Komentarz do Kapłańska 15:11

וידיו לא שטף כמים [AND WHOMSOEVER HE THAT HATH THE ISSUE] TOUCHETH AND HE HATH NOT RINSED HIS HANDS IN WATER [… SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN] — "and has not rinsed his hands” means: so long as he (the זב) has not immersed himself to cleanse himself from his uncleanness: even if he has ceased from his issue and has counted seven clean days (v. 13) but still lacks immersion he communicates uncleanness in all forms of defilment peculiar to him. And the reason why Scripture expresses the immersion of the whole body of the זב by the term “rinsing his hands” is to teach you that the hidden parts of the body (בית הסתרים, the inside of the mouth, ear, nose, etc., and the folds between adjoining portions of the body, קמטים) do not require “the coming of water” upon them (i. e. need not become wet when he immerses himself), but only such a limb which is visible, such as the hands (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 4 5).

AND WHOMSOEVER ‘HAZAV’ (HE THAT HATH THE ISSUE) TOUCHETH, WITHOUT HAVING RINSED HIS HANDS IN WATER, HE SHALL WASH HIS CLOTHES, AND BATHE HIMSELF IN WATER, AND BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. Scripture calls the immersion [of the whole body of the impure object] “rinsing in water,”¹²⁰Ramban’s intention is to explain that in order that the zav become pure, he must immerse himself completely in water, this being implied in the term shataph (rinsing), as the following verse indicates. And the reason why Scripture uses the term “rinsing,” and why also it speaks here only of the hands having been rinsed, will be explained further on in the text. as is indicated by the verse here stating, and every vessel of wood [touched by a zav] shall be ‘rinsed’ in water¹²¹Verse 12. [which means completely “immersed” in water], and similarly it calls the immersion of an [impure] garment “washing,” thus saying, then it shall be ‘washed’ the second time, and shall be clean.¹²²Above, 13:58. Here too it does not mean merely washing the garment, but its immersion in a ritual pool. See Rashi ibid. The reason for these expressions is that it is necessary that there should be nothing interposing during the immersion [between the water and the utensil or the person], but he is to rinse his whole body in the water, even as the verse states, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water,¹²³Above, 6:21. Here the removal of impurities is clearly implied. So also in immersion every interposing object must first be removed. similar to the expression, ‘nachal shoteiph’ (an overflowing stream).¹²⁴Isaiah 30:28. And the meaning of the verse [here which specifies the hands] is because touching is done with the hands; therefore the verse states that when the zav touches anyone with his hands, and he has not “rinsed” them yet [i.e., “immersed” them, as explained above] by “rinsing” his whole body in water, that other person is impure. This is as if the verse had said, “and whomsoever he that hath the issue toucheth with his hands, and he hath not yet bathed himself in water on the day of his purification, he shall wash his clothes, [and be impure until the even].” Scripture had to use the term “rinsing,” in order to teach that the “bathing” it mentioned in the verse, and he shall bathe his flesh in running water,¹²⁵Verse 13. should be by means of rinsing and rubbing, so as to remove anything interposing [between the water and his body], as I have explained. It would not have been correct for Scripture to say that “whomsoever he that has an issue touches, after having rinsed his hands in water, will not be rendered impure,” [from which we would deduce that if he has not rinsed his hands in water, he shall be impure, thus indicating that his impurity is conveyed through his fingers], for He has already said, that whoever toucheth the flesh of him that hath the issue,¹²⁶Above, Verse 7. meaning any part of the zav, is impure, the same law applying to objects that he lies on¹²⁷Ibid., Verse 4. and rides on,¹²⁸Ibid., Verse 9. and anything on which he sat,¹²⁹Ibid., Verse 6. until he is purified of his issue, and he shall bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean.¹²⁵Verse 13. Rather, Scripture [in using the term “rinsing”] alludes to his purification by means of complete immersion, as I have explained. And our Rabbis have said¹³⁰Torath Kohanim, Zavim 4:5. that Scripture expresses the immersion of the [whole] body of the zav by the term “rinsing of hands,” in order to teach you that the hidden parts of the body [such as the inside of the mouth, etc.] do not require “the coming of water” upon them, but only limbs which are visible, such as the hands.
The reason for the impurity of a man that suffers a flux is because it is a serious illness, and one of the contagious diseases. Therefore he requires an offering when healed in order to give thanks to G-d Who healed him and purified him [which is accomplished through the bird brought as a burnt-offering],¹³¹Further, Verses 14-15. and [in addition] he needs a sin-offering to effect atonement for his sin, so that it should not cause him any more sickness.
The reason for the impurity of semen,¹³²Ibid., Verses 16-18. even though it is the nature of procreation, is analogous to the impurity of the dead, since the womb can be malfunctioning; thus the man does not know if his seed will be destroyed or a child will be born of it. When I will mention the reason for the impurity of the dead,¹³³I have not been able to find a clear reference to this. But see Ramban. Numbers 19:2. with the help of Him Who takes life and gives life, the reason for the impurity of semen will be explained to you. I will also mention certain main principles when discussing the law of the menstruant.¹³⁴See further, 18:19 (towards end).
Now Scripture was lenient in the case of a woman having an issue in her regular period, by not requiring her to bring an offering [as the zavah, the woman who sees blood outside her regular period, must do],¹³⁵Further, Verses 29-30. because it is natural for her [to see blood at her period], and she is not healed of any sickness; rather, it declared her impure for seven days whether she saw [blood] for only one day or on all seven days.¹³⁶See above, Note 32 in Seder Tazria. However, women do not by nature experience [the menstrual flow] for more than seven days, except when they have an extra flow on account of sickness. Thus when a woman has an issue of her blood many days out of the time¹³⁷Further, Verse 25. The number of days is at least three. known to her, or if she adds to the time of those seven [menstrual] days, and has an issue of her blood for many more days, it is a form of sickness comparable to the flux of a man, and Scripture required her to bring an offering¹³⁵Further, Verses 29-30. when she is healed, just as the zav has to bring.¹³¹Further, Verses 14-15.
Now Scripture has not mentioned immersion in the case of the woman. This is because after stating the law of the man that suffers a flux and his impurity, and then mentioning at the end, and he shall bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean,¹²⁵Verse 13. it then went back and stated with reference to a woman, and if a woman have an issue,¹³⁸Verse 19. meaning just like a man that suffers a flux, her issue in her flesh be blood,¹³⁸Verse 19. not the white fluid as in a man; it then mentioned the impurity of the menstruant¹³⁹Verses 19-24. and the zavah,¹⁴⁰Verses 25-27. followed by the statement concerning the zavah, and if she be cleansed of her issue,¹⁴¹Verse 28. just as the zav is purified of his flux, then she shall number to herself seven days,¹⁴¹Verse 28. just as the zav counts,¹²⁵Verse 13. and after that she shall be clean,¹⁴¹Verse 28. [meaning] in the same way as the purity of the zav is effected [i.e., through immersion].
By way of the simple meaning of Scripture, a zavah would thus be required to have immersion in running water just like a zav¹²⁵Verse 13. [since the verse implies that her purity is attained in the same way as that of a zav], but the Sages have been lenient with regard to the impurity of a zavah, stating that she can become purified in the same way as all others who are purified of their impurity, namely, in the waters of a ritual pool [which do not have to be running water]. The reason [for their being lenient in the case of the impurity of a zavah] is because it was not necessary for Scripture to mention at all the expression, and after that she shall be clean,¹⁴¹Verse 28. since the woman is included in the law of the man, and the verses were only necessary to mention the difference between a zav and zavah, that her flux must be of blood [and not white], and to distinguish between a flux in her regular period and outside the regular period. Therefore the Rabbis were of the opinion that [in the above phrase, and after that she shall be clean] Scripture intended to include an additional form of purification for her, saying, and after that she shall be clean like all those mentioned in the Torah, who are purified even without running water.
Acharei Moth

. וידיו לא שטף במים, the zav did not immerse himself in a ritual bath.. This is the way the sages interpret the words above (compare Rashi) Personally, I believe that the plain meaning of these words above is that the person experiencing these drippings and sticky semen adhering to his flesh mentioned in verse 3 has not yet removed this from himself. The Torah uses an elegant way saying “he has not washed it off with water,” basically, it refers to a removal by wiping or scraping his skin including his glans. The lesson here is that a simple immersion in a ritual bath, if not after the removal of the offending material, does not accomplish its purpose of ritually cleansing the afflicted party. This has been explained in detail in Niddah 15 where the words in our verse are understood as “although he had previously immersed himself he still remains ritually impure, seeing he had not first cleansed himself physically. Spiritual cleanliness presupposes physical cleanliness.” Anything or anyone touching the offending fluid (until it has thoroughly dried, congealed) becomes contaminated ritually.
The expression שטיפת ידיו במים, loosely translated as “immersing one’s hands in water,” is used here in a sense similar to Proverbs 30,20 where the author describes the unfaithful wife as “wiping her mouth” after indulging in illicit sex, proclaiming that now that she has “wiped the offending residue of her indulgence,” she has not committed any sin. Solomon describes the scenario sarcastically, of course. A similar scenario occurs in Judges 3,24, where Eglon’s servants assumed that their king was still busy using his private toilet and this was why he did not open the door for them. The expression used there was מסיך הוא את רגליו, an elegant way of referring to someone urinating or excreting.
Here the Torah uses the elegant way of referring to the sticky mess still adhering to the afflicted party’s body as ידיו לא שטף במים, “he did not rinse his hands in water.” In other words, he had not yet gotten rid of the offensive material causing the ritual impurity in the first place. The expression is used without recourse to elegance in Leviticus 6,21 where the words ומורק ושוטף במים mean: ”it has to be purged and thoroughly rinsed out in water.” The fatty substances of the sin offering in that vessel have to be cleaned out. In Isaiah 28,2 we also read about מים כבירים שוטפים, “the destructive force of mighty waters.” It sweeps away anything before its force, “cleans” it out. In Job 14,19 we also encounter the expression שטף in that sense, i.e. “torrents wash away earth.”

וידיו לא שטף במים, “without having rinsed his hands in water.” Nachmanides writes that in this instance the Torah uses the word שטף to describe immersion in the purifying waters of the mikveh. The same expression had been used by the Torah for someone instead of immersing his body, immersing his ritually contaminated vessels.

וידיו לא שטף במים, “before he rinsed his hands in water.” The Torah does not mean this literally but means an immersion of the whole body in a ritual bath (compare Maimonides Mikvaot 1,2). The reason the Torah used the expression שטף is because the Torah wanted to indicate that nothing must prevent the water from touching the entire surface of the body. In other words, the water must be applied to the whole body just as when you wash your hands the entire hand is touched by the water. The word occurs in 6,21 ומורק ושוטף במים, “purged and rinsed in water,” where it clearly means that the copper vessel of which the Torah speaks must be completely covered by water. We find the word also in Jeremiah 47,2, לנחל שוטף, “the waters shall become a raging torrent.” According to Rashi, the use of the word for “rinsing” mentioned here means that if the water in the ritual bath did not enter hidden crevices of the body but came into contact only with surfaces of the body this would suffice. Just as the hand has no hidden crevice, so only the parts of the body which can easily be accessed by the water are meant.

As he did not immerse. This refers to the zov and not to the one who touches him, to teach that before he immerses he is impure and requires washing clothes. Otherwise, Scripture would only need to write, “If a zov touches anyone, he shall wash his garments and bathe in water.” Why does it say, “And his hands were not rinsed”? Meaning: We cannot say it means literally “his hands,” literally, because it is written (v. 13): “and bathe his body in [running] water, and he will be purified” (Divrei Dovid).

'כל אשר יגע בו הזב וגו, “anything that the person who had the emission touches, etc.” this is not really the place where this verse should have been written. It should have been written after verse 13: וכי יטהר הזב מזובו, “when the person concerned has become purified again from this contamination;” i.e. before the seven days he has to count have expired. The reason why it was written here and not there, is since the Torah had already been in the middle of dealing with this status of a person who touches ritually pure things while himself being ritually contaminated, the Torah saw fit to stick to that subject matter.

Hidden parts. For instance: Inside his mouth, the opening of the male member below, or inside of body folds, which although the water does not enter there, he is pure. We only require that it should be fit for the water to enter.

וידיו לא שטף במים, “without first having rinsed his hands with water;” on this line Rabbi Elazar ben Aroch commented that the act of purifying one’s hands by washing them with water is a biblical commandment. [It is not just a Rabbinical decree. Ed.] Actually, the line “rinsed with water,” is an elegant way of saying that immersion in a ritual bath is necessary. We find this confirmed in Psalms 26,6 where David says: ארחץ בנקיון כפי, ”I wash my hands in innocence;” [he does not refer to tap water, but to a ritual bath. Ed.]

That is that He commanded us that a zav be impure. And this commandment includes the laws of the things that would make him a zav and the description of his transmitting his [impurity]. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat 6.)