confer tumah internally as well as externally, then a niddah, who does not require running water, how much more so should she not confer tumah internally as well as externally! It must, therefore, be written "in her flesh," to teach that she does confer tumah internally as well as externally. This tells me only of a niddah. Whence do I derive the same for a zavah? From "her flow," (implying any flow). Whence do I derive the same for a woman who discharges semen (which is contained by the outer wall)? From "shall be" (connoting extension of inclusion). R. Shimon says: It suffices that she be as he who cohabits with her. Just as he does not confer (semen) tumah internally as well as externally, she, too, does not confer (semen) tumah internally as well as externally.

4) (Vayikra 15:17) ("And every garment and all skin upon which there shall be semen shall be washed in water, and it shall be unclean until the evening.") "garment and skin": This tells me only of garment and skin. Whence do I derive that all other implements are like garment and skin in this regard? From "every garment and all skin." Or, if you wish, "garment and skin" is written in respect to sheretz (Vayikra 11:32), and "garment and skin" is written in respect to a dead body, and "garment and skin" is written in respect to semen. Just as "garment and skin" written in respect to sheretz and a dead body applies to all implements, so, "garment and skin" written in respect to semen applies to all implements.

4) "in her flesh": We are hereby taught that she confers tumah internally (by her blood issuing from her source and being contained within her) as well as externally (by appearing on the outside.) For (without this verse) would it not follow that she does not confer tumah internally as well as externally, viz.: If a zav, who requires running water (for his cleansing, viz. Vayikra 15:13), does not confer tumah internally as well as externally, then a niddah, who does not require running water, how much more so should she not confer tumah internally as well as externally! It must, therefore, be written "in her flesh," to teach that she does confer tumah internally as well as externally. This tells me only of a niddah. Whence do I derive the same for a zavah? From "her flow," (implying any flow). Whence do I derive the same for a woman who discharges semen (which is contained by the outer wall)? From "shall be" (connoting extension of inclusion). R. Shimon says: It suffices that she be as he who cohabits with her. Just as he does not confer (semen) tumah internally as well as externally, she, too, does not confer (semen) tumah internally as well as externally.

4) — No, this may be so with a zavah, who becomes tamei only with three sightings in three days, as opposed to a zav, who becomes tamei with three sightings in one day. This being the case, (then without being apprised otherwise, we would assume that) he becomes tamei (as a zav from any place). It must, therefore, be written "from his flesh," and not from all of his flesh.

4) In sum, then, you are saying that his mishkav (that of a man who touches the mishkav of one who cohabited with a niddah) is like his touching him. Just as his touching him confers tumah upon one (himself) and invalidates one (thing, i.e., the terumah that he then touches), so, (touching) his mishkav confers tumah upon one and invalidates one.

4) And there are those who see blood (without kishui) a hundred days and yet are not in a state of zivah because of them: two out of her niddah time, seven of her niddah time, two after her niddah time, and eighty days after the birth of a female (viz. Vayikra 12:5), seven of her niddah time and two after her niddah time.

4) This tells me only of one who sees three days that she becomes a ("great") zavah, (who is required to bring an offering). Whence do I derive that one who sees two days (is also a zavah and is tamei)? From "all the days of the flow" (the minimum of "days" being two). Whence do I derive that one who sees one day is (also) a zavah? From "all (the days of) her flow … as the days of her niddah state."

4) See Chapter 5:13.

4) Rebbi says: To what may this be compared? To a rope of one hundred cubits. If he saw (zivah) at the beginning of a hundred, at the end of fifty, and at the end of a hundred, he is a confirmed zav. If he saw at the beginning of a hundred, before fifty and at the end of a hundred, or at the beginning of a hundred, after fifty, and at the end of a hundred, he is not a confirmed zav.

4) I might then think that I exclude a sagus, a wrap, a frock, a fodder basket of four kabim, a traveling bag of five kabim, a crituth of a sa'ah, and a chemeth of seven kabim. It is, therefore, written "all the lying," for inclusion (of these). Why do you see fit to include these and to exclude the others? After Scripture included, it excluded. I include these, which can combine lying on them with their work, and I exclude the others, which cannot combine lying on them with their work (viz.: "Get up and let us do our work!") ("And every implement) which he sits upon shall be tamei." I might think even if he sits upon a stone or upon a beam; it is, therefore, written "implement" — not a stone and not a beam. I would exclude these, but I would not exclude a chair (made of) dried dung and of (sun-baked) earth, and of stones, (which, even though they are not subject to tumah, are considered "implements.") It is, therefore, written "the implement," (i.e., the specific implement which is subject to tumah.)

4) "what he lies upon": and not upon a cord projecting from the bed less than five (tefachim, in which instance it is not considered an adjunct to the bed) or more than ten, (in which instance it is not considered a "handle" to the bed, [five to ten serving for the latter purpose]). I might think to exclude (from tumah) from five until ten; it is, therefore, written "and he shall be tamei."

4) R. Chananiah b. Chanina says: (We can learn from elsewhere that one lifted on the merkav of a zav requires washing of his clothes. Why is a verse necessary for this?) viz.: If in a way that tumah does not descend upon it ([the merkav], i.e., if a zav lifts the merkav, it does not sustain tumah by reason thereof), tumah goes forth from it (i.e., if one lifts the merkav of a zav, he is tamei), then in a way that tumah does descend upon it (i.e., by sitting upon it), how much more so should tumah go forth from it (to confer tumah upon one sitting on it)! — No! Why are we stringent with a lifted merkav (to confer tumah upon its lifter to impart tumah to clothing?) Because Scripture was stringent with a lifted zav. (i.e., if a zav was lifted on a garment, the garment confers tumah upon a man to impart tumah to clothing.) Shall we then be stringent with a merkav that lifts a man (sitting upon it), when Scripture is lenient (in this regard) in respect to a zav (himself) who is lifted! It must, therefore, be written "the object," to include the merkav.

(Lev. 15:25) “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days.” Let our master instruct us: Is it permitted for a menstruant to sleep in the same bed with her husband, when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, one on one side and one on the other?³²Shab. 13a. Thus have our masters taught: It is forbidden [for them] to lie down [together], because one does not one put a breech before a proper man, and certainly not before the thief. Thus the sages compare the matter to a fire in the straw; and it says (in Lev. 18:19), “And you shall not come near a women during her period of menstrual uncleanness.” [This is] to teach you that the Holy One, blessed be He, warns Israel about sanctification and about purity, lest they become unclean through their wives when they are menstruating; for whoever has intercourse with his wife when she is menstruating is under sentence of being cut off, as stated (in Lev. 20:18), “And if a man lies with a woman [when she is] unwell…, they both shall be cut off.”

“For this our heart suffers; for these our eyes are dim” (Lamentations 5:17).
“For this our heart suffers.” Rabbi Simlai said: The Holy One blessed be He gave great suffering to this woman, as after she observes the days of her menstruation she then observes the days of her ziva.²³By Torah law, when a woman menstruates she is impure for seven days. During that time, it is also forbidden for her to engage in intercourse with her husband. If she experiences a discharge of blood in the eleven days following the seven days of menstruation, she has the status of a zava and is impure for one additional day. If she discharges blood for three consecutive days during this period of eleven days, she must observe seven clean days without discharge before she may become pure. This is a cause of suffering for women, as indicated by the verse: “And one who suffers through her menstruation” (Leviticus 15:33). Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: This woman, because she separates from her husband for two or three days, the Torah calls her suffering. That is what is written: “And one who suffers through her menstruation” (Leviticus 15:33). We who departed from our eternal House, from our Temple, for many days and many years, all the more so that we are called suffering. That is why it is stated: “For this our heart suffers.” For what? It is “for these our eyes are dim.”²⁴“For Mount Zion that is desolate.”

5) (Vayikra 15:11) ("And whoever the zav touches, if he (the zav) did not wash his hands with water (i.e., if he did not immerse), shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening." (touches) "him": him and not the excrement upon him, and not the hair-knot upon it, and not the clasps, and not the nose rings, and not the finger rings, even though they do not come off. I might think to exclude the hair and the nails; it is, therefore, written "and he shall be unclean." "if he did not wash his hands with water": What is the intent of this? Because it is written "and he shall wash his flesh with water," I might think even the hidden parts; it is, therefore written "his hands." Just as his hands are visible, so all that is visible (is to be bathed), excluding the hidden parts.

5) (But now we have a) kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) that the zav is subject to mishkav tumah above him (when there are on his head things that are fit for mishkav beneath him), viz.: If beneath him, where Scripture did not make things subject to middaf tumah, it made him subject to mishkav tumah, then (above him), where Scripture made things subject to middaf tumah, how much more so should they be subject to mishkav tumah! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 6 verse 4) "Every mishkav on which the zav lies down shall be tamei" — He confers mishkav (tumah) beneath him and not above him.

5) R. Yossi and R. Shimon say: The words of R. Eliezer seem more cogent than the words of R. Yehoshua, and the words of R. Akiva than the words of both, but the halachah is in accordance with the words of R. Eliezer.

5) "upon which there shall be semen": even upon part of it. "semen": Just as "semen" below (Vayikra 11 verse 18) is semen as at its inception, so "semen" here is "semen" as at its inception — to include vitiated semen. From here they ruled: A woman who discharged semen on the third day (after coitus) is tahor. These are the words of R. Eliezer b. Azaryah. R. Yishmael says: Sometimes (this involves the passage of) four (conjugal) times; sometimes, of five times; sometimes, of six times. R. Akiva says: It always involves the passage of five times.

5) "seven days shall she be in her state of niddah": and not in her state of zivah, (the blood of these seven days being accounted niddah blood and not zivah blood). I might think that (to be in this state) she must see blood all seven days; it is, therefore, written "shall she be" — even though she does not see (all seven but only one).

3a) Binyan av vekathuv echad (a general rule implicit in one verse), viz.: "Mishkav" (what is lain upon) is not like "moshav" (what is sat upon [see Vayikra 15]), and moshav is not like mishkav. What is common to them is that they are articles designed for man's (bodily) comfort alone, and a zav (see Vayikra 15:2, Rashi,) defiles them by (their supporting) most of his weight, to (in turn) defile a man by maga (touching) and by massa (carrying), to (in turn) defile clothing. So, (all) articles which are designed for man's (bodily) comfort alone are defiled by a zav, by (supporting) most of his weight to (in turn) defile a man by maga and massa, to (in turn) defile clothing. This excludes (from such defilement) tarkav (a measuring instrument [which was employed for mishkav or moshav]), it being designed for a different purpose (i.e., measuring, and not "man's bodily comfort." (In sum, then, anything designed for man's bodily comfort and used for mishkav is governed by the "one verse" of mishkav, and anything designed for man's bodily comfort and used for moshav is governed by the "one verse" of moshav.)

5) Now that Scripture has made this distinction, we can reason (as in 3) above): There is tumah with a zav and tumah with a zavah. Just as with a zavah, the place from which she becomes tamei with lesser tumah, she becomes tamei with stringent tumah — so with a zav, the place from which he becomes tamei with lesser tumah, he becomes tamei with stringent tumah.

5) We find, then, that if a loaf of terumah were wrapped in a towel and placed between one mattress, (that which the cohabiter is lying on) and another — If it (the loaf) were aligned with him (the cohabiter), it becomes tamei. For if the towel becomes tamei (as the mishkav of the cohabiter), the loaf (within it) becomes tamei, [his mishkav conferring tumah upon food and drink]); and if it (the loaf) were not aligned with him, it is tahor, its touching (i.e., the touching of the towel by the mishkav) not conferring tumah upon garments, (in this instance, the towel).

5) ("and if her blood flows many days") "days": two (and "many" makes it three). I might think (that it means) many (more) days. (Concerning this) R. Akiva says: Anything that can be (understood as connoting) either a maximum or a minimum, if you have seized the maximum, you may not have caught it; if you have seized the minimum, you have caught it, (at least a minimum being subsumed in the maximum).

5) Whence is it derived that she counts one day (of cleanliness) for one day (of zivah)? From "shall be to her." I might think that just as she observes one day (of counting) for one day (of zivah), so she observes two days for two days. And it follows a fortiori (that she should observe seven days of counting for two sightings), viz.: If a zav, who does not count one day for one day, counts seven days for two days, then a zavah, who counts one day for one day, how much more so should she count seven days for two days! It is, therefore, written (re a woman who sees zivah for two days) "shall be to her," (connoting in the Hebrew that) she observes only one day (of counting).

5) See Chapter 5:13 (Vayikra 15:30) "And the Cohein shall make atonement for her before the L–rd from the flow of her uncleanliness": from the flow of her uncleanliness and not from the flow of her childbearing (See Tazria, Chapter 4:1).

5) (Vayikra 15:3) "from his zov, it is his tumah": even part of his zov confers tumah. (Vayikra 15:5) "mishkav" (his couch) and "moshav" (his seat): This includes a zav of two sightings as conferring mishkav and moshav tumah.

5) See Chapter 5:13 (Vayikra 15:30) "And the Cohein shall make atonement for her before the L–rd from the flow of her uncleanliness": from the flow of her uncleanliness and not from the flow of her childbearing (See Tazria, Chapter 4:1).

5) This tells me only of a chair, a bench, and a katedra ( soft seat with a back, which are intended for sitting). Whence do I derive for inclusion the chest of the bathing attendants, (with a hole on top for the entrance fee), a chest open on the side, (on which one can sit), and a kneading trough of two logs until seven kabim, which was split, so that he could not wash one of his feet in it? From: "every implement." I might think, even if he inverted a sa'ah (size implement) and sat on it or a tarkav and sat on it; it is, therefore, written "that he shall sit on," i.e., one that was intended for sitting, and not one about which he is told "Get up and let us do our work!"

5) (Vayikra 15:3) "from his zov, it is his tumah": even part of his zov confers tumah. (Vayikra 15:5) "mishkav" (his couch) and "moshav" (his seat): This includes a zav of two sightings as conferring mishkav and moshav tumah.

5) "what he lies upon": and not on strands which project more than three fingers beyond the rope knots, (these not being needed for tightening or loosening the knot). I might think to exclude (from tumah) from three and below; it is, therefore, written "and he shall be tamei."

5) (Vayikra 15:7) ("And he who touches the flesh of the zav shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.") "the flesh of the zav": and not the dung upon it, and not the hair-knot upon it, and not the clasps, and not the nose rings, and not the finger rings, even though they do not come off. I might think to exclude the hair and the nails; it is, therefore, written "and he shall be unclean."

(Lev. 15:25:) “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days.” But are there not seven days in a menstrual period? So why did it call them “many days?” Simply because she is separated from her husband and they are days of suffering, they are called “many days.” Similarly (in Exod. 2:23), “And it came to pass in the course of those many days [that the king of Egypt died].” It calls them “many days,” because they were days of suffering.³³Cf. Lev. R. 19:5. [Likewise] (I Kings 18:1) “And it came to pass in those many days that the word of the Lord came to Elijah in the third year.” And is it not that there were not [even] three years, but rather a month from the first, the whole second year and a month from the third? Simply because they were years of famine, they are called “many days.” Similarly (in Esther 1:4), “In his displaying the glory of his kingdom and the preciousness of the splendor of his greatness many days, one hundred and eighty days.” Simply because they were days of suffering, it calls them, “many days.” Similarly (in Joshua 11:18), “Joshua made war many days.” Similarly (in II Chronicles 16:3), “Israel has gone many days without the true God, without a priest to give instruction.” And [yet] it is written (Joshua 24:31), “Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua and all of the days of the elders who had length of days.” It is simply that since they [also] worshipped idolatry, they are called, “many days.” Here too, because she is separated from her husband and they are days of suffering, they are called “many days.”

(Ib., ib. 30) And Benayahu brought the king word again, saying: Thus hath Joab spoken, and thus he answered me. Joab said to Benayahu thus: "Go and tell the king: You cannot do two things with me. If you wish to slay me, you must accept for yourself the curses with which your father cursed me. And if you will not accept them, you will then have let me live." (Ib.) Then said the king unto him: Do as he hath spoken, and fall upon him, and bury him." R. Juda said in the name of Rab: "All the curses with which David cursed Joab fell on the descendants of David. They were (11 Sam. 3, 29) And may there not fail from the house of Joab one that falleth by the sword, or that lacketh bread, or that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a crutch. The first fell on Rehoboam, for it is written (I Kings 12, 18) Therefore King Rehoboam made speed with all his might to get up into his chariot (Merkaba), to flee to Jerusalem; and it is written (Lev. 15, 7) And what sadadle (Merkaba) whoever has the issue may ride upon shall be unclean. Leprosy on Uzziyahu, as it is written (II Chr. 26, 9) The leprosy even broke out on his forehead. Or that leaneth on a crutch — on King Assa of whom it reads (I Kings, 15, 23) Nevertheless, in the time of his old age he became disseased in his feet." And R. Juda in the name of Rab said: "Podagra caught him (gout in his feet)." Mar Zutra b. Nachman said to R. Nachman: "What kind of a sickness is this?" And he answered: "It pains like a needle piercing in raw flesh." Wherefrom did he know this? If you wish, I say that he himself suffered from this sickness. And if you wish, I say that he had it by tradition from his teachers. And if you wish, I say (Ps. 25, 14) The secret counsel of the Lord is for those that fear him; and his covenant, to make it known to them. Falleth by a sword — [was fulfilled] on Josiah, as it is written (II. Chron. 35, 23) And the archers shot at King Josiah; and the King said to his servants, "Carry me away, for I am sorely wounded." And R. Juda said in the name of Rab: "They made his body like a sieve." Lacketh bread — fell on Jechonyah, as it is written (II Kings, 25, 30) And his allowance was a continual allowance, etc. R. Juda said in the name of Rab: "This is what people say (Fol. 49) Be cursed rather than cursing." Joab was brought before the court to justify himself for the killing of Abner; and he answered that he was the revenger of the blood of Asahel. But was not Asahel a Rodeph? [Hence Abner had the right to kill him in self-defense]. And he said: "He could have saved himself by injuring one of the members of his (Abner's) body." And to the question: "Perhaps he could not do so?" he answered: "Since he was able to determine to strike him exactly in the fifth rib, as it is written (II Sam. 2, 35) On the fifth rib, to which R. Jochanan said, where the bile and the liver are attached, how could he not do so with another member?" The court then said: "Let us not consider Abner. But why did you kill Amassa?" And he answered: "He was a rebel to the king, as it is written (Ib. 20, 5) So Amassa . . he remained longer that the set time." And he was answered: Amassa was not a rebel, as he had a good reason for his delay because of their study. But you are indeed a rebel, because you were inclined to Adoniyahu against David's will, as it is written (I Kings 2, 28) And the report came to Joab; for Joab had turned after Adoniyahu, though he had not turned after Abshalom. Why is though he had not turned, mentioned? R. Juda said: "This means that he was inclined to turn, but did not." And why did he not finally turn? "Because," said R. Elazar, the vitality of David was still hearty." And R. Jose b. Chanina said: "Because the active force of David were still in their strength, as R. Juda said in the name of Rab that David had four hundred children, and all of these were born to him by handsome captive women. They had long locks and went with the chiefs of the armies. And these were David's men of power."

6) "a plague-spot of leprosy and he shall see it": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 15:11) "And the Cohein shall declare him tamei; he shall not quarantine him" we learn that a confirmed leper is not to be quarantined.

6) Whence is it derived that if a zav finished counting (the seven days and did not yet immerse himself) — (Whence is it derived) that his status is the same as that of one who was rid (of his plague-spot before he began to count the seven days)? From "if he did not wash his hands with water" — even after a hundred years.

6) (But now we have) a kal vachomer that the zav makes (vessels unfit for mishkav) that are beneath him subject to middaf tumah, viz.: If above him, where Scripture did not make things subject to mishkav tumah, it made them subject to middaf tumah, then beneath him, where Scripture made them subject to mishkav tumah, how much more so should they be subject to middaf tumah! It is, therefore, written "Every mishkav on which the zav lies down shall be tamei" — He confers mishkav tumah beneath him and not middaf tumah.

6) "seven days": I might think either consecutive or non-consecutive; it is, therefore, written "for his cleansing." (The period of) his cleansing must be one (consecutive unit).

6) And if part of the first time has passed, this is completed by part of the sixth time.

6) This tells me only of "days." Whence do I derive the nights (for inclusion)? From "shall she be" — to include the nights.

6) "from his flesh": (He is not tamei) until his tumah (i.e., his discharge) comes outside of his flesh. (For if not for the verse, I would say) Does it not follow (otherwise)? viz.: If a zavah, who becomes tamei only with three sightings in three days, becomes tamei (if the flux remains) inside as well as (if it comes) outside, then a zav, who becomes tamei with three sightings in one day, how much more so should he become tamei inside as well as outside. It must, therefore, be written "from his flesh": (He is not tamei) until his tumah comes outside of his flesh.

6) "and he shall be tamei for seven days": He counts the seven from the last cohabitation. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow by induction, viz.: He becomes tamei by a dead body and he becomes tamei by a niddah. Just as we find with the first that he counts seven days only from the last tumah, so when he becomes tamei by a niddah, he should count the seven days only from the last union.

6) R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: Of two parameters, one finite; the other, infinite, we choose the finite and not the infinite.

6) I know only that a woman who has three (zivah) sightings confers mishkav and moshav tumah. Whence do I derive the same for one who has only two sightings? From "the days (a minimum of two) of her (zivah) flux, as the mishkav of her niddah state."

6) (Why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a zavah, who does not count seven (days) for two sightings, confers mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings, then a zav, who does count seven (days) for two sightings, how much more so should he confer mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings! — No, this may be true of a zavah, who confers mishkav and moshav tumah with one sighting. Would you say the same for a zav, who does not confer mishkav and moshav tumah with one sighting? Since he does not confer mishkav and moshav tumah with one sighting, (I would say that) he does not confer mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings. It is, therefore, written "from his zov" — even part of his zov confers mishkav and moshav tumah — to include a zav of two sightings as conferring mishkav and moshav tumah.

6) (Vayikra 15:31) ("And you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanliness, and they shall not die in their uncleanliness by defiling My tabernacle which is in their midst.") "And you shall separate (vehizartem) the children of Israel. Nezirah (as in "vehizartem") is nothing other than separation, as it is written (Ezekiel 14:7): "… and he separated (veyinazer) from Me and he brought up his abominations upon his heart," and (Isaiah 1:4): "And they have separated themselves (nazoru), (turning) backwards."

6) — But perhaps I should exclude the chest of the bathing attendants and the chest open on its side, and the kneading trough of two logs until seven kabim, which was split, so that he could not wash one of his feet in it. It is, therefore, written "every implement." For inclusion (of these). Why do you see fit to include these and to exclude the others? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include these, which can combine sitting with their work (i.e., the work they were intended for), and I exclude the others, which cannot combine sitting with their work.

6) "what he (the zav) lies upon, and not what is wrested" (from another). I might think to exclude (from tumah) one that is stolen (by stealth); it is, therefore, written "and he shall be tamei."

6) "the flesh of the zav": and not a detached bone, and not detached flesh. How much more so is (a bone or flesh) detached from one that is tahor, tahor. How, then, am I to understand (Bamidbar 19:16): "or the bone of a man or a grave"? That refers to a limb detached form a living man.

(Lev. 15:25:) “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood [for many days].” Thus did R. Hiya teach: Any place where [Scripture] says, “days,” it is two days; and any place where it says, “many days,” it is three days. How so? The woman is unclean from menstruation for seven days and becomes clean on the eighth day. [If] she sees blood on that day, she observes a day [like the rest] and becomes clean. [If] she sees it again on the ninth day, she observes that day and becomes clean. [If] she sees it again on the tenth day, she observes that one and is clean. Ergo, three days which are “many days.” However, if she sees blood on day eleven, which is the fourth day of her cleansing, she returns to her uncleanness, and observes her seven days of menstruation from the beginning. For so have the sages taught: There are eleven days between one menstrual period and another; therefore, the woman has to keep fifteen days. How does she do so? She keeps seven days of her menstrual period. Then after that she counts seven clean days and becomes clean on the eighth day. Then she performs a strict immersion after sunset, and she is lawful for her husband. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 15:28), “And when she is clean from her discharge, she shall count off seven days, and after that she shall be clean.”

(Lev. 15:25:) “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood [for many days].” Thus did R. Hiya teach: Any place where [Scripture] says, “days,” it is two days; and any place where it says, “many days,” it is three days. How so? The woman is unclean from menstruation for seven days and becomes clean on the eighth day. [If] she sees blood on that day, she observes a day [like the rest] and becomes clean. [If] she sees it again on the ninth day, she observes that day and becomes clean. [If] she sees it again on the tenth day, she observes that one and is clean. Ergo, three days which are “many days.” However, if she sees blood on day eleven, which is the fourth day of her cleansing, she returns to her uncleanness, and observes her seven days of menstruation from the beginning. For so have the sages taught: There are eleven days between one menstrual period and another; therefore, the woman has to keep fifteen days. How does she do so? She keeps seven days of her menstrual period. Then after that she counts seven clean days and becomes clean on the eighth day. Then she performs a strict immersion after sunset, and she is lawful for her husband. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 15:28), “And when she is clean from her discharge, she shall count off seven days, and after that she shall be clean.”

“and the dust returns to the earth as it was; and the spirit returns to God, who provided it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7).
“And the dust returns to the earth as it was” – Rabbi Pinḥas and Rabbi Ḥilkiya [said] in the name of Rabbi Simon: When is it that “the spirit returns to God, who provided it”? It is when “the dust returns to the earth [as it was].”¹²If the body returns free of sin, as it was before the person lived his life. If not, “may He cast away the souls of your enemies…” (I Samuel 25:29).¹³God will cast away the souls of the sinners.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani [said] in the name of Rabbi Avdimi of Haifa: [This is analogous] to a priest who is scrupulous regarding matters of ritual purity who gave a loaf of teruma bread to a priest who is not scrupulous in that regard, and said to him: ‘Look, I am pure, my household is pure, my utensils are pure, and this loaf that I am giving you is pure. If you return it to me in the manner that I gave it to you, fine, but if not, I will burn it in your presence.’ So too, the Holy One blessed be He says to each person: Look, I am pure, My abode is pure, My attendants are pure, and the soul that I am placing in you is pure. If you give it to Me as I gave it to you, fine, but if not, I will burn it in your presence.¹⁴In Gehenna
All this [occurs to a person] in his old age; however, in one’s youth, if he sins he is stricken with gonorrhea and leprosy; therefore, Moses cautions Israel: “[Any] man, when there will be a discharge from his flesh” (Leviticus 15:2).¹⁵The term “from his flesh” is seemingly unnecessary and is meant to emphasize that if one sins God brings upon him bodily punishment even in his youth. God need not bring this punishment from an external source; He can bring it from within a person’s own body.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi interpreted the verses regarding the Temple.¹⁶Previously verses 1–7 were interpreted as warning a person to remember God before reaching old age. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi offers an alternative interpretation of these verses. The prophet said to Israel: “Remember your Creator” (Ecclesiastes 12:1) – remember your Creator while your chosen status is still intact, while the covenant of priesthood is still intact, as it is stated: “And choose it from all the tribes of Israel [to be priests for Me]” (I Samuel 2:28); while the covenant of Levitehood is still intact, as it is stated: “As the Lord your God has chosen it from all your tribes…” (Deuteronomy 18:5); while the covenant of Jerusalem is still intact, as it is stated: “The city that I have chosen” (I Kings 11:32); while the kingdom of the House of David is still intact, as it is stated: “He chose David, His servant” (Psalms 78:70); while the Temple is still intact, as it is stated: “Now I have chosen and consecrated this house” (II Chronicles 7:16); while you are still intact, as it is stated: “The Lord your God has chosen you to be a treasured people for Him” (Deuteronomy 7:6). “Before the evil days come” (Ecclesiastes 12:1) – these are the days of the exile; that is what is written: “Who put far away the evil day” (Amos 6:3). “And the years arrive when you will say” (Ecclesiastes 12:1): The merit of the patriarchs has ceased.
“Before the sun…are darkened” (Ecclesiastes 12:2) – this is the kingdom of the House of David, as it is stated: “His throne will be like the sun before Me” (Psalms 89:37). “The light” (Ecclesiastes 12:2) – this is Torah, as it is stated: “For the commandment is a lamp and Torah is light” (Proverbs 6:23). “The moon” (Ecclesiastes 12:2) – this is the Sanhedrin,¹⁷The Sanhedrin would sit in the configuration of a semicircle, or half-moon. as it is written: “Like the moon, it will be established forever” (Psalms 89:38). “The stars” (Ecclesiastes 12:2) – these are Torah scholars.
“And the clouds return after the rain” (Ecclesiastes 12:2) – you find that all the harsh prophecies that Jeremiah prophesied in their regard did not befall them until after the destruction of the Temple.
“On the day that the guards of the house will tremble” (Ecclesiastes 12:3) – these are the priestly and Levite watches. “The men of valor will be bent” (Ecclesiastes 12:3) – these are the priests. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: Aaron [picked up and] waved twenty-two thousand Levites on one day, as it is stated: “Aaron waved the Levites a waving before the Lord (Numbers 8:11). Rabbi Ḥanina said: The crop [of a bird] is very light, and the priest would aim, take it in one hand, and throw it behind the ramp [of the altar, a distance of] thirty-two cubits, with a backward [motion of his] hand.¹⁸Throwing a light item accurately to a great distance takes enormous strength.
“The grinders will cease” (Ecclesiastes 12:3) – these are the great compilations [of tannaitic traditions], like the compilation of Rabbi Akiva, the compilation of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Hoshaya, and the compilation of bar Kappara. “Because they have dwindled” (Ecclesiastes 12:3) – this is the Talmud that is intermingled with them. “It will be dark for those who gaze through the windows” (Ecclesiastes 12:3) – you find that when Israel was exiled to Babylon, there was no one able to clearly articulate his studies.
“The doors to the street will be shut” (Ecclesiastes 12:4) – these are the doors of Neḥashta of the House of Elnatan,¹⁹Neḥushta, daughter of Elnatan, was the mother of Yehoyakhin, king of Judah (see II Kings 24:8). Her door was open to all those in need, but this was no longer the case after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. which had been wide open. “With the fading of the sound of the mill” (Ecclesiastes 12:4) – [the destruction occurred] because they were indolent in the study of Torah. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Matters of Torah were likened to a mill; just as a mill is not idle by day or at night, so too, regarding matters of Torah it is stated: “You shall contemplate it day and night” (Joshua 1:8). “And one will arise to the voice of a bird” (Ecclesiastes 12:4) – Rabbi Levi said: For eighteen years, a Divine Voice would proclaim and call out to Nebuchadnezzar and say to him: Wicked slave, ascend and destroy the house of your Master, because His children are rebellious and do not obey Him. “And all the sources of music will be lowered” (Ecclesiastes 12:4) – [Nebuchadnezzar] ascended and abrogated song in the Temple; that is what is stated: “They will not drink wine with song” (Isaiah 24:9).
“They will also fear heights” (Ecclesiastes 12:5) – [Nebuchadnezzar] also feared the most elevated, the King of kings. “There will be obstacles on the way” (Ecclesiastes 12:5) – the fear of the way fell over him. Rabbi Levi said: He began delineating subdivisions along the route, as it is stated: “For the king of Babylon stood at the crossroads, [at the head of the two roads, to practice divination; he shot arrows, consulted the terafim, and examined the liver]” (Ezekiel 21:26); [he stood at] a thoroughfare that diverges, “at the head of the two roads,” [a location] that diverges to two roads. There were two roads there, one going toward the wilderness and one going toward the settlement [Jerusalem]. “To practice divination” – he began performing divination in the name of Rome, but it was not successful;²⁰He performed divination to find out if he would be successful if he waged war against Rome, but the message he received was that he would not be successful. in the name of Alexandria, but it was not successful; in the name of Jerusalem, and it was successful. “He shot arrows” in the name of Rome, but it was not successful; in the name of Alexandria, but it was not successful; in the name of Jerusalem, and it was successful.²¹He shot arrows straight up into the air and watched to see in which direction they would fall. When he shot with the intention to receive a sign about Jerusalem, the arrow sailed in the direction of Jerusalem. He kindled lamps and lanterns in the name of Rome, but they did not light; in the name of Alexandria, but they did not light; in the name of Jerusalem, and they lit. He sailed boats on the Euphrates River in the name of Rome, but they did not move; in the name of Alexandria, but they did not move; in the name of Jerusalem, and they moved. “Consulted the terafim” – this is his idol worship. “And examined the liver” – Rabbi Levi said: Like an Arab who slaughters a lamb and examines its liver.²²This is a form of divination.
“In his right hand was the divination for Jerusalem, [to place battering rams, to call for murder, to raise the voice with shouting, to place battering rams against the gates, to pour a ramp, to build a siege tower]” (Ezekiel 21:27) – the divination of Jerusalem was in his right hand.²³He was encouraged by the signs he received via divination that he would conquer Jerusalem. Alternatively, he cast lots, and the lot of Jerusalem came up in his right hand, indicating that he would conquer it. “To place battering rams [karim]” – [to appoint] government officials [kalorkhin]; “to call for murder” – [to administer] death sentences; “to raise the voice” – [to sound] trumpets of war; “to place battering rams” – he deployed a siege; “to pour a ramp” – [from which they would catapult] stones; “and to build a siege tower” – ramps [to climb over the wall]. Regarding all of these [it could have been said]: “But it will be for them like a vain divination [in their eyes, who have weeks upon weeks, and it evokes iniquity for them to be captured]” (Ezekiel 21:28). The prophet said to Israel: Had you merited, you would have read the Torah that is expounded in seven times seven ways.²⁴This is alluded to in the phrase “weeks upon weeks,” as a week has seven days. Now that you have not merited, Nebuchadnezzar will divine seven times seven divinations upon you. Why to that extent? “And it evokes iniquity for them to be captured” – this is the blood of Zekharia.²⁵See Kohelet Rabba 3:16, where the story is told of Zekharia, a prophet and priest, who was murdered in the Temple. This terrible act caused the Israelites to be punished with great bloodshed and suffering at the time of the destruction of the Temple.
“The almond tree will blossom” (Ecclesiastes 12:5) – this is the prophecy of Jeremiah, as it is stated: “I see the branch of an almond tree” (Jeremiah 1:11). Rabbi Elazar said: Just as an almond tree, from the moment that it blossoms until its fruit ripens is twenty-one days, so too, the entire decree was [carried out] only from the seventeenth of Tammuz until the ninth of Av.
“The grasshopper will be burdened” (Ecclesiastes 12:5) – this is the image of Nebuchadnezzar, as it is stated: “Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold; [its height was sixty cubits, and its width was six cubits]” (Daniel 3:1).²⁶It is referred to disdainfully as a grasshopper as a way to mock its giant size. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It emerges that you are saying that anything whose height is sixty and its width is six [is able to stand,] but [in fact] it requires a width one-third of its height. Rabbi Banai said: It was like a reed; he would place it upright and it would fall, he would place it upright and it would fall. Rabbi Ḥagai said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak. It was incapable of standing until he brought all the silver and gold from Jerusalem. They poured it into a solid base before it as a stand for its feet. That is what is written: “They will cast their silver in the streets” (Ezekiel 7:19).
“The caper berry [haaviyona] will fail” (Ecclesiastes 12:5) – this is the merit of the patriarchs.²⁷The word aviyona is expounded to mean father of a dove [avi yona], as the Jewish people are likened to a dove. “For the man goes to his eternal home” (Ecclesiastes 12:5) – they were from Babylon,²⁸Abraham’s origins were in Babylon. and to Babylon they returned. “And the mourners will circle in the streets” (Ecclesiastes 12:5) – this is the exile of Yekhonya. You find that at the time of the exile of Zedekiah,²⁹The exile of Zedekiah, which took place in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, was eleven years after the exile of Yekhonya. the members of the exile of Yekhonya emerged to greet them. They were covered in sackcloth³⁰This was in mourning for the destruction of the Temple. on the inside and in white garments³¹As residents of Babylon, they outwardly celebrated their king’s victory. on the outside. They would ask each other:³²Those who had been exiled previously asked those who were just coming into exile. How is [my] father doing? How is [my] mother doing? How is [my] brother doing? They said to them: They were killed. They would mourn with one hand and laud with the other hand,³³They would beat their chests or thighs in mourning, and when forced to, they would applaud the king for his victory. to fulfill what is stated: “Your splendor will be upon your heads and your shoes upon your feet; you will not lament and you will not weep” (Ezekiel 24:23).³⁴They were forced to wear celebratory clothing and could not properly mourn their loss.
“Before the silver cord is severed” (Ecclesiastes 12:6) – this is the genealogical chain;³⁵Families of impeccable lineage kept meticulous genealogical records and were careful to marry only families with similarly impeccable lineage. This ability, and certainly the records, were lost during the period of destruction and exile. “the golden skull is shattered” (Ecclesiastes 12:6) – these are matters of Torah, as it is stated: “More pleasant than gold” (Psalms 19:11).
“The pitcher is smashed at the spring” (Ecclesiastes 12:6) – two amora’im: One says: The pitcher of Barukh at the spring of Jeremiah,³⁶Barukh ben Neriya was the disciple of Jeremiah. The transmission from master to disciple was disrupted. and one says: The pitcher of Jeremiah at the spring of Barukh. That is what is written: “[Then Barukh answered them:] From his own mouth he would recite all these words to me and I would write on the scroll with the ink” (Jeremiah 36:18).³⁷In this verse, Barukh copied down what Jeremiah said. The midrash may be alluding to the fact that Jeremiah was dependent upon Barukh’s skill as a scribe, which was enhanced by Divine inspiration (Maharzu); alternatively, Jeremiah the teacher was enriched by his student’s insights and questions (Etz Yosef).
“And the wheel is shattered into the cistern” (Ecclesiastes 12:6) – they were from Babylon, and to Babylon they returned. They were from Babylon, as it is stated: “The Lord said to Abram: Go you from your land” (Genesis 12:1).³⁸Abraham’s original land was Ur Kasdim (see Genesis 11:31), which is in Babylon. “And to Babylon they returned” – [as it is stated regarding Nebuchadnezzar:] “And exiled the people to Babylon” (Ezra 5:12). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “Who says to the depths: Be dry” (Isaiah 44:27). “The depths” – this is Babylon. Why is it called “the depths”? Because the dead of the generation of the Flood were submerged there, as it is written: “As Babylon caused the dead of Israel to fall, [so at Babylon shall fall the dead of all the land]” (Jeremiah 51:49).
Reish Lakish said: It is written: “They found a valley in the land of Shinar” (Genesis 11:2). Why is it called Shinar? Because the dead of the generation of the Flood were transported [sheninaru] there [by the water]. Alternatively: Shinar, as they died in convulsions [tashnuk], without a lamp and without a bathhouse.³⁹Because they were impoverished. Alternatively: Shinar, as they were bereft [meno’arim] of the mitzvot, without teruma and tithes.⁴⁰These mitzvot apply specifically in the Land of Israel. Shinar, as their princes die as lads [ne’arim]. Shinar, as they established an enemy [soneh] and a destroyer [va’er]; and who is that? It is Nebuchadnezzar.
“And the dust returns to the earth as it was” (Ecclesiastes 12:7) – they were from Babylon, and to Babylon they returned. “And the spirit returns to God” – this is the Divine Spirit. You find that when Jeremiah saw Jerusalem destroyed, the Temple burned, Israel exiled, and the Divine Spirit that departed, he began [to speak] about them with [the phrase] “vanity of vanities” (Ecclesiastes 12:8).

7) R. Elazar b. Arach said: From here the sages adduced a Scriptural support for the (Rabbinical) ordinance of washing the hands.

7) (But now we have) a kal vachomer that the zav does not confer mishkav tumah (upon layers not directly in contact beneath him), viz.: If above him, where Scripture made things subject to middaf tumah, it did not make them subject to mishkav tumah, then (beneath him), where Scripture did not make them subject to middaf tumah, how much more so should they not be subject to mishkav tumah! It is, therefore, written "Every mishkav on which the zav lies down shall be tamei" — whereby we are taught that he does confer mishkav tumah (even upon layers not directly in contact beneath him).

7) "And he shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh": Just as the bathing of his flesh must be in cleanliness (i.e., that there be no object intervening between his flesh and the water), so, the washing of his clothes must be in cleanliness — whence we derive that chatzitzah (such intervention) invalidates (the immersion of) vessels, too.

7) (Vayikra 15:18) ("And a woman, if a man lie with her, a lying of semen, then they shall bathe in water, and they shall be unclean until the evening.") "a woman": to exclude a minor. I might then think to exclude a child of three years and one day; it is, therefore, written "and a woman."

7) I might think (any seven days), whether consecutive of scattered; it is, therefore, written "shall she be" — their being shall be one (consecutive unit).

7) "from his flesh" he is tamei, and not from any external cause — whence they ruled: In seven ways they examine a zav (for possible external causes) before he is "bound" to zivah (after the first two sightings): for (excessive) eating, for drinking, for jumping, for (carrying) a burden, for sickness, for sight (of a woman), and for thought (of a woman). Once he is "bound" to zivah (after the first two sightings), he is not examined. His accident (i.e., one of the external causes) and the possibility of his having seen it (the third sighting) because of (an antecedent discharge of) his semen, render him tamei (and liable for an offering), for there is reason to suppose (that this third sighting is not caused by the other factors).

7) — But perhaps go in this direction: she becomes tamei and she confers tumah upon her cohabiter. Just as she counts the seven days only from the first sighting (even if she had other sightings all seven days), so, when he becomes tamei by a niddah, he should count seven only from the first union.

7) R. Nechemiah says: Does Scripture come to open (i.e., to open the way to understanding) or to close (the way)? If you say that "days" is ten, (this can be challenged:) "Perhaps it means a hundred!" "Perhaps two hundred!" "Perhaps a thousand!" "Perhaps ten thousand!" And when you say "days" is two, you have opened (the way to understanding).

7) Whence do I derive the same for one who has only one sighting? From "all the days of her flux, as the mishkav of her niddah state."

7) ("And this shall be) his uncleanliness in his zov": He confers tumah in his white (discharge) and not with (a penis discharge of) blood. Does it not follow a fortiori (that he should confer tumah with blood)? viz.: If a zavah, who does not confer tumah with white, confers tumah with blood, then a zav, who does confer tumah with white, how much more so should he confer tumah with blood! It must, therefore, be written "his tumah in his zov": He confers tumah with white and not with blood.

7) "And you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanliness": This is an exhortation (that they shall separate from sacred food and from the sanctuary in the days of their tumah. "and they shall not die in their uncleanliness": This (death, i.e., kareth) is the punishment. "when they defile My tabernacle which is in their mist": Though they be tamei, My shechinah is in their midst.

7) This tells me only of (the zav's conferring tumah) when he lay on the couch or sat on the seat. Whence do I derive (that the same obtains) when he lay on the seat and sat on the couch, or when he stood, was suspended (by a couch or a seat on the other end of a balance [so that he was in effect "lying" or "sitting" on them]) or leaned on them? From (the redundancy of (Vayikra 15:4) "he shall be tamei" - he shall be tamei."

7) R. Shimon says: "what he lies upon," and not what is stolen. I might think to exclude what is wrested; it is, therefore, written "and he shall be tamei."

7) If it is written in respect to zav (that what is detached from him is clean), why need it be written in respect to mishkav? (See Section 2:3); and if it is written in respect to mishkav, why need it be stated in respect to zav?) Because there obtains with zav what does not obtain with mishkav, and with mishkav what does not obtain with zav — Zav makes a mishkav, and mishkav does not make a zav; the attachments of a zav are tahor (viz. Bamidbar 19:5 above) and the attachments of a mishkav are tamei (See Section 3:4) — Because there obtains with zav what does not obtain with mishkav and with mishkav what does not obtain with zav, it must be written both in respect to mishkav and in respect to zav.

That there are eleven days between one menstrual period and another is a law from Moshe at Sinai. Its explanation is that the law transmitted to Moshe at Sinai is like this: From the beginning of any woman's seeing menstrual blood, her law is to count for all of her days, seven days of menstruation (niddah) from the beginning of her seeing. And after these seven days of menstruation, [she counts] eleven days, and they are called the days of flow (zivah). And after these eleven days that are days of flow, she goes back to the seven days of menstruation. And after them eleven days of flow, and continuing like this. And so is it fitting to count in this way all of her days. And these seven days of menstruation are whether she saw one day or even one hour, or even if she saw all of the entire seven days of menstruation. In the evening, she immerses [in the mikveh and is permitted to her husband, and does not require clean [days]. As it is stated (Leviticus 15:19), "seven days shall she be in her menstruation" - she shall be in her menstruation all seven. But on these eleven days between [one] menstruation and [another] menstruation, any day that she sees blood, she observes one day corresponding to that day, and that is [the law of] a small flow. And if she did not see on the second day, she immerses and becomes pure. But if she saw also on the second day, she observes a day corresponding to the two days that she saw. And if she did not see on the third day, she immerses and becomes pure. But if she saw also on the third day that she is observing, she saw three consecutive days. [Hence] she is [in the category of] a large flow. And [so] she needs to sit seven complete (twenty-four hour) days after the blood has ceased from her. And she does not count the day that the blood ceases for the count of clean days. And this is the law in the days of flow: Any time she saw one day, she counts [another] day corresponding to it; and so [too,] two days, she counts one day for them. [But if] she saw three consecutive days, she observes seven days.

8) "and bathe his flesh in running water": The zav requires running water, and not the leper.

8) "if a man lie with her": to exclude a minor (less than nine years old). "her": to exclude a bride, (a woman not conceiving from her first coitus). These are the words of R. Yehudah. They said to him: What does this (verse) have to do with a bride? Rather, "her," to exclude unnatural coitus (i.e., sodomy). ("a lying of) semen": to exclude peripheral contact (through which she does not conceive).

8) Whence is it derived that she does not immerse while it is still day? From "seven days shall she be in her state of niddah" — she shall be in that state all of the seven days (and she immerses on the night preceding the eighth day).

5) prat ukllal (specific-general): (Shemoth 22:9): "If a man give to his neighbor an ass or an ox or a lamb — specific; "or any beast to watch" — general: specific-general — the general adds to the specific.

8) "his flux is tamei": We are hereby taught that his flux (itself) is tamei (and not only the man). Now does this not follow (even without a verse, viz.:) If the zav, whose tumah was caused by the flux is tamei, how much more so, the flux itself! — This is refuted by the sent-away he-goat (of Yom Kippur) which causes tumah (to the sender), but which itself is tahor.

8) Let us see whom he most resembles, viz.: We derive tumah which is from a different source (the niddah) from tumah which is from a different source (a dead body), and this is not to be refuted by blood, which is from her own body.

8) R. Mona says in the name of R. Yehudah: "Days" signifies two. If you would say that "many" is intended, this is already written. It must mean, then, the minimum of days, i.e., two.

8) "shall she be tamei": We are hereby taught that she renders unclean (as a zav) the one who cohabits with her. "tamei is she.": She renders unclean the one who cohabits with her; but a zav does not render unclean (as a zav) the one who cohabits with him (i.e., who sodomizes him).

8) Let it follow a fortiori, then, that a zavah confers tumah with white! viz.: If a zav, who does not confer tumah with blood, confers tumah with white, then a zavah, who does confer tumah with blood, how much more so should she confer tumah with white! It is, therefore, written "it is his tumah" — his tumah and not her tumah. The tumah of the man is with white and the tumah of the woman is with blood.

8) (Vayikra 15:32) ("This is the law of the zav and of him from whom semen issues forth to be made unclean thereby.") "This is the law of the zav"; of one sighting, who is comparable to one from whom semen issues forth (For a zav of two sightings must observe seven clean days); and he immerses and eats his Paschal offering at night.

8) "the zav": and not a ba'al keri (one with a nocturnal discharge). (Why is the verse needed to tell us this?) Does it not follow inductively? viz.: The tumah of the zav is from his organ, and the tumah of the ba'al keri is from his organ. Just as a zav confers tumah to couch and seat, so the ba'al keri confers tumah to couch and seat. It is, therefore written "the zav," and not the ba'al keri.

8) Why do you see fit to include the one and to exclude the other? After Scripture includes (by "and he shall be tamei"), it excludes (by "what he lies upon.") I include (as tamei) what the owner despairs of (recovering, so that it is now considered "his" [the zav's] bed), and I exclude what he does not despair of (recovering).

8) ("And if the zav spit upon one who is clean, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.") "And if the zav spit upon one who is clean": I might think even if he spit and it did not touch him he would be tamei; it is, therefore, written "upon one who is clean" — it must touch him. This tells me only of his spittle. Whence do I derive the same for his phlegm, his mucus, his slaver, and his nasal flow? From "And if the zav spit."

(Lev. 15:25:) “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days.” Why a woman and not a man? Previously it applied to men and women. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 15:2), “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh.” R. Meir says, “The man's uncleanness was more serious than the woman's uncleanness. Why? Because the uncleanness of women is a sign of children; however, that of a man is [a sign] of suffering. Thus it is stated (in vs. 3), ‘And this shall be the uncleanness in his discharge,’³⁴The next verses (4-12) stress just how defiling his discharge really is. [i.e.] something which seals and closes.” Previously the men saw water, until Rachel arose and said (in Gen. 31:35), “for the period of women is upon me.” Then it was given to her. Therefore (in Exod. 15:25), “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood.” (Lev. 15:25:) “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days.” Thus have our masters taught (in Shab. 2:6): Women die at the time of their childbirth for three transgressions:³⁵Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 2:1; Tanh., Gen. 2:1. Because they have not been careful in regard to menstruation, in regard to the hallah,³⁶I.e., the priest’s share of the dough. and in regard to the lighting of the lamp.³⁷I.e., the Sabbath lamp. Why at the time of their childbirth? Because the adversary (Satan) only makes accusations³⁸Gk.: kategorein. in time of danger. Now the three of them are from the Torah. [Where is it shown about] menstruation? (Lev. 15:25:) “And when a woman has had a discharge of her blood.” [Where is it shown about] the hallah? (Numb. 15:20:) “[You shall set aside] the first of your dough as a hallah offering.” [Where is it shown] in regard to the lighting of the [Sabbath] lamp? As our masters taught, “Where is it shown that a person is to be zealous and diligent in the lighting of the [Sabbath] lamp? Where it is stated (in Is. 58:13), ‘and you call the Sabbath a delight.’ This refers to the lighting of the lamp.” And why were [these commandments] transmitted to the woman?³⁹Gen. R. 17:8; yShab. 2:4 (5b). The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “She extinguished the lamp of the world….” In regard to menstruation, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “She shed the blood of Adam, and she was sentenced to have her own blood shed, since it is stated (in Gen. 9:6), ‘Whoever sheds human blood [by a human will his blood be shed].’ She shall observe her menstrual period to atone for the blood that she shed.” Ergo (in Lev. 15:25), “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood.” Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, compares the uncleanness of Israel to the uncleanness of the menstrual period, when [a woman] is unclean and [then] purified. So the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to purify Israel, as stated (in Ezek. 36:25), “I will sprinkle pure water upon you, and you shall be pure.” Another interpretation: (Ezek. 36:17:) “Their way before Me was like the uncleanness of a menstruant woman”; like the uncleanness of a menstruant woman, and not like the uncleanness of a corpse. With a corpse in the house, a high priest does not enter there; but in the case of a menstruant woman, a high priest enters into the house with her and sits [with her] on the couch,⁴⁰‘YSTWW’, probably from the Gk.: histion, which means “something woven.” but on condition that it not shake (when they sit on it). So if Israel were compared to the impurity of death, the Divine Presence would never return upon them; however, they are compared to the menstruant because there is cleansing for her in a mikveh, so that the priest may be with her in the house and not be afraid. Thus the Divine Presence dwells with Israel, even though they are unclean, as stated (in Lev. 16:16), “which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.” R. Levy said, “When Israel was in Egypt, the women did not see menstrual blood, because the fear of Egypt was upon them. And also after Israel left Egypt, they did not see menstruation in the desert, because the Divine Presence was among them.” [Moreover,] the women accepted the Torah first. It is so stated (in Exod. 19:3), “Thus shall you say to the House of Jacob,” these are the women;⁴¹Exod. R. 28:2. Cf. Shab. 118b: “R. Jose said, ‘… but my wife [I called] my house.’” (ibid., cont.), “and declare to the sons of Israel,” these are the men. And so it says (in Cant. 6:10), “terrible⁴²Buber, n. 91, points out that ‘ayummah (TERRIBLE) is seen as related to ‘emah (“fear”), in that the fear of the Divine Presence was upon them. like bannered hosts.” Now about them it is stated (in Cant. 4:12), “A locked garden is my sister, my bride, a locked fountain, a sealed spring.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “In this world you became clean but returned to uncleanness; but in the world to come I Myself will cleanse you so that you shall not ever become unclean.” Thus it is stated (in Ezek. 36:25), “I will sprinkle pure water upon you, and you shall be pure; I will purify you from all your uncleannesses and from all your idols.”

(Lev. 15:25:) “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days.” Why a woman and not a man? Previously it applied to men and women. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 15:2), “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh.” R. Meir says, “The man's uncleanness was more serious than the woman's uncleanness. Why? Because the uncleanness of women is a sign of children; however, that of a man is [a sign] of suffering. Thus it is stated (in vs. 3), ‘And this shall be the uncleanness in his discharge,’³⁴The next verses (4-12) stress just how defiling his discharge really is. [i.e.] something which seals and closes.” Previously the men saw water, until Rachel arose and said (in Gen. 31:35), “for the period of women is upon me.” Then it was given to her. Therefore (in Exod. 15:25), “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood.” (Lev. 15:25:) “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days.” Thus have our masters taught (in Shab. 2:6): Women die at the time of their childbirth for three transgressions:³⁵Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 2:1; Tanh., Gen. 2:1. Because they have not been careful in regard to menstruation, in regard to the hallah,³⁶I.e., the priest’s share of the dough. and in regard to the lighting of the lamp.³⁷I.e., the Sabbath lamp. Why at the time of their childbirth? Because the adversary (Satan) only makes accusations³⁸Gk.: kategorein. in time of danger. Now the three of them are from the Torah. [Where is it shown about] menstruation? (Lev. 15:25:) “And when a woman has had a discharge of her blood.” [Where is it shown about] the hallah? (Numb. 15:20:) “[You shall set aside] the first of your dough as a hallah offering.” [Where is it shown] in regard to the lighting of the [Sabbath] lamp? As our masters taught, “Where is it shown that a person is to be zealous and diligent in the lighting of the [Sabbath] lamp? Where it is stated (in Is. 58:13), ‘and you call the Sabbath a delight.’ This refers to the lighting of the lamp.” And why were [these commandments] transmitted to the woman?³⁹Gen. R. 17:8; yShab. 2:4 (5b). The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “She extinguished the lamp of the world….” In regard to menstruation, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “She shed the blood of Adam, and she was sentenced to have her own blood shed, since it is stated (in Gen. 9:6), ‘Whoever sheds human blood [by a human will his blood be shed].’ She shall observe her menstrual period to atone for the blood that she shed.” Ergo (in Lev. 15:25), “And when a woman has had a discharge of blood.” Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, compares the uncleanness of Israel to the uncleanness of the menstrual period, when [a woman] is unclean and [then] purified. So the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to purify Israel, as stated (in Ezek. 36:25), “I will sprinkle pure water upon you, and you shall be pure.” Another interpretation: (Ezek. 36:17:) “Their way before Me was like the uncleanness of a menstruant woman”; like the uncleanness of a menstruant woman, and not like the uncleanness of a corpse. With a corpse in the house, a high priest does not enter there; but in the case of a menstruant woman, a high priest enters into the house with her and sits [with her] on the couch,⁴⁰‘YSTWW’, probably from the Gk.: histion, which means “something woven.” but on condition that it not shake (when they sit on it). So if Israel were compared to the impurity of death, the Divine Presence would never return upon them; however, they are compared to the menstruant because there is cleansing for her in a mikveh, so that the priest may be with her in the house and not be afraid. Thus the Divine Presence dwells with Israel, even though they are unclean, as stated (in Lev. 16:16), “which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.” R. Levy said, “When Israel was in Egypt, the women did not see menstrual blood, because the fear of Egypt was upon them. And also after Israel left Egypt, they did not see menstruation in the desert, because the Divine Presence was among them.” [Moreover,] the women accepted the Torah first. It is so stated (in Exod. 19:3), “Thus shall you say to the House of Jacob,” these are the women;⁴¹Exod. R. 28:2. Cf. Shab. 118b: “R. Jose said, ‘… but my wife [I called] my house.’” (ibid., cont.), “and declare to the sons of Israel,” these are the men. And so it says (in Cant. 6:10), “terrible⁴²Buber, n. 91, points out that ‘ayummah (TERRIBLE) is seen as related to ‘emah (“fear”), in that the fear of the Divine Presence was upon them. like bannered hosts.” Now about them it is stated (in Cant. 4:12), “A locked garden is my sister, my bride, a locked fountain, a sealed spring.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “In this world you became clean but returned to uncleanness; but in the world to come I Myself will cleanse you so that you shall not ever become unclean.” Thus it is stated (in Ezek. 36:25), “I will sprinkle pure water upon you, and you shall be pure; I will purify you from all your uncleannesses and from all your idols.”

(Numb. 35:11:) WHERE A KILLER MAY FLEE WHO HAS TAKEN A LIFE BY MISTAKE, and not on purpose. If someone goes and kills on purpose, then says: It was by mistake that I killed, and flees to <one of the> cities of refuge, the Holy One says: Even if he comes in and flees to my altar, kill him, according to what is stated (in Exod. 21:14): BUT WHEN SOMEONE PLOTS AGAINST <HIS COMPANION AND KILLS HIM TREACHEROUSLY>, YOU SHALL TAKE HIM AWAY <EVEN> FROM MY ALTAR <FOR EXECUTION>. Who was this person who fled to the altar and was killed? This was Joab, of whom it is stated (in I Kings 2:28): WHEN THE NEWS CAME TO JOAB,…. <JOAB FLED UNTO THE TENT OF THE LORD> AND SEIZED THE HORNS OF THE ALTAR. You find that Joab was a great sage and the head of the Sanhedrin,³³Gk.: Synehedrion. as stated (in II Sam. 23:8): ONE WHO SITS IN THE SEAT OF WISDOM.³⁴These words are commonly understood as the proper name, JOSHEB-BASSHEBETH, A TAHCHEMONITE, but this and other citations of the verse in rabbinic literature tend to understand the verse as translated here. See above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 4:12, and the note there; also below, Tanh. (Buber), Deut. 1:3. Cf. MQ 26b, for an interpretation that identifies this sage with David himself. But did he not know what is written in the Torah (in Exod. 21:14): <BUT WHEN SOMEONE PLOTS AGAINST HIS COMPANION AND KILLS HIM TREACHEROUSLY>, YOU SHALL TAKE HIM AWAY <EVEN> FROM MY ALTAR FOR EXECUTION, [when he went and seized the horns of the altar]?³⁵yMakk. 2:7 [6] (31d); Sanh. 48b; see Makk. 12b. It is simply that [Joab] had said: Those killed by a court of law are not buried in the graves of their ancestors but by themselves. It is better to die here, so that I may be buried with my ancestors. (I Kings 2:30–31:) THEN BENAIAH BROUGHT BACK WORD UNTO THE KING, SAYING: THUS HAS JOAB SPOKEN AND THUS DID HE ANSWER ME. SO THE KING SAID TO HIM: DO AS HE HAS SPOKEN, STRIKE HIM DOWN AND BURY HIM. Why was he killed? Because his (Solomon's) father, David, had ordered him <to do> so (in I Kings 2:5–6): MOREOVER, YOU ALSO KNOW WHAT JOAB BEN ZERUIAH DID TO ME…. <SO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR WISDOM, AND DO NOT LET HIS GRAY HAIR GO DOWN TO SHEOL IN PEACE.> What did he do to him? You find that, when David wrote to Joab (in II Sam. 11:15): SET URIAH IN THE FRONT LINE WHERE THE FIGHTING IS THE FIERCEST, he did so, and he was killed. All the army leaders assembled against Joab, as stated of him (in II Sam. 23:39): URIAH THE HITTITE, <was one of> ALL <those> {THIRTY-SIX} [THIRTY-SEVEN} <leaders>. He showed them the document. It is therefore stated (in I Kings 2:5): [YOU KNOW] WHAT [JOAB BEN ZERUIAH] DID TO ME AND WHAT HE DID TO THE TWO COMMANDERS OF ISRAEL's FORCES, TO ABNER BEN NER <AND TO AMASA BEN JETHER> [….] They had been of the opinion that David had ordered him to kill him because Abner was Saul's cousin, and for that reason David arose and cursed Joab, when he said (in II Sam. 3:29): MAY THE HOUSE OF JOAB NEVER LACK <ONE WITH A DISCHARGE, A LEPER, ONE WHO GRASPS THE CRUTCH,³⁶Modern translations commonly understand these words to mean, A MALE WHO HANDLES THE SPINDLE, but the midrash understands them in the sense given here. ONE WHO FALLS BY THE SWORD, AND ONE LACKING BREAD>. Then all Israel was appeased,³⁷Rt.: PYS. Cf. Gk.: peisai (“to have persuaded”). when they knew that there was no <authorization> from David. So David ordered his son, Solomon, to kill him, because Joab was the son of David's sister, and he wanted him to approach the world to come.³⁸If he received punishment is this world, his deed would no longer bar him from doing so. When Solomon desired to kill him, Joab said to Benaiah: Go and tell Solomon: Do not sentence me with two judgments. If you are killing me, take off from me the curses with which your father, David, cursed me; and if not, leave me with his curses. Immediately (in I Kings 2:31): SO [THE KING] SAID TO HIM: DO AS HE HAS SPOKEN. [STRIKE HIM DOWN AND BURY HIM.] R. Judah has said: All curses with which David cursed Joab were all fulfilled in David's seed. [(II Sam. 3:29:) MAY THE HOUSE OF JOAB NEVER LACK ONE WITH A DISCHARGE, A LEPER, ONE WHO GRASPS THE CRUTCH, ONE WHO FALLS BY THE SWORD, AND ONE LACKING BREAD.]³⁹yQid. 1:7 (61a); cf. above, Gen. 7:7; ‘Arakh. 16a. ONE WITH A DISCHARGE <was fulfilled in> Rehoboam ben Solomon (according to I Kings 12:18 = II Chron. 10:18): THEN KING REHOBOAM SUCCEEDED IN MOUNTING HIS CHARIOT (merkavah) <AND FLED TO JERUSALEM>. It also says concerning ONE WITH A DISCHARGE (in Lev. 15:9): AND ANY SADDLE (merkav) ON WHICH THE ONE WITH A DISCHARGE RIDES <SHALL BE UNCLEAN>. (II Sam 3:29, cont.:) A LEPER <was fulfilled in> Uzziah, of whom it is stated (in II Kings 15:5): AND HE WAS A LEPER UNTIL THE DAY OF HIS DEATH. (II Sam 3:29, cont.:) ONE WHO GRASPS THE CRUTCH <was fulfilled in> Asa, of whom it is written (in I Kings 15:23): HOWEVER IN HIS OLD AGE HE BECAME DISEASED IN HIS FEET, where gout⁴⁰Gk.: podagra; Lat.: podagra. had seized him. (II Sam 3:29, cont.:) ONE WHO FALLS BY THE SWORD <was fulfilled in> Josiah, of whom it is written (in II Chron. 35:23): THEN THE ARCHERS SHOT KING JOSIAH. Moreover, Rav Judah has said: Rav said: they thrust three hundred iron lances⁴¹Gk.: longchai. into him, until they had perforated him like a sieve. (II Sam 3:29, cont.:) AND ONE LACKING BREAD <was fulfilled in> Jehoiachin, of whom it is stated (in II Kings 25:30 = Jer. 52:34): AND FOR HIS FOOD ALLOWANCE A REGULAR FOOD ALLOWANCE WAS GIVEN TO HIM FROM THE KING, from the table of Evil-merodach. You also find that as long as Jehoiada lived, Joash did the will of his creator, as stated (in II Kings 12:3 [2] // II Chron. 24:2): AND JEHOASH DID WHAT WAS RIGHT IN THE EYES OF THE LORD ALL HIS DAYS AS THE PRIEST JEHOIADA INSTRUCTED HIM. (II Chron. 24:17:) NOW AFTER THE DEATH OF JEHOIADA, THE PRINCES OF JUDAH CAME {UNTO HIM} AND BOWED LOW TO THE KING. THEN THE KING HEARKENED UNTO THEM, in that he took it upon himself to make an idol. Therefore (According to vs. 24): <THE ARMY OF ARAM CAME WITH A FEW MEN….> SO THEY INFLICTED JUDGMENTS ON JOASH. Now for what was Abner punished. It was because he had made the blood of the young men an amusement (rt.: SHQ), as stated (in II Sam. 2:14): THEN ABNER SAID UNTO JOAB: PLEASE LET THE YOUNG MEN ARISE AND PLAY (rt.: SHQ) BEFORE US. SO JOAB SAID: LET THEM ARISE.⁴²The result of their “playing” was that they all killed each other. See above, Gen. 6:5; Exod. 1:24; Numb. 6:8. There are also those who say it was because he put his name before the name of David, as stated (in II Sam. 3:12): THEN ABNER SENT MESSENGERS UNTO DAVID WHERE HE WAS, SAYING: TO WHOM DOES THE LAND BELONG? But the sages say: It was because he did not [wait] for Saul to be reconciled with David. Moreover, he had the power to protest <the massacre> at Nob, the city of priests, and did not protest.

9) "and he shall bathe in water": even in the water of a mikveh. Now should it not follow (otherwise), viz.: If a zav (one with a genital discharge), who does not require (for his cleansing) the sprinkling of living (running) water, requires bathing in living water (viz. Vayikra 15:13), then a leper, who requires the sprinkling of living water, how much more so should he require bathing in living water! It is, therefore, written "and he shall bathe in water" — even in the water of a mikveh.

9) (Without the verse we would reason otherwise, viz.:) Does it not follow a fortiori? If a zav, who does not require the sprinkling of running water requires immersion in running water, then a leper, who does require the sprinkling of running water (viz. Vayikra 14:7), how much more so does he require immersion in running water! It is, therefore, written "and he shall bathe 'his flesh' in running water." A zav requires immersion in running water, and not a leper.

9) "then they shall bathe in water, and they shall be unclean until the evening": Her bathing is being likened to his bathing. Just as his bathing must be in cleanliness (i.e., without anything intervening between the water and his flesh), so her bathing must be in cleanliness. Just as his bathing is in forty sa'ah, so her bathing must be in forty sa'ah. Just as his bathing excludes hidden parts, so her bathing excludes hidden parts.

9) "whoever touches her shall be unclean": I might think that one who touches her does not confer tumah upon garments by touching (them) — Now if she confers tumah upon mishkav (a couch) to confer tumah upon men and to confer tumah upon garments, (then if one touches) her herself, should he not confer tumah on garments thereby? If so, why is it written "whoever touches her shall be tamei until the evening"? I might think that one who touches her confers tumah upon men and earthen vessels — Now would this follow? One who touches a zav confers tumah, and one who touches a niddah confers tumah. Just as one who touches a zav does not confer tumah upon men and earthen vessels, so, one who touches a niddah! (Why, then, is the verse necessary?)

9) Do not wonder, then, that the flux, even though it causes tumah (to the man) is itself not tamei. It must, therefore, be written that the flux is tamei.

9) Or go in this direction: We derive tumah which is caused by blood, from tumah which is caused by blood, and this is not to be refuted by dead body tumah, which is not caused by blood. It is, therefore, written "and (after the "lying") he shall be tamei for seven days." He counts seven days from the last union.

9) "many" — three. I might think (that it signifies) ten. (This cannot be, for) it is written "days" and it is written "many." Just as "days" signifies the minimum of days, "many" must signify the minimum (of the increase [i.e., one] so that (in total) "many days" must signify) three. I might think "two" and "three" — five. (This cannot be, for) is it written "days and many"? "Many days" is what is written. How is "many days" to be understood then? (As) these "many" make it more than two, so that the sum total is three.

9) For (without a verse) would it not follow (that he does render him unclean), viz.: If a zavah, who becomes tamei only with three sightings in three days confers tumah upon the one who cohabits with her, then a zav who becomes tamei with three sightings in one day, how much more so should he confer tumah upon the one whom he cohabits with (i.e., whom he sodomizes)! It is, therefore, written "she." She confers tumah upon the one who cohabits with her, but a zav does not confer tumah upon the one who sodomizes him; but the sages spoke euphemistically, (saying "the one whom he cohabits with" instead of "the one whom he sodomizes.")

9) (Vayikra 15:33) ("And (of) her who flows with her menstrual flow, and (of) him who flows with his (zov) discharge, for male or female, and (of) him who lies with her who is unclean.") "And (of) her who flows with her menstrual flow, and (of) the zav" (of two sightings), who, like a niddah, confers tumah upon mishkav and moshav (and who requires the counting of seven days). And, (even more than a niddah), he requires running water (for his cleansing). And he is not obligated to bring an offering. "the law of the zav (of one sighting) and the zav (of two sightings) his zov" (the zav) of three sightings: This is the confirmed zav, who confers tumah upon mishkav and moshav, who requires running water, and who is obligated to bring an offering.

9) "the zav": and not a stone with a plague-spot. (Why is the verse needed?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If the zav, who does not effect (tent-) tumah by entry (into a house), does effect couch and seat tumah, then a plague-spot stone, which does effect tumah by entry, how much more so should it effect couch and seat tumah! It is, therefore, written "the zav," and not a plague-spot stone.

9) "And a man who touches what he lies upon shall wash his clothes": It is only while he touches it that he confers tumah to garments, but not when he departs from it.

9) (Vayikra 15:9) ("And every saddle upon which a zav rides shall be tamei") "upon which a zav rides shall be tamei": I might think even if he rode on a couch or a chair; it is, therefore, written "saddle" — not a couch and not a chair.

(Exod. 19:1:) ON THE THIRD NEW MOON…. This text is related (to Eccl. 10:18): THROUGH SLOTH THE ROOF SAGS, <AND THROUGH LAZY HANDS THE HOUSE LEAKS.>²⁹PRK 12:15; yNid. 2:1 (49d); Nid. 6b; Lev. R. 19:4. What causes a woman to discharge excessive blood (in her menstrual flow)? <It happens> because she is slothful in examining herself as to whether she is ritually unclean or not. <This opinion> is in accordance with what our masters taught (in Nid. 2:1): EVERY HAND THAT FREQUENTLY EXAMINES (for menstrual symptoms), behold, IN THE CASE OF WOMEN this <hand> IS PRAISEWORTHY, BUT IN THE CASE OF MEN, LET IT BE CUT OFF. There is a story about a female slave who belonged to Rabban Gamaliel. While she was moving <ritually clean> cups³⁰Gk. chalides (“sheer wine”). Cf. chalidophoros (“cupbearer”). and wine jugs from house to house, she examined herself at each and every jug. At the last one she examined herself and was found to be unclean. Rabban Gamaliel was afraid, saying: Perhaps the clean ones have been become unclean! He said to her: Did you not examine yourself? She said to him: By your life, My Lord, I examined myself between each and every jug, but at the last one I examined myself and was found to be unclean. Rabban Gamaliel said: If this woman had been slothful, all the clean ones would already have been unclean. (Eccl. 10:18:) THROUGH SLOTH THE ROOF SAGS. Note that because a woman is slothful, she discharges excessive blood. Now THE ROOF (MQRH) can only be excessive blood, since it is stated (in Lev. 20:18): THUS HE HAS UNCOVERED HER FOUNTAIN (MQRH) <AND SHE HAS BARED THE FOUNTAIN (MQRH) OF HER BLOOD>.³¹Cf. Eccl. R. 10:18:1. (Eccl. 10:18, cont.:) AND THROUGH LAZY HANDS <THE HOUSE> (of her body) LEAKS. (Lev. 15:25): AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD <FOR MANY DAYS>….

Another matter: “Vineyard” – this is the Sanhedrin, as we learned there: Rabbi Yishmael testified three matters before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne.⁴²Mishna Eduyot 2:4. Were they sitting in a vineyard? Rather, this is the Sanhedrin, which was configured in rows like a vineyard. “At Baal Hamon” – hamon baal, for they streamed [hamu] after the Baal. Therefore the hordes [hamonot] beset them, and multitudes of angels followed them. That is what is written: “The kings [malkhei] of hosts flee [yidodun], they flee” (Psalms 68:13). Rabbi Yudan [said] in the name of Rabbi Aivu: It is not written there: “angels [malakhei] of hosts,” but rather “kings [malkhei].” These are the kings of the angels. Even Mikhael and even Gavriel flee again and again. Rabbi Yudan said: “Yidodun” – they were casting [memadedin] letters from among them,⁴³They were petitioning God not to give the Torah to Israel just as you say: “They cast [yadu] lots over My people” (Joel 4:3). Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Simon said: They prodded them⁴⁴The term yidodun is interpreted to mean they prodded [yedadun]. while going, they prodded them while returning.⁴⁵They prodded the Israelites to accept the Torah. Rabbi Aḥava son of Rabbi Ze’eira said: He had them racing, just as it says: “Why are you running, my son…” (II Samuel 18:22).⁴⁶The angels raced each other to assist Israel in accepting the Torah, similar to the race described in the verse in Samuel between two individuals who wanted to inform David about the death of Avshalom.
What is, “while the fair one at home divides the spoils” (Psalms 68:13)? The fair one in the home, this is the Torah, and you are giving it to him, and it is going to distribute the spoils?⁴⁷The angels said to God when He was about to give the Torah to Moses: Are you going to give it to him to bring to earth and disseminate among Israel, who will enjoy its heavenly purity?
Another matter: “The fair one at home” (Psalms 68:13) – fair one at home, will you distribute the spoils below? The fair one at home, this is Moses, as it is stated: “In all My house he is loyal” (Numbers 12:7); and you give it to him, and he will distribute it as spoils below?
Rabbi Pinḥas and Rabbi Aḥa [said] in the name of Rabbi Alexandri: It is written: “Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your name throughout the world that You set Your glory in the heavens” (Psalms 8:2). Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin [said] in the name of Rabbi Levi: It is not written here, “You set Your glory,” but rather, “that [asher] You set Your glory.” Your glory is in it; Your happiness [ishurakh] is that Your Torah remain in Heaven. He said to them: ‘Its essence will not be achieved in your midst.’⁴⁸The angels argued that it would be fitting for the Torah to remain in Heaven. God responded that the Torah is not meant for the angels. Rabbi Yudan said: [This is analogous] to one who had a son with severed fingers. What did he do? He took him to a master weaver to teach him his craft. He began looking at his fingers. He said: The entire essence of this craft is acquired only by means of the fingers. How can this one learn it? That is, its essence will not be achieved in your midst: So too, when the Holy One blessed be He sought to give the Torah to Israel, the ministering angels were prodding Israel away and they were prodding themselves before the Holy One blessed be He and saying: It is Your happiness, it is Your glory, it is Your honor that Your Torah remain in Heaven. He said to them: Its essence will not be achieved in your midst. It is written in it: “If a woman's blood flows for many days” (Leviticus 15:25). Is there a woman among you? That is, its essence will not be achieved in your midst. Moreover, it is written in it: “A person who dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14); is there death among you? That is, its essence will not be achieved in your midst. That is why the verse praises [Moses]: “You ascended On High, you took captives. [You received gifts among men]” (Psalms 68:19). Rabbi Aḥa said: These are the halakhot that are practiced among people, e.g., zavim,⁴⁹These are men who discharge impure emissions. zavot,⁵⁰These are women who are impure because they saw an emission of blood not during their period. menstruating women, and birthing mothers. That is, its essence will not be achieved in your midst.
The Rabbis say: [This is analogous] to a king who married off his daughter outside his province. The residents of his province said to him: ‘Our lord the king, it is your praise, and it is proper, that your daughter be with you in the province.’ He said to them: ‘Why do you care?’ They said to him: ‘Perhaps tomorrow you will go to her and live near her [in order to be] with her due to your love for her.’ He said to them: ‘I will marry off my daughter outside the province, but I will live with you.’ So too, when the Holy One blessed be He said to give the Torah to Israel, the ministering angels said to the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, “that You set Your glory” (Psalms 8:2), it is Your happiness, it is Your glory, it is Your praise that Your Torah remain in Heaven.’ He said to them: ‘Why do you care?’ They said to Him: ‘Perhaps tomorrow you will rest Your Divine Presence on the lower worlds.’ The Holy One blessed be He said to them: ‘I give My Torah in the lower worlds, but I reside in the upper worlds. I am giving My daughter with her marriage contract in another province, to be honored with her husband with her beauty and her pleasantness, as she is the daughter of a king and they will respect her, but I will reside with you in the upper worlds.’ Who articulated this? Habakkuk, as it is stated: “His glory covered the heavens, and His praise filled the earth” (Habakkuk 3:3). Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Every place that the Holy One blessed be He rested His Torah, He rested His Divine Presence. Who articulated this? David. That is what is written: “Let them praise the name of the Lord, for His name alone is exalted, His glory across earth and heaven” (Psalms 148:13) – first over the earth and thereafter over the heavens.

10) I might think that his vessels, too, require immersion in running water; it is, therefore, written "his flesh" — His flesh requires running water, but his vessels may be immersed in all waters.

10) R. Shimon says: To what end is it written "then they shall bathe in water, and they shall be unclean until the evening"? If in respect to (having became tamei by) touching semen, this is already mentioned above. If so, why is it written? In respect to her having become tamei (by contact with the semen) in her hidden parts. — But did we not say that she does not become tamei through such contact? It must be then that (in this instance she does become tamei) through "the King's edict," wherefore it is written "then they shall bathe in water, and they shall be unclean until the evening."

10) No! — This may be true of a zav, who does not confer tumah upon a person to confer tumah upon a different person, (i.e., If a woman cohabits with a zav, she does not confer tumah upon a different person and upon earthen vessels) — as opposed to a niddah, who confers tumah upon a person to confer tumah upon a different person (i.e., If a niddah cohabits with someone, she does confer tumah upon him to confer tumah upon a different person and upon earthen vessels (viz. Vayikra 15:24, "then her state of niddah shall be upon him.") And since she confers tumah upon a person to confer tumah upon a different person, I would think (without a verse) that if one touched her, he would confer tumah upon a different person and upon earthen vessels. It is, therefore written "whoever touches her shall (himself) be unclean until the evening"; but he who touches her does not confer tumah upon a (different person) and upon earthen vessels.

10) I might think that blood flowing from his penis is tamei; it is, therefore, written "his flux," but not blood.

10) No! — This may be true of a zav, who does not confer tumah upon a person to confer tumah upon a different person, (i.e., If a woman cohabits with a zav, she does not confer tumah upon a different person and upon earthen vessels) — as opposed to a niddah, who confers tumah upon a person to confer tumah upon a different person (i.e., If a niddah cohabits with someone, she does confer tumah upon him to confer tumah upon a different person and upon earthen vessels (viz. Vayikra 15:24, "then her state of niddah shall be upon him.") And since she confers tumah upon a person to confer tumah upon a different person, I would think (without a verse) that if one touched her, he would confer tumah upon a different person and upon earthen vessels. It is, therefore written "whoever touches her shall (himself) be unclean until the evening"; but he who touches her does not confer tumah upon a (different person) and upon earthen vessels.

10) "and every mishkav on which he lies shall be unclean." (and everything that he sits upon shall be unclean). I might think that he confers tumah upon a mishkav that is not distinctive for reclining and a moshav that is not distinctive for sitting. No — Just as she confers tumah only upon a mishkav that is distinctive for reclining and upon a moshav that is distinctive for sitting, so, he.

10) (Vayikra 15:26) ("Every mishkav which she lies upon all the days of her flow, as the mishkav of her niddah period shall be to her. And every object that she sits upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanliness of her niddah period.") As the (degree of) tumah of her niddah period, and not as the (number of) days of her niddah period. For (without the verse) would it not follow a fortiori (that the object is tamei the same number of days as the niddah!), viz.: Now if in a place where the tumah of the "conferred upon" (i.e., the man) was not made equivalent to (the severity of) the tumah of the conferrer (i.e., the niddah), the (number of) days of the conferred upon were made equivalent to the days (seven) of the conferrer, then here, where (the degree of severity of) the tumah of the conferred upon was made equivalent to that of the conferrer, how much more so should the days of the conferred upon be made equivalent to those of the conferrer! It is, therefore, written: "as the tumah of her niddah period." As the tumah of her niddah period, and not as the days of her niddah period. (Vayikra 15:27) "And whoever touches them shall be unclean": even their projections (those of the zav or of the aforementioned objects).

10) (Vayikra 15:26) ("Every mishkav which she lies upon all the days of her flow, as the mishkav of her niddah period shall be to her. And every object that she sits upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanliness of her niddah period.") As the (degree of) tumah of her niddah period, and not as the (number of) days of her niddah period. For (without the verse) would it not follow a fortiori (that the object is tamei the same number of days as the niddah!), viz.: Now if in a place where the tumah of the "conferred upon" (i.e., the man) was not made equivalent to (the severity of) the tumah of the conferrer (i.e., the niddah), the (number of) days of the conferred upon were made equivalent to the days (seven) of the conferrer, then here, where (the degree of severity of) the tumah of the conferred upon was made equivalent to that of the conferrer, how much more so should the days of the conferred upon be made equivalent to those of the conferrer! It is, therefore, written: "as the tumah of her niddah period." As the tumah of her niddah period, and not as the days of her niddah period. (Vayikra 15:27) "And whoever touches them shall be unclean": even their projections (those of the zav or of the aforementioned objects).

10) "the law of the zav and of him from whom semen issues forth": Just as a zav (flow) (during the seven-day clean count) interrupts the zov (count), so a semen flow (in those seven days) interrupts the zov (count, the semen of a zav not being without some intermixture of zov particles.) I might think that just as a zov (flow) (during that time) contravenes the entire count, so a semen flow (during that time) contravenes the entire count. It is, therefore, written "to be made unclean thereby." The interruption is for only one day.

10) "the zav": and not one with dead-body tumah. (Why is the verse needed?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If the zav, who does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh (days), confers tumah upon couch and seat, then one with dead-body tumah, who requires sprinkling on the third and seventh (days), how much more so should he confer tumah upon couch and seat! It is, therefore, written "the zav," and not one with dead-body tumah.

10) See Shemini, Section 4:9.

10) I would then exclude these, but I would not exclude a pack-saddle; it is, therefore, written "saddle" — his distinct saddle.

Rabbi Yehuda interpreted the verse regarding Torah scholars: “Curls, black as a raven” – these are Torah scholars, as even though they appear ugly and black in this world, in the future, “their appearance is like torches, they dash like lightning” (Nahum 2:5).
Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak interpreted the verse regarding the portions of the Torah: “Curls, black as a raven” – these are the texts of the Torah that appear too ugly and black to state them in public, and the Holy One blessed be He said: They are pleasant for Me, just as it says: “The offering of Judah [and Jerusalem] will be pleasant” (Malachi 3:4). Know that it is so, as the portion of the zav and the zava were not stated together; rather, this one in and of itself and that one in and of itself, as it is stated: “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: Any man, when he has a discharge from his flesh” (Leviticus 15:2), [and separately,] “And a woman, if her bloody discharge shall flow” (Leviticus 15:25).

11) "and he shall be clean": from conferring tumah on earthen vessels by carrying them. Ben Azzai says: [Note: The text at this point is obscure.] R. Yossi Haglili said to him: Explain yourself. Ben Azzai: Explanations are not provided for a sage. R. Yossi Haglili: Repeat it. Ben Azzai: Repetitions are not provided for a sage. R. Yossi Haglili then reviewed it and explained: If in a place where clothes rendered tamei through a sheretz were not reckoned as clothes (touching) a sheretz, (yet) an earthen vessel (touching) a sheretz was reckoned as a man touching a sheretz — then where clothes rendered tamei through a zav were reckoned as a zav, how much more so should earthen vessels (carried by) a zav be reckoned as a man (touching) a zav! It is, therefore, written "and he shall be clean," from conferring tumah on earthen vessels by carrying them.

11) (Vayikra 15:20) "And all that she lies upon in her niddah state shall be unclean, and all that she sits upon shall be unclean": I might think that she confers tumah upon a mishkav that is not distinctive for reclining upon and upon a moshav (a seat) that is not distinctive for sitting upon. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:21) "And whoever touches her (distinctive) mishkav shall wash his clothes."

11) (Vayikra 15:20) "And all that she lies upon in her niddah state shall be unclean, and all that she sits upon shall be unclean": I might think that she confers tumah upon a mishkav that is not distinctive for reclining upon and upon a moshav (a seat) that is not distinctive for sitting upon. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:21) "And whoever touches her (distinctive) mishkav shall wash his clothes."

11) I might think that both she and he do not confer stringent tumah but both confer only lesser tumah (See 3 above); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:24) "mishkav … yishkav," (which connotes both types). This tells me only (of his conferring tumah) when he is lying upon it (the moshav) and touching it. Whence is the same derived (for a situation) where there are ten layers (of moshav) one atop the other, even with a stone intervening? From "on every mishkav on which he lies."

11) (Vayikra 15:3) ("And this shall be his tumah in his flux. Whether his flesh drip his zov or his flesh be stopped up with his zov, it is his tumah.") This tells me only of his zov (discharge as being tamei). Whence do I derive the same for his urine? It follows, viz.: If spittle, which issues from a place of cleanliness, is tamei, then his urine, which issues from a place of tumah (i.e., from the place of his zivah), how much more so should it be tamei! — This is refuted by blood which issues from there, coming from a place of tumah and itself being tahor.

11) I might think that a urinal flow (at that time) would also interrupt the zov (count); it is, therefore, written "This (i.e., only semen, which is mentioned in the verse) is the law."

11) "the zav": and not the dead body: (Why is the verse necessary?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If the zav, who does not confer seven-day tumah (by being touched) confers tumah upon couch and seat, then a dead body, which does confer seven-day tumah, how much more so should it confer tumah upon couch and seat! It is, therefore, written "the zav," and not the dead body.

11) From here they ruled: All who confer tumah upon garments while touching (a zav or a zavah or a woman who has given birth or their couch or their seat) confer first-degree tumah upon food and drink, and second-degree tumah on hands (that touched the above), and they confer tumah upon other implements as they do upon garments, and they do not confer tumah upon men or earthenware vessels. After they depart (from the couch or the seat, etc.), they confer first-degree tumah upon drink and second-degree tumah upon food and hands, and, it goes without saying (that they do not confer tumah) upon men and earthenware vessels.

11) Which is a "distinct" saddle? An Ashkelonian saddle, a Median saddle, a camel's sumpter-saddle, and the tafitan of a horse, but the ukaf of a na'akah (a long-necked camel) is tamei by reason of moshav (and not of merkav). R. Yossi says: The tafitan of a horse is also tamei by reason of moshav, because it is used for standing upon in the sport plain.

(Lev. 14:34:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND < OF CANAAN…, AND WHEN I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS >. How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted?⁴⁶Tanh., Lev. 5:4. It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:33–34): < HE TURNS…; > A FRUITFUL LAND INTO A SALT MARSH BECAUSE OF THE EVIL OF THOSE WHO DWELL IN IT. For what reason did suffering come into the world? Because of the people, so that they would look, consider, and say: Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted. So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look < at them > and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One intended to exile them. The Holy One said: If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations. What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the Wicked upon all the < other > nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14): MY HAND (the hand of Sennacherib) HAS FOUND THE WEALTH OF THE PEOPLES LIKE A NEST. It is also written (in vs. 13): AND I (Sennacherib) HAVE REMOVED THE BORDERS OF PEOPLES. The Holy One said: When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear my judgment. It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6–7): I HAVE ROOTED OUT THE NATIONS; THEIR CORNER TOWERS ARE DESOLATE…. AND I SAID: SURELY YOU WILL FEAR ME… ! When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One warns them and first afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34): AND I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, one is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2): WHEN ANY MAN HAS A DISCHARGE ISSUING FROM HIS FLESH…. {Therefore, the stones are afflicted at first.} For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47): WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40): WHEN SOMEONE'S HEAD BECOMES HAIRLESS < SO THAT HE IS BALD, HE IS CLEAN >; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18): AND WHEN ONE HAS BOILS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH [AND IS HEALED].⁴⁷The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges {i.e., blows}: Swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.⁴⁸Numb. R. 14:4. {The Holy One} [Scripture] has said (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS]. The Holy One said: Before I created the human, I prepared all these things for him. < The situation > is comparable to an evil slave who was sold. His < new > master went to buy him. Since he knew about him being an evil slave, he took along chains and whips so that, if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him: Did you not know that I was an evil slave? Why did you buy me? He said to him: Because I knew that you were an evil slave, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them. Also before the Holy One, blessed be his name, created the human one, he prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) he knows THAT⁴⁹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” THE INSTINCT OF ONE'S HEART IS EVIL FROM HIS YOUTH. He therefore prepared all these things for him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS].

(Numb. 35:11:) “Where a killer may flee who has taken a life by mistake.” “By mistake,” and not on purpose. If someone goes and kills on purpose, then says, “It was by mistake that I killed,” and flees to [one of the] cities of refuge, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, “Even if he comes in and flees to My altar, kill him, according to what is stated (in Exod. 21:14), ‘[But when someone plots against his companion and kills him treacherously], you shall take him away [even] from My altar [for execution].’” Who was this person who fled to the altar and was killed? This was Joab, of whom it is stated (in I Kings 2:28), “When the news came to Joab,… [Joab fled unto the tent of the Lord and seized the horns of the altar].” You find that Joab was a great sage and the head of the Sanhedrin,³³Gk.: Synehedrion. as stated (in II Sam. 23:8), “one who sits in the seat of wisdom.”³⁴These words are commonly understood as the proper name, JOSHEB-BASSHEBETH, A TAHCHEMONITE, but this and other citations of the verse in rabbinic literature tend to understand the verse as translated here. See Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 4:12, and the note there; also below, Tanh. (Buber), Deut. 1:3. Cf. MQ 26b, for an interpretation that identifies this sage with David himself. [So] when he went and seized the horns of the altar, did he not know what is written in the Torah (in Exod. 21:14), “But when someone plots against his companion [and kills him treacherously, you shall take him away (even) from my altar for execution]?”³⁵yMakk. 2:7 [6] (31d); Sanh. 48b; see Makk. 12b. It is simply that [Joab] had said, “Those killed by a court of law are not buried in the graves of their ancestors but by themselves. It is better to die here, so that I may be buried with my ancestors.” (I Kings 2:30–31:) “Then Benaiah brought back word unto the king.... So the king said to him, ‘Do as he has spoken, strike him down and bury him.’” Why was he killed? Because his (Solomon's) father, David, had ordered him [to do] so (in I Kings 2:5), “Moreover, you also know what Joab ben Zeruiah did to me.” What did he do to him? You find that, when David wrote to Joab (in II Sam. 11:15), “Set Uriah in the front line [where the fighting is the fiercest]...,” he did so, and he was killed. All the army leaders assembled against Joab, as [Uriah] was the head of the warriors, as stated of him (in II Sam. 23:39), “Uriah the Hittite, [was one of all] thirty-seven [leaders].” He showed them the document. It is therefore stated (in I Kings 2:5), “What Joab ben Zeruiah] did to me.” (I Kings 2:5, cont.:) “And what he did to the two commanders of Israel's forces, to Abner ben Ner and to Amasa ben Jether, he killed them.” All of Israel had been of the opinion that David had ordered him to kill [Abner] because Abner was Saul's cousin. And for that reason David arose and cursed Joab, when he said (in II Sam. 3:29), “may the house of Joab never lack [one with a discharge, a leper, one who grasps the crutch,³⁶Modern translations commonly understand these words to mean, A MALE WHO HANDLES THE SPINDLE, but the midrash understands them in the sense given here. one who falls by the sword, and one lacking bread].” Then all Israel was appeased,³⁷Rt.: PYS. Cf. Gk.: peisai (“to have persuaded”). when they knew that there was no [authorization] from David. So David ordered his son, Solomon, to kill him, because Joab was the son of David's sister, and he sought to approach him to the world to come.³⁸If he received punishment in this world, his deed would no longer bar him from doing so. When Solomon sought to kill him, Joab said to Benaiah, “Go and tell Solomon, ‘Do not sentence me with two judgments. If you are killing me, take off from me the curses with which your father, David, cursed me; and if not, leave me with his curses.’” Immediately (in I Kings 2:31), “So the king said to him, ‘Do as he has spoken, strike him down and bury him.” R. Judah has said, “All curses with which David cursed Joab were all fulfilled in David's seed.”³⁹yQid. 1:7 (61a); cf. above, Gen. 7:7; ‘Arakh. 16a. One with a discharge [was fulfilled in] Rehoboam ben Solomon (according to I Kings 12:18 = II Chron. 10:18), “then King Rehoboam succeeded in mounting his chariot (merkavah).” It also says concerning one with a discharge (in Lev. 15:9), “And any saddle (merkav) on which the one with a discharge rides [shall be unclean].” A leper [was fulfilled in] Uzziah, of whom it is stated (in II Kings 15:5), “and he was a leper until the day of his death.” One who grasps the crutch [was fulfilled in] Asa, of whom it is written (in I Kings 15:23), “however in his old age he became diseased in his feet,” where (he became like a woman, as) gout⁴⁰Gk.: podagra; Lat.: podagra. had seized him. One who falls by the sword [was fulfilled in] Josiah, of whom it is written (in II Chron. 35:23), “Then the archers shot King Josiah.” Moreover, Rav Judah has said that his whole body was like a sieve. And Rav said, “They thrust iron lances⁴¹Gk.: longchai. into him, until they had perforated him like a sieve.” And one lacking bread [was fulfilled in] Jehoiachin, of whom it is stated (in II Kings 25:30 = Jer. 52:34), “And for his food allowance a regular food allowance was given to him from the king, from the table of Evil-Merodach.” You also find that as long as Jehoiada lived, Joash did the will of his Creator, as stated (in II Kings 12:3 // II Chron. 24:2), “And Jehoash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all his days as the priest Jehoiada instructed him.” (II Chron. 24:17:) “Now after the death of Jehoiada, the princes of Judah came and bowed low to the king, and the king hearkened unto them,” in that he took it upon himself to make an idol. Therefore (according to vs. 24), “they inflicted judgments on Joash.” Now for what was Abner punished? It was because he had made light and an amusement (rt.: shq), the blood of the young men, as stated (in II Sam. 2:14), “Then Abner said unto Joab, ‘Please let the young men arise and play (rt.: shq) before us.’”⁴²The result of their “playing” was that they all killed each other. And there are also those who say it was because he put his name before the name of David, as stated (in II Sam. 3:12), “Then Abner sent messengers unto David where he was, saying, ‘To whom does the land belong?’” But the sages say, “It was because he did not let Saul be reconciled with David.” And our masters say, “He had the power to protest [the massacre] at Nob, the city of priests, and did not protest.”

12) (Vayikra 15:14) ("And on the eighth day, he shall take for himself two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, and he shall come before the L–rd to the door of the tent of meeting, and he shall give them to the Cohein.") "on the eighth": I might think either in the daytime or at night; it is, therefore, written "on the day" — on the day and not at night.

12) (Vayikra 15:22) "And whoever touches any object that she sits upon shall wash his clothes": Just as below (i.e., Vayikra 15 verse 21, which elucidates verse 20), she confers tumah only upon a mishkav that is distinctive for lying upon and a moshav that is distinctive for sitting upon, here, too, she confers tumah only upon a mishkav that is distinctive for lying upon and a moshav that is distinctive for sitting upon.

12) Do not wonder, then, if urine, even though it issues from a place of tumah, is not tamei. It must, therefore, be written "And this" — to include urine.

12) "and she who flows with her menstrual flow": The early elders were wont to say: She should remain in her state of niddah. She should not paint her eyes nor rouge herself until she immerses — until R. Akiva came and taught: This may result in his coming to hate her and to divorce her. How, then, am I to understand "and she who flows benidathah"? She retains the status of niddah until she immerses.

12) R. Shimon says: "which he lies on" and "which he sits on": One who has (volition for) lying down and sitting confers tumah to couch and seat — a dead zav does not confer tumah to couch and seat.

12) This tells me of his lying, sitting and riding upon it, and touching it. Whence do I derive the same for ten saddles, one atop the other, even if he is atop a stone interposing (between himself and the others)? From "every mishkav," and "every object," and "every saddle." "upon which a zav rides shall be tamei": (To be tamei) most of him must be carried by it.

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD < FOR MANY DAYS, NOT AT THE TIME OF HER IMPURITY >…. Let our master instruct us: Is it permitted for a menstruant to sleep in the same bed with her husband, when he is in his clothes and she is in her clothes, one on one side and one on the other?⁵⁰Tanh., Lev. 5:5; Shab. 13a. Thus have our masters taught: It is forbidden < for them > to lie down < together >, because one does not one put a loophole before the observant person, and certainly not before the thief. Thus the sages compare the matter to a fire in the straw; and it says (in Lev. 18:19): AND YOU SHALL NOT COME NEAR A WOMEN DURING HER PERIOD OF MENSTRUAL UNCLEANNESS. < This is > to teach you that the Holy One warns Israel about sanctification and about purity, lest they act according to the practice of star worshipers and become unclean through their wives when they are menstruating; for whoever has intercourse with his wife when she is menstruating is under sentence of being cut off, as stated (in Lev. 20:18): AND IF A MAN LIES WITH A WOMAN < WHEN SHE IS > UNWELL…, THEY BOTH SHALL BE CUT OFF < FROM AMONG THEIR PEOPLE >. Because star worshipers do not stay away from the menstruant they are under sentence of being cut off, as stated (in Deut. 12:29): WHEN THE LORD [GOD] HAS CUT OFF THE GENTILES. Because all the star worshipers are children of menstruants, they like their idolatry are called an impurity, an uncleanness, an abomination, and a destruction. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 7:26): DO NOT BRING AN ABOMINATION UNTO YOUR HOUSE.

13) (Vayikra 11:33): "It shall you break." I might think that it is a mitzvah to break it. Behold, it is written in respect to a zav (one with a genital discharge) (Vayikra 15:12): "And an earthen vessel which a zav touches shall be broken, and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water." Just as (the rinsing of) wooden vessels is for cleansing (and not for mitzvah), so, (the breaking of) earthen vessels is for cleansing (and not for mitzvah.) I might think that it is a mitzvah to break it (an earthen vessel that has become tamei); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:33) "It shall you break," and you shall not break (as a mitzvah) the earthen vessel of a zav. Now we can derive this a fortiori (without a verse), viz.: If (a vessel) that touches a zav, an acute (state of tumah does not require breaking (as a mitzvah) then (a vessel) that touches a sheretz, a lesser state, how much more so should it not be broken! If so, what is the intent of "It shall you break"? We are hereby taught that its only cleansing is its breaking, (but if one wishes to retain it in its state of tumah, he may do so). Variantly: It shall you break to cleanse it but you do not "break" food and drink to cleanse it.

13) "he shall take for himself." If he separated them for his first zivah, he should not bring them for his second zivah. "two turtle-doves or two young pigeons": The exchange of turtle-doves are young pigeons and the exchange of pigeons are turtle-doves. (i.e., If he set aside money for the first, but could not find them, he may bring the second, and vice versa.) But their exchange is not the tenth of an ephah.

13) I might think that as far as conferring tumah is concerned, she confers tumah only upon a mishkav that is distinctive for lying upon and upon a moshav that is distinctive for sitting upon; but as far as becoming tamei is concerned, all kinds (of moshav and mishkav, even non-distinctive) are susceptible of this. For there are many things which become tamei and yet do not confer tumah (upon other things). It is, therefore written "upon it" - "upon it." "Upon it" is written in respect to becoming tamei (Vayikra 15 verse 22, lit., "that she sits upon it"), and "upon it" is written in respect to conferring tumah (Vayikra 15 verse 20). Just as with "upon it" in respect to conferring tumah, only a mishkav distinctive for lying upon and a mishkav distinctive for sitting upon confer tumah, so with "upon it" in respect to becoming tamei, only a mishkav distinctive for lying upon and a mishkav distinctive for sitting upon become tamei.

13) I might think that his sweat, his pus, and his excrement are also tamei; it is, therefore, written "it" (is his tumah" — to exclude the above,) that are not subject to the tumah of liquids; but I would not exclude his tears and the blood of his plague (-wound), and a woman's milk, which are subject to the tumah of liquids. It is, "therefore," written "this (shall be his tumah" — to exclude the above). In sum, there are nine liquids in respect to a zav: Pus, sweat, and excrement are not subject to all (forms of tumah). Tears, plague (-wound) blood, and a woman's milk are subject to the tumah of liquids, (but do not confer tumah upon men and vessels.) His zov (flow) and his spittle and his urine are subject to stringent tumah (and confer tumah upon men and vessels).

13) (lit.) "and the zav his discharge": Others say: Just as the zav confers tumah by being carried, so does his discharge. "for male": to include the leper; "or for female": to include the woman who bore a child. R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Beroka says: "and who flows with his discharge for male or for female": "for male" — for whatever is "male," whether adult or minor. "and for female": whether minor or adult "and he who lies with her who is unclean": to include (as unclean) one who cohabits with a woman observing a day (of tentative zavah uncleanliness) for a day, (the preceding day of a flow).

13) As to their saying that a zav who dies confers tumah (to the couch or seat) that he carries (upon him) until his flesh has atrophied (and he is known to be dead and not merely to have fainted), this is an ordinance of the scribes (and not a Torah ordinance). "upon it": until most of him (i.e., most of his leaning) is upon it.

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD FOR MANY DAYS. But are there not seven days in a menstrual period?⁵¹Tanh., Lev. 5:6. So why did it call them MANY DAYS? [Simply because she is separated from her husband, and they are days of suffering. For that reason it calls them MANY DAYS.] Similarly (in Exod. 2:23): AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE COURSE OF THOSE MANY DAYS < THAT THE KING OF EGYPT DIED >. It calls them MANY DAYS, because they were days of suffering.⁵²Cf. Lev. R. 19:5.

14) Where is it derived that he immerses (on the seventh day) when it is yet day (and not when it gets dark)? From "and he shall come before the L–rd to the door of the tent of meeting." How could he come to the door of the tent of meeting unless the sun had gone down? We are hereby taught that he immerses when it is yet day.

14) (Vayikra 15:23) ("And if on the bed [mishkav] he be, or on the object that she sits upon, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until the evening.") "And if on the mishkav," even only part of it "he be (even without directly touching it)," so that most of him is borne by it, "or on the object," even only part of it," that she sits upon." From here they ruled: If most of the tamei were over the (object that is) tahor, or over part of it; or if most of the tahor were over the tamei or over part of it — whether zav or mishkav — (the ruling is) tamei. If part of the tamei were over the tahor or over part of it, or part of the tahor over the tamei or over part of it — with a zav (vis-à-vis a man), he is tamei; with (a zav vis-à-vis) a mishkav, (the mishkav is) tahor. R. Shimon says: Even with part tamei over tahor, even with zav, (the ruling is) tahor.

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD FOR MANY DAYS. Those are three days. How so? The woman is unclean for seven days and becomes clean on the eighth day. If she sees blood on that day, she observes a day like the rest and becomes clean. < If > she sees it again on the {eighth} [ninth] day, she observes that day and becomes clean. [If she sees it again on the tenth day, she observes that one and is clean.] Ergo, three days which are MANY DAYS. However, if she sees blood on day eleven, which is the fourth day of her cleansing, she returns to her uncleanness, and observes her seven days of menstruation from the beginning; for so have the sages taught. There are eleven days between one menstrual period and another; therefore, the woman has to keep fifteen days. How does she do so? She keeps seven days of her menstrual period. Then after that she counts seven clean days and becomes clean on the eighth day. Then she performs a strict immersion after sunset, and she is lawful for her husband. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 15:28): AND WHEN SHE IS CLEAN FROM HER DISCHARGE, [SHE SHALL COUNT OFF SEVEN DAYS, AND AFTER THAT SHE SHALL BE CLEAN].

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD FOR MANY DAYS. Those are three days. How so? The woman is unclean for seven days and becomes clean on the eighth day. If she sees blood on that day, she observes a day like the rest and becomes clean. < If > she sees it again on the {eighth} [ninth] day, she observes that day and becomes clean. [If she sees it again on the tenth day, she observes that one and is clean.] Ergo, three days which are MANY DAYS. However, if she sees blood on day eleven, which is the fourth day of her cleansing, she returns to her uncleanness, and observes her seven days of menstruation from the beginning; for so have the sages taught. There are eleven days between one menstrual period and another; therefore, the woman has to keep fifteen days. How does she do so? She keeps seven days of her menstrual period. Then after that she counts seven clean days and becomes clean on the eighth day. Then she performs a strict immersion after sunset, and she is lawful for her husband. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 15:28): AND WHEN SHE IS CLEAN FROM HER DISCHARGE, [SHE SHALL COUNT OFF SEVEN DAYS, AND AFTER THAT SHE SHALL BE CLEAN].

15) (Vayikra 15:15) ("And the Cohein shall offer them up, one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering; and the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd from his discharge.") "And the Cohein shall offer them up, one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering": The Cohein must designate them, one for a sin-offering; the other, for a burnt-offering. Whence is it derived that if he (the owner) himself designates them it is valid? From (Vayikra 5:7 and Vayikra 5:8):" one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. And he shall bring them to the Cohein."

15) (Vayikra 15 verse 23) "mishkav": This is mishkav (itself); "which she sits upon": This is moshav; "object": This is merkav ( a saddle), it being written "when he touches it." Respecting which object was a distinction made between touching it and carrying it, (the former rendering one tamei; the latter, not)? A saddle.

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD. Why a woman and not a man?⁵³Tanh., Lev. 5:9. Previously it applied to men and women. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 15:2): WHEN ANY MAN HAS A DISCHARGE ISSUING FROM HIS FLESH. R. Meir says: The man's uncleanness was more serious than the woman's uncleanness. Why? Because the uncleanness of women is a sign of children; however, that of a man is < a sign > of suffering. Thus it is stated (in vs. 3): AND THIS SHALL BE THE UNCLEANNESS {FROM} [IN] HIS DISCHARGE, WHETHER HIS FLESH RUNS WITH HIS DISCHARGE OR WHETHER HIS FLESH IS SEALED FROM HIS DISCHARGE,⁵⁴The next verses (4–12) stress just how contagious his discharge really is. < i.e. > something which is sealed and closed. Previously the men saw blood, until Rachel arose [and said] (in Gen. 31:35): FOR THE PERIOD OF WOMEN IS UPON ME. Then it was given to her. Therefore (in Exod. 15:25): AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD.

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD. Why a woman and not a man?⁵³Tanh., Lev. 5:9. Previously it applied to men and women. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 15:2): WHEN ANY MAN HAS A DISCHARGE ISSUING FROM HIS FLESH. R. Meir says: The man's uncleanness was more serious than the woman's uncleanness. Why? Because the uncleanness of women is a sign of children; however, that of a man is < a sign > of suffering. Thus it is stated (in vs. 3): AND THIS SHALL BE THE UNCLEANNESS {FROM} [IN] HIS DISCHARGE, WHETHER HIS FLESH RUNS WITH HIS DISCHARGE OR WHETHER HIS FLESH IS SEALED FROM HIS DISCHARGE,⁵⁴The next verses (4–12) stress just how contagious his discharge really is. < i.e. > something which is sealed and closed. Previously the men saw blood, until Rachel arose [and said] (in Gen. 31:35): FOR THE PERIOD OF WOMEN IS UPON ME. Then it was given to her. Therefore (in Exod. 15:25): AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD.

16) "and the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd from his discharge": (implying that) some zavim bring (the sacrifice) and some do not. How so? If he had three sightings, he brings; if he had two sightings, he does not bring. — But perhaps (the meaning is that) if he had two sightings, he brings; if he had three, he does not bring. — But did not one who had three sightings have two sightings? How, then, am I to understand "and the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd from his discharge"? Some zavim bring the sacrifice and some do not. How so? If he had three sightings, he brings; if he had two sightings, he does not bring.

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD…. Thus have our masters taught (in Shab. 2:6): WOMEN DIE AT THE TIME OF THEIR CHILDBIRTH FOR THREE TRANSGRESSIONS:⁵⁵Above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 2:1; Tanh., Gen. 2:1; Lev. 5:9. < BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CAREFUL IN REGARD TO MENSTRUATION, IN REGARD TO THE HALLAH,⁵⁶I.e., the priest’s share of the dough. AND IN REGARD TO THE LIGHTING OF THE LAMP. >⁵⁷I.e., the Sabbath lamp. Why? Because the Adversary (Satan) only makes accusations⁵⁸Gk.: kategorein. in time of danger. Now the three of them are from the Torah. Where is it shown about menstruation? (Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD. Where is it shown about the hallah? (Numb. 15:20:) < YOU SHALL SET ASIDE > THE FIRST OF YOUR DOUGH AS A HALLAH OFFERING…. [Where is it shown] in regard to the lighting of the < Sabbath > lamp? Thus have our masters taught: Where is it shown that a person is to be zealous and diligent in the lighting of the < Sabbath > lamp? Where it is stated (in Is. 58:13): AND YOU CALL THE SABBATH A DELIGHT. This refers to the lighting of the lamp. And why were < these commandments > transmitted to the woman?⁵⁹Gen. R. 17:8; yShab. 2:4 (5b). The Holy One said: She cut off the lamp of the world, since it is written (in Prov. 20:27): THE LAMP OF GOD IS THE BREATH OF ADAM. Therefore, she shall observe the commandments of the lamp. [In regard to Hallah,] the Holy One said: She defiled the hallah of the world. This was the first Adam, who was the hallah of the world; for R. Jose ben Qetsartah has said: Just as the woman moistens her dough with water and after that takes out hallah, so it was with the first Adam (in Gen. 2:6): AND A MIST ('D) WENT UP FROM THE EARTH, and after that (in vs. 7): [THE LORD GOD] FORMED THE HUMAN ('DM) OUT OF DUST FROM THE GROUND > [….] In regard to menstruation, the Holy One said: She shed the blood of the first Adam, and she was sentenced to have her own blood shed, since it is stated (in Gen. 9:6): WHOEVER SHEDS HUMAN BLOOD, < BY A HUMAN WILL HIS BLOOD BE SHED >. She shall observe her menstrual period to atone for the blood that she shed. Ergo (in Lev. 15:25): AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD…. Therefore, the Holy One compares the uncleanness of Israel to the uncleanness of the menstrual period, when < a woman > is unclean and < then > purified. So the Holy One is going to purify Israel, as stated (in Ezek. 36:25): I WILL SPRINKLE PURE WATER UPON YOU, AND YOU SHALL BE PURE….

R. Ze’era said: The laws of uncleanness apply to human beings: To men: When any man hath an issue out of his flesh (Lev. 15:2), and to women: If a woman have an issue (ibid., v. 19). This is the law: When a man dieth in a tent, everything shall be unclean (Num. 19:14). Thou art fairer than the children of men (Ps. 45:3). Moses is merely called human (but his essence is of a higher level). In what way? The Holy One, blessed be He, causes death and restores to life, He casts men into the pit and brings them out again, and Moses did likewise. He cast Korah and his followers, while still alive, into the pit, as it is said: So they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit (Num. 16:32). The Holy One, blessed be He, issued a decree, but he (Moses) caused it to be revoked, as is written: Therefore He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen stood before Him in the breach (Ps. 106:23). Grace is poured upon thy lips (ibid. 45:3) indicates that he spoke in their defense, as it is said: And Moses besought the Lord (Exod. 32:11), and He did not depart until the Lord repented (ibid., v. 14).

R. Ze’era said: The laws of uncleanness apply to human beings: To men: When any man hath an issue out of his flesh (Lev. 15:2), and to women: If a woman have an issue (ibid., v. 19). This is the law: When a man dieth in a tent, everything shall be unclean (Num. 19:14). Thou art fairer than the children of men (Ps. 45:3). Moses is merely called human (but his essence is of a higher level). In what way? The Holy One, blessed be He, causes death and restores to life, He casts men into the pit and brings them out again, and Moses did likewise. He cast Korah and his followers, while still alive, into the pit, as it is said: So they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit (Num. 16:32). The Holy One, blessed be He, issued a decree, but he (Moses) caused it to be revoked, as is written: Therefore He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen stood before Him in the breach (Ps. 106:23). Grace is poured upon thy lips (ibid. 45:3) indicates that he spoke in their defense, as it is said: And Moses besought the Lord (Exod. 32:11), and He did not depart until the Lord repented (ibid., v. 14).

“With slothfulness the ceiling sags and with idleness of the hands the house leaks” (Ecclesiastes 10:18).
“With slothfulness the ceiling sags” – because the Israelites were slothful from encamping at Mount Sinai in dispute,⁷⁸Although the Israelites had engaged in disputes in their other encampments, when they encamped at Sinai they did so peacefully. “the ceiling sags” – it is written: “He bent the heavens and descended” (Psalms 18:10).⁷⁹God descended to them and rested His presence in their midst. “And with idleness [uvshiflut] of the hands the house leaks” – because the Israelites humbled themselves [nishtapelu] [and refrained] from encamping in dispute at Mount Sinai, “the house leaks” – “the clouds, too, dripped water” (Judges 5:4).
Another matter: “With slothfulness the ceiling sags” – because the Israelites were slothful in repenting in the days of Jeremiah, “the ceiling sags,” – “He uncovered the covering of Judah” (Isaiah 22:8), he removed its covering.⁸⁰The roof of the Temple. “And with idleness [uvshiflut] of the hands the house leaks” – because the Israelites abased themselves [nishtapelu] from repenting in the days of Jeremiah, “the house leaks,” it is written: “For behold, the Lord commands, and He will shatter the great house⁸¹The ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel. into smithereens and the small house⁸²The two tribes of the kingdom of Judah. into fragments” (Amos 6:11). Rabbi Huna said: This shattering into smithereens is unlike the shattering into fragments. This shattering into fragments, there are no remnants from it, while the shattering into smithereens, there are remnants from it.⁸³When something is shattered into smithereens the tiny slivers cannot possibly be reconstructed into a whole. When something is broken into fragments the pieces are large enough to be usable and reconstructed (Etz Yosef).
Another matter: “With slothfulness the ceiling sags” – Rabbi Kohen interpreted [it] regarding a woman: Because a woman is slothful in examining herself at her appropriate time, she suffers, as it is stated, “and of she who suffers in her menstruation” (Leviticus 15:33). “And with idleness [uvshiflut] of the hands…” – because she abases herself [mishtapelet] [and refrains] from examining herself, she becomes a zava,⁸⁴A zava is a woman who experiences a discharge of blood when it is not the time for her menstruation. See Leviticus 15:25–30. as it is stated: “And a woman, if her bloody discharge shall flow [many days, not at the time of her menstruation]” (Leviticus 15:25).

“With slothfulness the ceiling sags and with idleness of the hands the house leaks” (Ecclesiastes 10:18).
“With slothfulness the ceiling sags” – because the Israelites were slothful from encamping at Mount Sinai in dispute,⁷⁸Although the Israelites had engaged in disputes in their other encampments, when they encamped at Sinai they did so peacefully. “the ceiling sags” – it is written: “He bent the heavens and descended” (Psalms 18:10).⁷⁹God descended to them and rested His presence in their midst. “And with idleness [uvshiflut] of the hands the house leaks” – because the Israelites humbled themselves [nishtapelu] [and refrained] from encamping in dispute at Mount Sinai, “the house leaks” – “the clouds, too, dripped water” (Judges 5:4).
Another matter: “With slothfulness the ceiling sags” – because the Israelites were slothful in repenting in the days of Jeremiah, “the ceiling sags,” – “He uncovered the covering of Judah” (Isaiah 22:8), he removed its covering.⁸⁰The roof of the Temple. “And with idleness [uvshiflut] of the hands the house leaks” – because the Israelites abased themselves [nishtapelu] from repenting in the days of Jeremiah, “the house leaks,” it is written: “For behold, the Lord commands, and He will shatter the great house⁸¹The ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel. into smithereens and the small house⁸²The two tribes of the kingdom of Judah. into fragments” (Amos 6:11). Rabbi Huna said: This shattering into smithereens is unlike the shattering into fragments. This shattering into fragments, there are no remnants from it, while the shattering into smithereens, there are remnants from it.⁸³When something is shattered into smithereens the tiny slivers cannot possibly be reconstructed into a whole. When something is broken into fragments the pieces are large enough to be usable and reconstructed (Etz Yosef).
Another matter: “With slothfulness the ceiling sags” – Rabbi Kohen interpreted [it] regarding a woman: Because a woman is slothful in examining herself at her appropriate time, she suffers, as it is stated, “and of she who suffers in her menstruation” (Leviticus 15:33). “And with idleness [uvshiflut] of the hands…” – because she abases herself [mishtapelet] [and refrains] from examining herself, she becomes a zava,⁸⁴A zava is a woman who experiences a discharge of blood when it is not the time for her menstruation. See Leviticus 15:25–30. as it is stated: “And a woman, if her bloody discharge shall flow [many days, not at the time of her menstruation]” (Leviticus 15:25).

"And you shall provide yourselves with cities" (Numbers 35:11), this is what the verse says, "Good and upright is the Lord, therefore He shows sinners the way." (Psalms 25:8) "Remember Your mercy, O God, and your lovingkindness." (Psalms 25:6). David said, Master of the Universe, were it not for the fact that Your lovingkindness preceded the First Man, he would not have been able to stand, as it says "For the day you eat of it [the tree of knowledge of good and evil] you will surely die" (Genesis 2:17). And You did not do this; rather, You brought him out from the Garden of Eden and he lived for 930 years(!) and only after that did he die. Why did you do that to him, to drive him out from the Garden of Eden, as it says (Genesis 3:24) "and He drove out the man"? Why was he driven out, since he brought death upon the generations, and he was sentenced to immediate death? Rather, You had mercy upon him and drove him off, just as the accidental killer is exiled to a city of refuge. Thus it says, "Remember Your mercy, O God, and Your lovingkindness, etc." Once Moshe stood and the Holy Blessed One told him, "Provide yourselves with cities...", Moshe said "Master of the Universe, this one killed by accident in the south or the north; how will he know where the city of refuge is, that he may flee to it?" God replied, "'Set for yourselves the path... [i.e. to the cities of refuge]' (Deuteronomy 19:3), orient for yourselves the path so that you will not be mistaken and find the blood avenger and he will kill you "and there will be for him no death penalty" (Deuteronomy 19:6)." He [Moshe] said again, "How?" He [God] said to him, set up for yourselves signs [istlayot] pointing to the cities of refuge, that they will know where to travel. And on every sign write "Killer to the city of refuge", as it says "prepare for yourselves the way". Thus said David, "Good and upright is the Lord, therefore He shows sinners the way." If for killers He makes a path and a road for them to flee by and be saved, all the more so for righteous! "He guides the humble in justice, and teaches the humble His way" (Psalms 25:9). "And the killer shall flee there who has killed a soul by accident" -- but not on purpose. If he kills on purpose and he says "I accidentally killed" and flees to the cities of refuge, the Holy Blessed One says, even if he flees and enters to My altar, you shall kill him, as it says (Exodus 21:14) "And if a person schemes, etc [against another, and kills him treacherously, you shall take him from My very altar to be put to death]". And who was it who fled to the altar and was killed? Yoav, as it says (I Kings 2:28) "When the news reached Joab, he fled to the Tent of the LORD [and grasped the horns of the altar]...". And it says (II Samuel 23:8) "Tahchemonite, the chief officer" -- he did not know that it is written in the Torah "And if a person schemes, etc" that he went and grasped the horns of the altar. Rather it says "Those killed by the court are not buried in the graves of their fathers, rather they alone; it is better for me that I die here and be buried in the graves of my fathers". (I Kings 3:30-31) "Benaiah reported back to the king that Joab had answered thus and thus, and the king said, 'Do just as he said; strike him down and bury him, and remove guilt from me and my father’s house for the blood of the innocent that Joab has shed.'" And why was he killed? For so David his [Shlomo's] father had commanded him -- "Further, you know what Joab son of Zeruiah did to me, what he did to the two commanders of Israel’s forces, Abner son of Ner and Amasa son of Jether: he killed them" (I Kings 2:5). What did he do to him...

Rabbi Levitas, a man of Jamnia, said: Unless the father of a leprous person spit in his face, he will not be healed, as it is said, "And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, would she not be ashamed seven days?" (Num. 12:14). Hence (the sages) say: A male afflicted with unclean issue (needs) seven (days for his purification); a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days' separation); a menstruant (needs) seven (days of purification); one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification); a mourner (mourns for) seven (days); the wedding feast (lasts) seven (days); and a leprous person (requires) seven (days' separation). (Whence do we know that) a male with an unclean issue (requires) seven days (for his purification)? || (Because it is said,) "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue, then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing" (Lev. 15:13). Whence do we know that a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean" (Lev. 15:28). Whence do we know that a menstruant (requires) seven (days of separation)? Because it is said, "She shall be in her separation seven days" (Lev. 15:19). "Her separation" (or impurity) thou dost not read, but "in her impurity"; because Rabbi Ẓe'era said: The daughters of Israel have made the Law exceptionally stringent for themselves, so that if they see a blood stain of the size of a mustard seed they observe on its account seven days, after that they are cleansed (of their issue of blood). Whence do we know that one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "And whosoever in the open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or a dead body… shall be unclean seven days" (Num. 19:16). Whence do we know that the mourner (mourns for) seven (days)? Because it is said, "And he made a mourning for his father seven days" (Gen. 50.10). Whence do we know that the (bridal) banquet (lasts) seven days? Because it is said, "Fulfil the week of this one…. And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week" (Gen. 29:27, 28). Whence do we know that a leper (keeps) seven (days of purification)? From Miriam, as it is said, "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (Num. 12:15).

Rabbi Levitas, a man of Jamnia, said: Unless the father of a leprous person spit in his face, he will not be healed, as it is said, "And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, would she not be ashamed seven days?" (Num. 12:14). Hence (the sages) say: A male afflicted with unclean issue (needs) seven (days for his purification); a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days' separation); a menstruant (needs) seven (days of purification); one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification); a mourner (mourns for) seven (days); the wedding feast (lasts) seven (days); and a leprous person (requires) seven (days' separation). (Whence do we know that) a male with an unclean issue (requires) seven days (for his purification)? || (Because it is said,) "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue, then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing" (Lev. 15:13). Whence do we know that a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean" (Lev. 15:28). Whence do we know that a menstruant (requires) seven (days of separation)? Because it is said, "She shall be in her separation seven days" (Lev. 15:19). "Her separation" (or impurity) thou dost not read, but "in her impurity"; because Rabbi Ẓe'era said: The daughters of Israel have made the Law exceptionally stringent for themselves, so that if they see a blood stain of the size of a mustard seed they observe on its account seven days, after that they are cleansed (of their issue of blood). Whence do we know that one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "And whosoever in the open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or a dead body… shall be unclean seven days" (Num. 19:16). Whence do we know that the mourner (mourns for) seven (days)? Because it is said, "And he made a mourning for his father seven days" (Gen. 50.10). Whence do we know that the (bridal) banquet (lasts) seven days? Because it is said, "Fulfil the week of this one…. And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week" (Gen. 29:27, 28). Whence do we know that a leper (keeps) seven (days of purification)? From Miriam, as it is said, "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (Num. 12:15).

Rabbi Levitas, a man of Jamnia, said: Unless the father of a leprous person spit in his face, he will not be healed, as it is said, "And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, would she not be ashamed seven days?" (Num. 12:14). Hence (the sages) say: A male afflicted with unclean issue (needs) seven (days for his purification); a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days' separation); a menstruant (needs) seven (days of purification); one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification); a mourner (mourns for) seven (days); the wedding feast (lasts) seven (days); and a leprous person (requires) seven (days' separation). (Whence do we know that) a male with an unclean issue (requires) seven days (for his purification)? || (Because it is said,) "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue, then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing" (Lev. 15:13). Whence do we know that a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean" (Lev. 15:28). Whence do we know that a menstruant (requires) seven (days of separation)? Because it is said, "She shall be in her separation seven days" (Lev. 15:19). "Her separation" (or impurity) thou dost not read, but "in her impurity"; because Rabbi Ẓe'era said: The daughters of Israel have made the Law exceptionally stringent for themselves, so that if they see a blood stain of the size of a mustard seed they observe on its account seven days, after that they are cleansed (of their issue of blood). Whence do we know that one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "And whosoever in the open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or a dead body… shall be unclean seven days" (Num. 19:16). Whence do we know that the mourner (mourns for) seven (days)? Because it is said, "And he made a mourning for his father seven days" (Gen. 50.10). Whence do we know that the (bridal) banquet (lasts) seven days? Because it is said, "Fulfil the week of this one…. And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week" (Gen. 29:27, 28). Whence do we know that a leper (keeps) seven (days of purification)? From Miriam, as it is said, "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (Num. 12:15).

Rabbi Levitas, a man of Jamnia, said: Unless the father of a leprous person spit in his face, he will not be healed, as it is said, "And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, would she not be ashamed seven days?" (Num. 12:14). Hence (the sages) say: A male afflicted with unclean issue (needs) seven (days for his purification); a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days' separation); a menstruant (needs) seven (days of purification); one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification); a mourner (mourns for) seven (days); the wedding feast (lasts) seven (days); and a leprous person (requires) seven (days' separation). (Whence do we know that) a male with an unclean issue (requires) seven days (for his purification)? || (Because it is said,) "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue, then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing" (Lev. 15:13). Whence do we know that a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean" (Lev. 15:28). Whence do we know that a menstruant (requires) seven (days of separation)? Because it is said, "She shall be in her separation seven days" (Lev. 15:19). "Her separation" (or impurity) thou dost not read, but "in her impurity"; because Rabbi Ẓe'era said: The daughters of Israel have made the Law exceptionally stringent for themselves, so that if they see a blood stain of the size of a mustard seed they observe on its account seven days, after that they are cleansed (of their issue of blood). Whence do we know that one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "And whosoever in the open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or a dead body… shall be unclean seven days" (Num. 19:16). Whence do we know that the mourner (mourns for) seven (days)? Because it is said, "And he made a mourning for his father seven days" (Gen. 50.10). Whence do we know that the (bridal) banquet (lasts) seven days? Because it is said, "Fulfil the week of this one…. And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week" (Gen. 29:27, 28). Whence do we know that a leper (keeps) seven (days of purification)? From Miriam, as it is said, "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (Num. 12:15).

(Bamidbar 19:11) "One who touches the dead body of any man shall be unclean for seven days." Scripture hereby teaches about a dead body that it confers tumah by contact. — But even without a verse it follows a fortiori, viz.: If it confers tumah in a tent, how much more so by contact! Why, then, is the verse needed? To include an eight-month birth (who died). This would include both an eight-month birth and his blood; it is, therefore, written (lit.,) "the soul (i.e., the body) of a man" — to exclude his blood (as conferring tumah). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: (It is written) "all the soul of a man" — to include his blood. "then he shall be tamei for seven days": Scripture hereby apprises us that a dead body confers tumah for seven days (unlike other instances of contact tumah, which obtain for one day only). (Ibid. 12) "He shall be cleansed with it": Why "with it"? (i.e., "it" seems superfluous). (The thrust of "it" is) with ashes that were processed as prescribed. "on the third day and on the seventh day": Scripture hereby apprises us that one who is tamei by a dead body must be sprinkled on, on the third day and the seventh day. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) that if he is sprinkled on, on the third day, he is clean on the seventh day, and if not, he is not clean on the seventh day. It is, therefore, written "And if he is not cleansed on the third day, he shall not be clean on the seventh day." — But still, perhaps the meaning is: Why is he not clean on the seventh day, because he was not besprinkled on the seventh day, but if he were besprinkled on the third day, then he is clean on the seventh day! It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 19) "and he shall cleanse him on the seventh day." Scripture repeats it to void it (otherwise). "And if he is not cleansed on the third day, then he shall not be clean on the seventh day": Why is this written? (i.e., it follows from what precedes.) Because it is written (Ibid. 20) "And a man if he become tamei and he has not been sprinkled upon, etc.", does Scripture make him liable to kareth because of the defiling of the sanctuary and its holy things or because he has not been sprinkled upon? It is, therefore, written "And if he is not cleansed on the third day, then he shall not be clean on the seventh day." His punishment is not being clean, and not kareth. (Ibid. 13) "Everyone who touches a dead body in the soul of a man": As heretofore stated, to exclude an eight-month birth. "that shall die": Scripture hereby apprises us that he does not confer tumah until he dies. From here, you reason to sheretz (a creeping thing), viz.: If the "graver," a dead body, does not confer tumah until the man (actually) dies, then the "lighter," a sheretz, how much more so should it not confer tumah until it (actually) dies! Or, transpose it, viz.: If sheretz, the "lighter," confers tumah while convulsing, then a man, the "graver" how much more so should he confer tumah even while convulsing (and not actually dead)! It is, therefore, written "Everyone who touches a dead body in the soul of a man that shall die." Why need "that shall die" be written? Why is it written? To apprise us that he does not confer tumah until he (actually) dies. I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed. The transposition has been nullified and the original a fortiori argument remains, viz.: If the "graver," a dead body, does not confer tumah until the man actually dies, then the "lighter," a sheretz, how much more so should it not confer tumah until it (actually) dies! "and he not be cleansed": Rebbi says: and he not be cleansed by blood (i.e., if he has not brought his required offering, and enters the sanctuary, e.g., in the instance of a zav or a leper, who require an offering for their purification). You say, if he has not been cleansed by blood, but perhaps (the meaning is that) he has not been cleansed by the waters (of the red heifer)! (This is not so, for) "the waters of sprinkling have not been sprinkled upon him" already speaks of the waters. How, then, am I to understand "and he not be cleansed"? (As) he will not be cleansed by blood," to include one lacking atonement, (as in the above instance). "and that soul shall be cut off': Why is this written (here)? Is it not written below? (viz. Ibid. 20). But because it is written (there) "The sanctuary ("mikdash," [i.e., the Temple]) of the L-rd he has defiled," this tells me only of the mikdash. Whence do I derive (the same for) the mishkan (i.e., the tabernacle of the desert)? From (Ibid. 13) "The tabernacle ("mishkan") of the L-rd he has defiled." "and that soul shall be cut off": And elsewhere (in the same connection [Vayikra 15:31]) "that they not die in their tumah." Why the difference (in terminology)? To teach that "kareth" and "death" (in this regard) are one and the same. "tamei shall he be": to include other varieties of tumah (e.g., sheretz and zav). These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: It (the verse) is not needed (for this teaching.) It is already written (Vayikra, Ibid.) "And you shall separate the children of Israel from their tumah, that they not die in their tumah by making tamei My mishkan which is in their midst." Tumah through a dead body was in the category (of all the varieties of tumah), and Scripture isolated it (here for special mention), and made it liable to death and to the bringing of an offering (for unwitting transgression), to teach about the other varieties of tumah (in this connection) that they are liable to death and to the bringing of an offering. How, then, am I to understand "tamei shall he be"? Because it is written "for the waters of sprinkling have not been sprinkled upon him," I might think (that the intent is) if they had not been sprinkled upon him at all. Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled (on the third day), but did not repeat (on the seventh day)? From "tamei shall he be." Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled and he repeated, but he did not immerse? From "His tumah is upon him." Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled and he immersed, but did not wait for "his sun to set"? From "His tumah is yet upon him."