Komentarz do Kapłańska 15:35

כי יהיה זב WHEN THERE BE A RUNNING ISSUE — One might think if there be a running issue from any portion of his body (e. g., ear, nose) he shall be unclean! Therefore it states מבשרו “from his flesh" (i.e. from some part of his flesh) and not from all parts of his flesh (the prefix מ is a partitive מ). Now, however, that Scripture has made a difference between one part of his flesh and another part of his flesh, I have the right to draw a conclusion: it (the Torah) pronounces uncleanness in a case of a man with a running issue (זב) and it pronounces uncleanness in a particular case of a woman with a running issue (זבה). How is it in the case of a זבה? Through that place in her body where she becomes unclean with a lighter uncleanness, viz., that of a נדה, she also becomes unclean with a more stringent uncleanness i.e. through זיבה, a continuance of the issue beyond the usual period! Similarly the זב: through the place where he becomes unclean with a lighter uncleanness, viz., קרי, (an involuntary emission of semen which makes him unclean only until evening; cf. v. 16), he also becomes unclean through a more stringent uncleanness, viz., זיבה (when he is unclean seven days and must bring a sacrifice; cf. vv. 13 ff. with 16 ff.; from the latter it is evident which part of the body is in question; it follows logically that the same part is here intended) (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 1 5).

זב מבשרו, the Talmud K’ritut 8 already explained the preposition מ in the word מבשרו as meaning “emanating from,” and not as “due to, on account of.” The word בשר refers to the male organ. In other words, unless the symptoms described here are due to a local physiological imbalance and not as a secondary effect of some other primary cause such as overeating, for instance, these symptoms will not result in and confer ritual impurity.
Our sages in Niddah 35 already explained that the symptom called זוב is very similar in appearance to the albumen in an egg which has become rotten. When the cause is directly connected to the male organs of the afflicted person the legislation under discussion in this chapter applies. This is the meaning of the word מבשרו, a disturbance in the male organ to function properly. The author speculates that the cause may be overly frequent indulgence in the sex act, which in turns leads to insufficient time for the seminal fluid being replaced properly, etc. If that were the cause, a cause brought about by fantasizing about the sex act too often, the remedy, in part, would be the seven days during which the afflicted person counts towards his being healed, reflecting on the part his lifestyle played in causing the symptoms from which he suffered. By indulging in fewer sexual fantasies and the need to offer a sin offering after being free from these symptoms the afflicted person my be on the way to spiritual rehabilitation also. These thoughts are reflected in the Talmud on the folios we referred to.

דברו אל בני ישראל ואמרתם, "speak to the children of Israel and say to them, etc." This entire verse appears redundant in view of verse 1 before it. Perhaps we may understand it in light of Torat Kohanim which explained that whereas the Israelites confer ritual impurity when they suffer from the involuntary seminal emissions called זיבה, the Gentiles do not confer such ritual impurity if they come into contact with Jews or touch their belongings, etc. The Torah therefore employed the expression דברו to indicate the relative severity of this legislation. Expressions such as דבר always indicate some degree of harshness when compared to the expression אמור. A Jew suffering from this disease transmits ritual impurity to anything he sits on or lies on, even. The Torah continued with the softer ואמרתם to console the Israelites that the fact that they transmit ritual impurity is a compliment for them as it shows that prior to that disease they were in a state of ritual purity, a status never enjoyed by Gentiles. The word אמר is used as indicating spiritual superiority in Deut. 26,17 where G'd described the mutual bond between G'd and Israel in those terms. The considerations we have just outlined form the mystical dimension of the statement in Shabbat 13 that a שוטה, a person of unsound mind, does not suffer afflictions. The meaning is that he does not realise that he is discriminated against by suffering what others do not suffer.

זב מבשרו, our sages understand this as looking like a mixture of seminal fluid and a discharge which is the result of that organ being diseased.

איש איש כי יהיה זב מבשרו, “any man who will have a discharge from his flesh, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why a discharge from the male genitals is ritually impure and he needs to bring an offering when he has recovered, is that it is one of the most infectious diseases and he needs to bring a thanksgiving offering for having recovered from this disease at all. The sin offering, by means of which he acknowledges that had he not been guilty of a sin he would not have been afflicted with this disease, is meant to assure him that he will not become the victim of further diseases. The reason that male sperm is altogether something that is ritually impure and confers ritual impurity on contact etc., although it is a basic and natural activity, is rooted in the very nature of the act of sexual intercourse as the means by which man assure himself of progeny. It is analogous to the ritual impurity caused by and conferred by the dead. The very essence of a human being’s body is the source of its corruption. He who does lie with a woman and impregnates her, has no way of knowing whether he has destroyed his sperm in the process, or whether it will take root in the partner’s ovum and produce a new life. The Torah imposed a lesser degree of ritual impurity on a woman that has been afflicted with a similar discharge from her womb at regular intervals when she menstruates, proof that her most recent opportunity to be inseminated had failed to achieve its purpose, seeing that with her such symptoms are part of her natural life cycle, at any rate. She does not have to bring a sacrifice expressing her gratitude for having been healed, as the phenomena she experienced were not in the nature of a disease. The Torah therefore imposes on her a period of ritual impurity for seven days, regardless of her flow of blood (or discharge) having ceased earlier than that. Normally, such a flow of menstrual blood does not continue for more than seven days. However, if her discharge continues beyond the seven days that she normally discharges menstrual blood, she is clearly experiencing a disease, and upon being cured has to offer a sacrifice acknowledging that G’d had healed her, similar to the male zav having to bring such a sacrifice. In the case of the female suffering the disease described as zav or zavah, the Torah does not spell out the need for ritual immersion by the afflicted woman, as the comparisons drawn by the Torah between the male suffering this disease and the female suffering it make it plain that their processes of purification are similar, except that the male must bathe in spring water whereas the woman need only immerse herself in a ritual bath, a mikveh, water in contact with rainwater or other water that has not had a chance to become ritually contaminated. According to the plain meaning of the text the woman would have to bathe herself in spring water just as the male suffering from that disease, however our sages ruled that she need not bathe in spring water. They derived the reason for their ruling from the extraneous words ואחר תטהר, “and afterwards she becomes ritually pure” (verse 28) There was really no need to add these words as a woman is included in the legislation and the verse only wanted to make a distinction in the mechanics of her purification rites and those of the male. The discharge of a woman called זבה, consist of blood, whereas the discharge of her male counterpart consist of a whitish fluid similar to the colour of semen. In the case of a woman the time of the month when such unexpected discharge occurs is of the essence in determining whether this discharge is part of her menstrual cycle. The word ואחר means that although her purification rites did not involve spring water nonetheless she becomes purified by immersing herself in the same kind of water that purifies her at the end of her monthly menstruation.תטהר.

איש איש כי יהיה זב מבשרו זובו טמא הוא, “any man who will have a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is contaminated.” Rashi comments that the last two words, זובו טמא, refer to the drop of the discharge which confers impurity on the person whom it touches. The appearance of the discharge described here is similar to the colour of water from a dough made from barley flour; it is also similar in appearance to the white of an egg turned bad, i.e. mixed with the yolk. This is different from sperm which looks like the white of an egg which retained its consistency.
The Torah adds the words (verse 3) רר בשרו את זובו, “running with the discharge from his flesh;” to tell us that the discharge resembles the saliva which comes out of the mouth as a clear fluid. When the verse continues with או החתים בשרו מזובו, this describes a thicker opaque fluid which has a tendency to block the exit from the urinal canal.
The reason that the man afflicted with this disease has to bring only two birds as an offering after he has completed the purification rites is that seeing he had been smitten with a severe and infectious disease from which he has been healed by the grace of G’d, he has to offer the thanksgiving offerings anyone who has recovered from a serious disease is commanded to offer. The Torah does not belabor that point at this stage. The sin-offering legislated here is so that G’d will grant atonement for any sin which had caused the disease in the first place. The burnt-offering is an expression of gratitude for having been healed from the discharge.

Perhaps [a discharge] flowing from anywhere. Meaning: [I might think] even a flow from his mouth or nostrils or ears should be impure.

And say to them. It is difficult to speak about the matters of a discharge flow and an involuntary seminal emission, which are from the organs of reproduction that are affected by one’s thoughts. Therefore, we might have thought that it would be better to avoid speaking about them or studying their laws, and that Moshe alone would have to teach the Oral Law he received in these matters to the people of Israel so it would not be forgotten. However, after he already taught them, there would no longer be a commandment to delve deeply into them. This would be unlike the commandment of Torah study for all other commandments, which is a commandment even when there is no practical benefit from the study or a benefit for remembering the laws. For this reason it says in this section, “And say to them” (אמרתם, plural form), which is a directive to Aharon as well to teach the people of Israel, and the same applies for any teacher and his students. This is because in truth no bad thing ever comes from Torah study.

אל בני ישראל, “to the Children of Israel;” the addition of these words is a reminder that the conditions described forthwith apply only to Israelites. Gentiles, even if they display these symptoms cannot confer ritual impurity on Israelites by means of them.איש, an adult male, not a minor; [if that word had not been repeated. Ed.] איש, the repetition of the word converts this line into something more inclusive, hence the halachah rules that minors are also included.

טמא‎ זובו HIS ISSUE IS UNCLEAN — This teaches regarding a drop (i.e. the semen itself) that it communicates uncleanness (and it is not only the man that has the issue who is unclean) (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 1 8-9; Niddah 55a). The זב issue referred to here is similar to water of dough (that runs out of dough) made of barley and it is dissolved (fluid) being similar to the white of an addled egg (where the white and the yolk have run together); שכבת זרע, however, is viscid and looks like the white of an egg that has not become addled (Niddah 35b).

[The Torah] declared a male with a discharge unclean and a female with a discharge unclean. If the verse did not distinguish, I might think that a [discharge] flowing from anywhere should be impure, even if it flows from the mouth or from the ear or from the nostrils. We cannot derive through a gezeiroh shovoh from a female, because we can refute: What [special characteristic does] a female have [that causes the law]? Because she becomes impure as a zovoh only through three sightings [of discharge] on three consecutive days to require seven clean [days] and an offering. However, three sightings on one day does not impart the law of zovoh. A male, on the other hand, has the law of zov even with three sightings on one day. If so, I might think [a discharge] flowing from anywhere would make him impure. However, now that the verse reveals: “from his flesh” — and not all his flesh — that [a discharge] flowing from anywhere does not make a zov impure, nevertheless, we do not yet know from which flesh a discharge flowing renders him impure and from which flesh a discharge flowing leaves him pure. [Therefore Rashi explains:] “I may argue...”

איש איש כי יהיה זב, any man that has an issue, etc. Why did the Torah repeat the word איש? Perhaps the Torah wanted to inform us of something we learned in Tanna de bey Eliyahu chapter 15 that if a man experiences a seminal emission he is obligated to immerse himself in a ritual bath. Such a person may reason that inasmuch as no outsider is aware of this emission, he need not bother to go to a ritual bath. He will use the same kind of reasoning when it occurs a second time. If he experiences such an emission a third time without having purified himself in the interval, he would become guilty of what is written in Job 33,29 פעמים שלוש עם גבר, "twice or three times with a man;" i.e. that G'd lets man get away with his inadequacies twice or three times before disciplining him severely. Ignoring the need for ritual immersion will eventually result in such a man becoming a זב, afflicted with the flux which forms the subject matter of our paragraph. The word ,איש איש alludes to the person who ignores the need to purify himself repeatedly. We find the word איש used in Deut. 23,11 where the Torah speaks of a man experiencing nocturnal seminal emissions and becoming ritually impure as a result. The Torah hints that such a person cannot expect to get away with his failure to purify himself more than twice.

מבשרו “from his flesh;” this restrictive clause teaches that as long as this issue is still in contact with its origin, i.e. connected to the person from which it came forth, it does not confer ritual impurity on those who come into contact with it. (Sifra) The word בשרו is a simile for the private parts of the person from which the issue emanates. We find this word used in the same sense also in Leviticus 16,4: ומכנסי בד יהיו על בשרו, he shall wear linen trousers on his flesh (to cover his private parts). Another example of the word בשר referring to private parts is found in verse 19 of our chapter: זובה בבשרה, “an emission from her flesh,” i.e. vagina

With a less severe impurity — נדה. Rashi calls נדה a less severe impurity because it does not require seven clean [days] and an offering, which is not the case regarding zovoh gedolah (a female who has had three sightings on three consecutive days), who requires seven clean [days] and an offering.

זוכו טמא הוא, in his issue, he is impure. Our sages in Torat Kohanim understand the last three words of the verse, i.e. זובו טמא הוא as belonging together. The verse tells us that the flux he emitted is ritually impure. You may ask that this could have been arrived at by simple logic, seeing that the Torah had told us that the person who emitted the flux is ritually impure although he is one step removed from the cause of the impurity; it would therefore stand to reason that the agent causing the impurity would be ritually unclean! We may counter that we do not apply this kind of reasoning in connection with the scapegoat which is considered pure although it confers ritual impurity on the persons touching it (compare Leviticus 16,28). The Torah therefore had to write that the emission itself is ritually impure. Torat Kohanim uses another argument justifying the statement זובו טמא הוא. The emission is ritually impure whereas any blood issuing from the same bodily orifice of this afflicted person is not impure. Had it not been for these three words I would have reasoned that seeing that the spittle of the afflicted person is impure although it issues forth from a pure area of the individual, blood which issues forth from the same orifice as the seminal discharge would most certainly be ritually impure! The Torah therefore wrote זובו טמא הוא, that only "it," i.e. the seminal discharge from that canal is ritually impure. The scholar quoted in Torat Kohanim uses similar reasoning in reverse when he needs to find an otherwise unnecessary word or letter to include the urine of the person afflicted with זוב as conferring ritual impurity. This is based on the letter ו in the word וזאת in verse 3. Had it not been for that extra letter I would have reasoned that if the spittle which issues forth from a "clean" part of the afflicted person's body transmits ritual impurity then urine which issues forth from an already impure part of his body certainly does so? Why then did the Torah have to include such a הלכה by writing וזאת? Answer: Seeing above reasoning is not true in the case of any blood issuing forth from that orifice which nonetheless does not transmit impurity, the Torah had to write a letter to include urine in the liquids which do transmit impurity. Niddah 56 raises the question of why blood is included in the list of liquids which does not transmit impurity whereas urine is included in the list of liquids which does transmit impurity. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai answers that urine leaves the body only after a quantity has collected, similar to spittle, whereas blood leaves the body one drop at a time. Besides, both spittle and urine can be re-absorbed by the body in the form in which they left the body, something that is not possible with blood seeing it congeals and hardens.

A drop [of discharge] that it causes impurity. You might ask: This is obvious! The zov becomes impure from that same drop of impurity with such a severe impurity that it causes impurity to people and vessels. Is it not more so that the drop [itself] causes impurity? The answer is: If Rashi did not explain I would have said that the drop does not cause impurity, because we can learn from the goat that is sent away — the one who deals with it becomes impure and causes impurity to others, but it itself is not impure. I might think that the same applies to a flow [of discharge], and therefore Rashi explains: “This teaches in regard to a drop...”

The difficulty with this answer is that if true, all the Torah had to write was the word וזאת in order to include urine. I would then have applied the previously mentioned contradictory two קל וחומר to arrive at the conclusion that the logic of either cancel each other out. This would have led me to realise that the Torah wrote the inclusive letter ו in וזאת in order to demolish the קל וחומר. Seeing that the letter ו could include only one liquid, I would have known that the liquid in question had to be urine according to the explanation offered by Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. I would therefore have excluded blood. I would not have needed the word הוא to exclude blood as not transmitting ritual impurity. [I have omitted a few more arguments along this line presented by the author. Ed.]

And dissolved. ודחוי means thin.

The author concludes from all this that there is a moral-ethical dimension to the restrictive word הוא. The Torah teaches by means of the superfluous word הוא that not only the body of the afflicted person causes him to be impure but there is a meta-physical dimension. G'd is trying to impress the afflicted person that his affliction is due to his sinful conduct. The word הוא refers back to the afflicted person, not to the seminal fluid. This is why the Torah decreed that the entire person becomes a primary source of ritual impurity, i.e. אב הטומאה. In that capacity the afflicted person confers ritual impurity on both humans and all kinds of vessels he will come in contact with. Although the scholar in the Torat Kohanim had used the word הוא to exclude the afflicted person's blood from conferring impurity on others, this was prior to the exegetical use made by the interpretation of the word וזאת. After having explained the word וזאת, the previous interpretation of the word הוא became subject to revision and to different interpretations. There are numerous instances in which Torat Kohanim proceeds in this manner. The author of Torat Kohanim thus left room for subsequent scholars to offer their own interpretations.

To the white of an egg which is crushed. Meaning: [An egg] from a hen that rubbed on the ground and not from a male. Rashi means to say that you should not be troubled: Since its impurity is so severe that even one drop of the zov causes impurity, how will we know if one drop discharges from him? Perhaps it is a drop of semen and he is pure, or [perhaps] a zov and he is impure. Upon this Rashi explains: “[This] discharge resembles water of dough...”

רר [WHETHER HIS FLESH] DRIP — This word is connected with ריר "spittle" — the meaning is that his flesh runs with its issue as spittle, i. e. that it (the flow) comes forth clear in appearance (not thick and troubled).

טומאתו בזובו, his impurity in his issue, etc. According to Torat Kohanim the sequence of these words mean that only the whitish coloured discharge transmits impurity as distinct from a reddish, blood-coloured discharge. The meaning is that but for the restrictive letter ב in the word בזובו, a discharge of blood would have been considered as conferring impurity even if the Torah had written the word זובו טמא הוא as it did in verse 2, we would have had to rule that a discharge of blood is also conferring ritual impurity. In other words, the restrictive expression we discussed at length in verse 2 would not have sufficed. The reason would have been that the expression זובו was used by the Torah in both verses. We would have been forced to conclude that the restrictive nature of the word זובו referred only to the afflicted person himself and not to his discharge. I would then have learned the קל וחומר from the הלכה that his spittle confers impurity as we explained on verse 2. Alternatively, we would have reasoned that the reason we have to exclude it is only because there was a special letter needed (the letter ו in the word וזאת) to include urine otherwise we would have excluded it.

רר בשרו את זובו, the word is similar to the expression ויורד רירו על זקנו “his spittle ran down his beard” in Samuel I 21,14 when David pretended to be mentally disturbed in order to save his life. The flesh of the person afflicted drips with this discharge.

And the third requires him [to bring] a sacrifice. Meaning: If he sees the first sighting he is like someone who sees semen who only causes impurity [to another person] through touch, and with the second sighting he causes impurity also with carrying, lying down, sitting, and he must count seven clean [days]. Upon the third sighting he must also bring an offering, as it says in the first chapter of Megillah (8a): The only difference between the second sighting and the third sighting for a zov, is the offering.

רר בשרו את זובו, “his flesh ran with his issue;” the word את here is to be understood as מן, i.e. “from;” we have an example of this use of the word את when Moses tells Pharaoh he is going too pray for the plague to stop when he leaves the boundaries of the city, i.e. כצאתי את העיר (Exodus 9,29)

או החתים OR [HIS FLESH] BE STOPPED — it means, that the flow issues thick and closes up the orifice of the membrum, so that his flesh is stopped up by the drop that issued from him. This is its literal meaning. The Halachic explanation is: The first verse (v. 2) enumerates two appearances of the issue and then terms him (the man affected by them) unclean, for it is said, "when there flows from his flesh a flowing he is unclean" and the other verse (v. 3) enumerates three appearances of the issue and only then terms him unclean, as it is said, "his uncleanness through his flow: if his flesh drips through its flow as with spittle, or if his flesh is stopped up through his flowing then only is it his uncleanness!" How can this be reconciled? Two appearances of the flow serve to make him unclean, and the third obligates him also to bring an offering (Niddah 43b; Megillah 8a).

או החתים, or that at the same time the discharge is sticky, congeals and adheres to part of the flesh of the afflicted person.

טומאתו היא. it is his impurity. In Torat Kohanim the sages explain the logic as follows: If a זב, a male afflicted with this discharge who does not transmit impurity through a discharge of blood, nonetheless transmits impurity when discharging a whitish fluid, a זבה, female equivalent, who transmits impurity when discharging blood (from that orifice), most certainly would also transmit impurity if she discharges a whitish fluid. Therefore the Torah had to write טומאתו היא, it is his impurity, seeing the word טומאתו was quite unnecessary unless it was meant to tell us that a female when in the throes of this disease does not confer impurity by the discharge of a whitish fluid but only by discharging blood. This exclusion is based on the pronoun-ending טומאת־ו as opposed to the pronoun-ending טומאת־ה. We disagree with the author of Korban Aharon who uses the word היא as the basis for this exclusion. When you will examine the exclusion to be derived from the word היא more carefully you will be forced to admit that the word describes the impurity and not the person who has become impure.

I have already discussed at length the fact that the קל וחומר that Torat Kohanim presents here as a possible reason why the text had to specifically teach us an exclusion is the exact opposite of the קל וחומר the author of Torat Kohanim suggested as a possible reason for the inclusion of the urine in the fluids causing impurity. I have told you that such hypothetical logical approaches are not necessarily final and may be abandoned when new tools of exegsis come to light. Another example had been Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 14,7. We can answer these apparent contradictions by pointing out -as did the Talmud in Niddah 54- that there are elements in the laws about the blood of a menstruating woman which provide us with a reason to consider her as the more stringent case. Details are that her blood confers impurity regardless of whether it is still wet or has already dried whereas the discharge of someone afflicted with זיבה transmits impurity only while it is wet. Also, a menstruating woman causes impurity as soon as she has spotted blood the first time, whereas the blood of a person afflicted with זיבה transmits impurity only after several sightings or sightings on consecutive days respectively. The menstruating woman causes impurity to things she sits on or lies on as soon as she sights her menstruating blood the first time, something that is not the case with a male זב. These factors combined entitle us to assume that discharge of blood should cause impurity, more so than the discharge of a whitish fluid. On the other hand, the fact that a male זב transmits impurity already after several sightings of discharge even on the same day, as opposed to his female counterpart who only causes such impurity, after sighting a discharge on the third of three consecutive days, indicates that his discharge is viewed more severely and that therefore also a bloody discharge of his could confer impurity. For the above cited reasons we can understand why the two apparently contradictory attempts to learn a hypothetical קל וחומר are both reasonable.

The reason why the Torah wrote the word היא (a second restrictive expression in addition to טומאתו בזובו), may be because the Torah was concerned that unless there was an additonal restrictive expression one might interpret the first such expression as merely reducing the level of impurity the whitish fluid from a זבה transmits i.e. a lower degree of impurity than that transmitted by her blood. Whereas the blood she emits confers ritual impurity on anything she sits or lies on already at the first sighting, the whitish fluid would not have that effect until after several sightings on several days, etc,. I would not conclude, however, that the whitish fluid does not confer impurity at all. Hence the restrictive word היא is needed to teach that whitish fluid issuing from a זבה does not confer impurity at all. Only the male זב confers impurity through emission of a whitish fluid. [I confess I have some problem with this seeing that verse 25 did not mention anything other than the blood of a זבה. Why was there a need to exclude anything other than blood? Ed.]

כל המשכב EVERY PLACE OF REPOSE — This means: everything that is fitted for sleeping on (thus excluding a door or plank etc.). One might, however, think that it includes anything intended for some other action also, as long as it can be used for sleeping and he actually slept upon it! It, however, states אשר ישכב — it does not state אשר שכב, “upon which one has slept" but אשר ישכב, “upon which one sleeps usually" — i.e. that which is intended to be used for this always, thus excluding that of which people can say to him, “Get up and let us to our work [with that upon which you are lying]" (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 1 1-3).

אשר ישכב עליו, even if the (healthy) person lies under a stone not touching the bedstead of the afflicted person at all. The zav’s ritual impurity is still conferred upon him. The common denominator of the wide-ranging ability to confer impurity of zav, zavah, and niddah, the menstruating woman, are that they confer their own severe degree of ritual impurity to anything which lies underneath them even though not in physical contact with them. The only exception to this rule is if said afflicted party sits or lies on something that does not normally serve as a place to sit on or to lie on.

The verse says: “Upon which he lies.” Meaning: For instance, a bakers’ plank or large kneading trough.

אשר ישב [EVERYTHING] WHEREON HE SITTETH — It is not said here ‎יָשַׁב ‎‏ אשר, "on which he has sat", but אשר יֵשֵׁב, “on which one sits usually" — it speaks therefore of something that is intended to be used for this always (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 1 3; Shabbat 59a).

Get up so that we can do. I.e., when it is being used for other work it is impossible that he could continue lying on it.

ואיש אשר יגע במשכבו AND WHOSOEVER TOUCHES HIS PLACE OF REPOSE [SHALL WASH HIS GARMENTS … AND BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING] — This tells us regarding the object on which he lies down that it is more stringent than an object touched by him in any manner other than lying on it — for this (the former) becomes a primary source of uncleanness (אב הטומאה) communicating uncleanness to any man who touches it, he in turn making unclean the garments he happens to wear at that moment, while anything touched by him that is not his bed becomes only a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree (ולד הטומאה) communicating uncleanness only to food and drink (but not to men or garments) (cf. Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 2 1).

Secondary source of uncleanness. I.e., the bed that the zov touches is a primary source of impurity, and it causes impurity to a person [who in turn] causes impurity to clothing that he is wearing, as it is written, “shall wash his garments and bathe in water.” However, something which is not specifically [used] for lying down and is touched by the zov, is not a primary source of impurity. Rather, it is a secondary cause of impurity, which is only a first. When in contact with the zov, the item causes impurity to a vessel which it touches that is purified by immersion; but it does not cause impurity to a person or earthenware vessels. After the zov separates from it, the item only causes impurity to food or drink. The meaning of “more severe than touch” is [that it is more severe than touch that is] not [associated] with lying down.

ואיש אשר יגע, “and a man who touches;” he contaminates his clothing at the time he touches his bed, his clothing will become contaminated. When he separates from the bed, seeing that his status of ritual contamination is relatively mild, i.e. ראשון לטומאה, one step removed from the impurity’s origin, his clothing had not become contaminated also.

במשכבו, “his bed;” according to Rashi we learn from this that the ritual impurity of his bed is more severe than if he had touched the source of the impurity, the emission itself. If someone had touched him, he would become impure only in the second degree, requiring only to wait for sunset in order to regain his purity. Sitting on the bed of the person who had had this involuntary emission of semen is worse than his body touching the source of the emission. A person who touched only the body of the person having suffered this emission, only needs to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath, in order to regain his ritual purity. (Compare verse 8)

והישב על הכלי AND HE THAT SITTETH ON ANY THING [WHEREON HE SAT THAT HATH AN ISSUE … SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — even though he (the person) is not actually in contact with it: even if there be ten things one upon the other, the lowest being that upon which a זב has once sat, they all communicate uncleanness according to the law applicable to a seat upon which an unclean person has sat, and similarly is the case with an object upon which he has lain (cf. Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 3 1).

Even ten vessels one on another. As it is written, “Whoever sits on the vessel that was sat upon by a zov.” This makes a comparison between the sitting of the pure person and the sitting of the zov: Just as the sitting of the zov causes impurity to the vessels even though he does not sit on the vessel, such as the case of the “placed” stone (see later), so too is the sitting of the pure person who acquires impurity from the vessel which contracted impurity from the zov, even if he does not touch it. A “placed” stone is a stone placed on pegs with vessels underneath it, as it is written (Daniel 6:18): “And a stone was brought and placed on the mouth of the pit.” If a menstruant woman or a zov sit on it, even though their weight is not felt on the vessels, the vessels are impure, as it is written (v. 10): “Anything which is beneath him.” Rashi (Shabbos 82b).

And so [too] in regard to a bed. [Rashi knows this] because we derive through a מה מצינו (comparison) from sitting. Meaning: If a pure person lies down on a “placed” stone (see above) and a zov’s bed was underneath the stone, the pure person becomes impure even though the stone separates between them, and the stone does not acquire impurity; nonetheless, he is impure. Although it is written only regarding sitting, we derive lying down from it as well, since lying down and sitting are equal in their severity of touch, to cause impurity to clothing, [thus,] they are one matter.

וכי ירק הזב בטהור AND IF HE THAT HATH THE ISSUE SPIT UPON ONE WHO IS CLEAN — and he (the clean person) comes in contact with it (the spittle; i. e. it actually falls upon him) or even if he only bears it (i. e. it has, for instance, fallen upon a stick which he is carrying) then HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN, for the spittle communicates uncleanness through carrying it (cf. Niddah 55b).

Because spittle causes uncleanness by means of carrying. This is how it is derived: “If the zov spits on a ritually clean person (בטהור),” and it is not written, “upon (על) the ritually clean person,” i.e., [he spits] on what is in the hand of the pure person, that is, if he spits on the staff that is in the pure person’s hand who is carrying it, he becomes impure.

וכל המרכב AND ANYTHING FOR RIDING — even though he has not sat upon it when riding, e. g. the hold in front of the saddle, which is called arcon in old French, becomes unclean as a part of something for riding on (משום מרכב), and the אוכף, saddle, which is called alves in old French, is unclean as being something to sit upon (משום מושב) (Eruvin 27a).

Even if he had not sat. Meaning: He does not actually sit on it, which would be sitting mentioned in the verse (6). Rather, [this refers to] the side of the saddle, which is the wood in the front and back of the saddle that he does not sit upon, but rather the rider holds onto it so he will not slip forwards or backwards. Therefore, it is called the ‘hold,’ since he holds onto it.

וכל הנגע בכל אשר יהיה תחתיו AND WHOSOEVER TOUCHETH ANYTHING THAT WAS תחתיו — under the זב. This intends to teach regarding such an object for riding upon (if a זב has ridden on it) that whoever touches it becomes unclean, but he does not require washing of clothes and this is something stricter in the case of a thing for sleeping on than in that of a thing for riding on (since the former necessitates that his garments should be washed; cf. v. 5).

[Beneath] the zov. I.e., not beneath “anything used for riding” which is juxtaposed to this phrase. Rather, it refers to the zov — that is, [a pure person who] touches the saddle that was underneath the zov, becomes impure but he does not require washing clothes.

והנושא אותם AND HE THAT BEARETH THEM — “them” means all that have been mentioned in the matter of a זב — his flow, his spittle, his semen, and his urine, and that upon which he has slept or ridden — the bearing of them makes a man unclean so that he in turn makes his garments unclean (cf. Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 4 4).

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.]

וכלי חרס אשר יגע בו הזב AND THE VESSEL OF EARTH THAT HE WHO HATH THE ISSUE TOUCHETH [SHALL BE BROKEN] — One might think that the law applies also if he touched it from outside (its exterior) etc., as it is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 3 1).

This is [when one] causes it to move. Meaning: Its movement to and fro is caused entirely by the zov’s power, because there is no [such thing as] partially moving, only entirely. The reason Scripture uses the expression “touching” for “moving” is to say that touching is compared to moving — just as touching is [accomplished] with his hands from outside, so too, moving is [accomplished] with his hands from outside — to exclude [the case of] a reed [held] in the zov’s body folds. If there was a reed in his body folds and he moved a pure [object with it], it is pure, since the moving is caused only by his hidden parts.

וכלי חרש אשר יגע בו, “and any earthen vessel which the person afflicted with involuntary issue touches will have to be broken;” in this verse the Torah uses the pronoun בו, implying touch from the outside, whereas in Leviticus 6,21 where the Torah wrote about holy things within an earthen vessel it stated that that vessel must be broken, as it cannot be used for a profane purpose anymore, some of the holy stuff having been absorbed by it, the same pronoun is used, instead of בתוכו, “inside it.” From this we derive, seeing that we have stated that the zav contaminates only an airspace, that if here the Torah used the word בו, it must mean that even indirect touching confers ritual impurity here. This impurity is called tumat hesset, and in practice it means even indirect contact such as sitting on top of several blankets confers this impurity even to the lowest blanket in that stack, or even shaking something so that it will come into contact with the source of the impurity. (Sifra)

וכי יטהר means WHEN HE CEASETH [FROM HIS ISSUE] (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 5 1).

When he stops. That is, the purity [cessation] of blood [i.e. discharge] and not the purity [cessation] of his impurity, for it is written afterwards: “and bathe in running water and he will be purified.”

לטהרתו, “after his process of purification has begun when the emission has stopped and seven days had elapsed.

שבעת ימים לטהרתו [THEN SHALL HE NUMBER TO HIMSELF] SEVEN DAYS FROM THE DATE WHEN HE CEASED — i. e. seven days clean (free) from the uncleanness resulting from the issue, i. e. in which he sees no issue, and all of them (of the seven days) must be consecutive (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 5 6).

That he not see. Meaning: These seven days have to be pure from the impurity of discharge, otherwise, why does it say, “When a zov will become ritually clean... he shall count for himself...” which implies if it does not stop he does not count? If these days will not be pure from discharge, he has not stopped! Rashi continues to explain: “And all of them consecutive,” as it is written, “for his purification” — that his purification shall be as one. Meaning, he did not see a discharge in the middle, and if he saw in the middle, it disrupts the first days and he must begin to count another seven clean days.

ורחץ בשרו במים חיים, “and he shall bathe his flesh in running water, [emanating from the earth, i.e. a spring; Ed.] The person suffering from such involuntary seminal emissions cannot merely immerse himself in a ritual bath, but requires “living water,” as opposed to stagnant water, such as a collection of rain water. On the other hand, his vessels, as well as a person suffering from the skin disease tzoraat, do not require spring water for their purification.

יקח לו, “he (the priest) will take on his behalf;” the word לו here means that these birds must be owned, i.e. paid for, by the person on whose behalf the birds will be offered as a sacrifice.

ואיש כי תצא ממנו שכבת זרע, “and if a flow of seminal emission originated from a man;” the word איש in this verse exempts a minor from this legislation, as long as that minor is not yet nine years of age and one day.

כי תצא ממנו, as long as this semen has not left his body it does not confer ritual impurity. Seeing that this sounds somewhat superfluous, the Rabbis interpreted this to mean that both a priest and an ordinary person who experience an erection can or should (as the case may be) take hold of their member to prevent the emission until it is not likely to come into contact with something subject to contamination. (Sifra)

ורחץ במים, “he may even immerse himself in a ritual bath;” [does not require spring water. Ed.]

את כל בשרו, the bath must contain enough water to cover his entire body at one time when he immerses himself in it. According to halachah this is 3 cubits high, 1 cubit wide and 1 cubit deep, or approx .530000 cubic centimeters.

אשר יהיה עליו שכבת זרע, “(garments or skin) which have been splattered with semen of a human being;” even only partially; (Sifra) just as when this subject was discussed previously it referred to fresh, moist semen, so here too the Torah speaks of freshly emitted semen, not dried out semen.

ורחצו במים THEY SHALL BOTH LAVE THEMSELVES IN WATER — It is a decree of the King that a woman should become unclean through sexual intercourse. The reason is not because of the law of “one who touches שכבת זרע” (who, according to Leviticus 22:7 is unclean; cf. Sifra on that verse) for in her case it is מגע בית הסתרים and this does not render her unclean (Niddah 41b).

ואשה אשר ישכב איש אותה note that the Torah does not write איש כי ישכב את אשה, “when a man sleeps with a woman,” which is the Torah’s normal way of introducing such subjects, i.e. emphasizing the predominating role of the male in the sexual union. The reason for this change in syntax is to teach that unless the colour of the fluid originating in her vagina is reddish it does not confer ritual impurity. The only time the whitish seminal excretion of a woman confers ritual impurity on her male partner is when the man initiates the customary sexual union with her even if the seminal fluid remains in בית הסתרים “hidden” parts within the orifices of the woman, has not seen the light of day.

ורחצו במים, they shall both bathe themselves in a ritual bath. The reason the Torah again mentions the male partner and the requirement that he has to bathe himself -something mentioned expressly in verse 16- is explained by Torat Kohanim as teaching that both he and she are subject to exactly the same procedure when it comes to the immersion in a ritual bath. You may argue that if that was all the verse teaches us there was no need to write ורחצו..וטמאו, but we could have derived all this from the letter ו in the word ואשה, seeing we have numerous instances where that letter was used to compare the laws in a later paragraph to those spelled out in the Torah in a previous paragraph (compare the first few chapters of Leviticus)! The fact is that Torat Kohanim already used the letter ו in the word ואשה to teach that it includes a minor of three years and one day. Accordingly, if the Torah had not written the word ורחצו, I would have interpreted that letter as referring to details about the immersion in the ritual bath instead of interpreting it as including a girl of three years plus. We would have had no extraneous letter or word to teach us that even a three-year old girl would have to purify herself if she had become the victim of sexual intercourse with a male.

Contact with one’s inner parts. And contact with inner parts is pure even regarding a zov. [This is because] from a zov we learn that contact with inner parts does not cause impurity, from that which Scripture uses the expression “touching” in the case when the zov moves something. We learn from here that all contact with inner parts does not cause impurity, because it is “a Royal decree.”

אשר ישכב איש אותה שכבת זרע, “also the woman with whom a man had had carnal intercourse involving the ejaculation of semen;” the wording of this line teaches that any ejaculation into thin air is not considered as carnal intercourse for this law.

Had it not been for the interpretation of the sages in Torat Kohanim, I would have interpreted the words אשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע in verse 16 to mean that unless the semen actually leaves the body of the man who became aroused by it, and is visible on the male's flesh, there is no need for a ritual bath because all of it has been absorbed internally. The same law would not apply to a woman; she could become ritually defiled even if the semen entered her without a trace of it being visible on her body. If she touched herself internally and came into contact with the semen she would be ritually impure. The Torah had to write ורחצו, "they have to bathe themselves," to make it clear that both the male and the female partner in such intercourse have to undergo the same procedure to become ritually clean again although the manner in which they each contracted the impurity differed. We are now able to explain the additional letter ו at the beginning of the word ואשה to mean that on occasion also the woman may be subject to the same law as the male in that her hidden parts do not become defiled if her partner cohabited with her in a manner which is not the standard way of conducting sexual intercourse [anal intercourse, for instance, Ed.]. This would be so according to the view of the majority of rabbis cited in Yevamot 34. According to the view of Rabbi Yehudah there, the example of such a הלכה would be a virgin bride on her wedding night. The rabbis derived this rule from the word אותה. Had the Torah not written the word ורחצו and I would have had to figure out the need for both the man and the woman who was his partner to bathe themselves in a ritual bath based only on the additional letter ו in the word ואשה, I would have concluded that the man transmits ritual impurity even if his semen had not seen the light of day. I would have interpreted the word תצא in verse 16 to mean that the semen had left its customary place, i.e. the scrotum, and that it had merely entered the seminal canal of the male member without being ejaculated. Alternatively, I would have understood the words כי תצא as a future tense, i.e. that the man's semen was capable of being ejaculated even though it had not actually been ejaculated, a situation which is similar to the normal situation in a woman. Both would be considered as ritually impure in such a situation. The Torah wrote the word ורחצו to prevent us from pursuing this kind of exegesis, i.e. that in this instance the inference we normally draw from the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of a paragraph such as the word ואשה does not apply. If the Torah had written אשה אשר ישכב איש אותה ורחצו, i.e. the letter ו at the beginning of the verse would have been absent, I would still have been left with the restrictive meaning mentioned in connection with the word אותה (see above: Rabbi Yehudah, etc.), but I would have to apply this restriction differently having been told explicitly by the text that the woman transmits impurity even if the semen is inside her private parts. In such circumstances there would be no logical reason to differentiate between a virgin-bride (whose hymen was still intact and who therefore could not keep the semen inside her private parts) and any other woman. I would have been forced to conclude that the expression אותה is inclusive rather than restrictive and that the woman transmits impurity if the semen is in any of her private parts (such as her armpits). By adding the letter ו at the beginning of the word אשה, the Torah makes it clear that just as a woman's private parts other than her vagina do not transmit ritual impurity due to the presence of semen, so her vagina does not either. Torat Kohanim made it clear by using the letter inclusively, that the word אותה is to be used only as a restrictive clause. As a result, the letter ו in ואשה was superfluous and could be used to include a girl of three years plus one day and up.

ורחצו במים, they have both to immerse themselves in a ritual bath; just as when this subject of “washing” i.e. immersing oneself in a ritual bath did not include washing out one’s private parts, the woman’s vagina, so here too, only the surfaces of the skin have to be in contact with the water of the ritual bath, but aj] the skin has to be made accessible to that water, [cleaning fingernails and toenails, for instance. Ed.]

כי תהיה זבה AND IF A WOMAN HAVE AN ISSUE — One might think that this means: if there be an, issue from any limb of her body (e. g. ear, nose)! It, however, states in a law referring to this matter, (Leviticus 20:18) “and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood” — only that issue of blood therefore makes her unclean which comes from her fountain (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 4 2).

ואשה כי תהיה זבה דם, here the Torah teaches rules concerning the menstruating woman and the one afflicted with untimely discharges from her vagina, stating that purification of the latter requires two offerings, a sin offering and a burnt offering. The Torah testifies by the nature of the offerings required that the disease described “does not come out of the blue,” but was the result of improper thoughts or even improper actions which preceded it.
Original woman who was punished for her sin was not only punished for eating from the tree of knowledge, but for the thoughts which ran through her mind prior to translating sinful thought into sinful action. We believe that this is reflected in the wording of the punishment הרבה ארבה עצבונך, “I will greatly multiply your discomfort” (during pregnancy and giving birth) (Genesis 3,16) The punishment fitted the crime which was not something that was the result of a sudden impulse. The seven days until purification from the date of the end of the state of zavah is achieved, gives her time to reflect and to think pure thoughts as opposed to the time she had originally spent before violating G’d’s commandment not to eat from that tree. When the proper thoughts course through her mind during these seven days called appropriately שבעה נקיים, seven days of purification, her mind and not only her body will have been cleansed from improper attitudes so that the ritual immersion cleanses both body and mind. When this is the case, the two offerings required by the zavah will bring her the atonement for previous misdemeanours both in thought and in action. The sin offering atones for sinful action, the burnt offering for forbidden thoughts.

דם יהיה זובה, the reddish colour causes the ritual impurity here, not the whitish colour, suggesting seminal fluid.

Only saw one sighting. [This is] because “she shall be” is extra. This is what it means: “When a woman sees blood even one time, for seven days she will be in [the state of] her menstrual impurity.”

שבעת ימים תהיה בנדתה, “she will remain in her state of ritual impurity for a full seven days;” if she immerses herself before evening the immersion is not valid. (Talmud Pessachim, folio 90)

דם יהיה זובה בבשרה AND HER ISSUE IN HER FLESH BE BLOOD — Her issue does not come under the term “flux” to cause uncleanness except if it is red (cf. Niddah 19a).

בנדתה [SHE SHALL BE] PUT APART [SEVEN DAYS] — The word has the same meaning as, (Job. 18:18) “and they shall drive him out (ינדהו) of the world” — and her state is so called because she is set apart from the touch of any person (separated, so that no-one shall touch her).

תהיה בנדתה [SEVEN DAYS] SHALL SHE BE IN HER SEPARATION. even though she has seen a show of blood only once (lit., only the first show — i. e., not 7 days continuously) (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 4 5).

ורחץ במים, “he will have to immerse himself in a ritual bath and he remains ritually impure until nightfall.” It goes without saying that his partner in intercourse in a state of menstruation will have to do no less than the male. [The Torah here does not speak of the parties involved having deliberately ignored her state of menstruation, an act which is punished by death through heavenly intervention (Leviticus 20,18 for both.) Here the scenario is that during intercourse the woman suddenly sees some blood not having expected to do so. [No violation of the Torah’s law had been intended by either party. Ed.]

ואם על המשכב הוא AND IF ONE BE ON HER PLACE OF REPOSE [OR ON ANY THING WHEREON SHE SITTETH] — This means, one who sleeps or sits on the place where she has slept or has sat even though he does not directly touch it (e. g. if there are covers upon the couch or the seat; for if he touches it vv. 21 and 22 apply); he also comes under the law of uncleanness that is stated in the above verse — that he requires washing of garments.

'ואם על המשכב הוא וגו, if some sits or lies on something even indirectly in contact, מדרס, with the afflicted person chair or bed, etc., he will still become ritually contaminated by such indirect contact בנגעו בו יטמא עד הערב, even if the “contact” was so indirect as instead of sitting on the contaminated item one sat on a saddle supported by the contaminated item, the ritual impurity lasts until evening when immersion in a ritual bath removes it. He is then, however, not of a sufficiently severe degree of ritual impurity to contaminate clothing (even his own) over and beyond his body. In other words, in this kind of scenario the Torah did not add that he has to wash (immerse) his garments in order to become ritually pure again. (as it had done in verse 21 and 22, for instance)

Even if he did not touch [it]. This is as Rashi explains above (v. 6) regarding: “Whoever sits on the vessel” — “even if he did not touch [it].” Above (ibid.), I explained Rashi’s proofs that lying down and sitting cause impurity even though he does not touch the vessel. Rashi’s view is thus: Do not think that [the phrase] “when he touches it he shall be impure until the evening,” which it says after [the phrase], “If he is on the bed...” implies that even if he touches the bed, chair, or saddle he does not require washing clothes, and the explanation of the word “it” would be: “in each one of them.” This cannot be, for it does not refer to “If he is on the bed...” This is because even if he does not touch it he requires washing clothes. We need not ask: To what does the phrase “when he touches it he shall be impure until the evening” refer? Therefore Rashi explains: “On the vessel — to include...” I.e., why does it need to say, “on the vessel”? It only needs to say, “that she is sitting on.” Rather [it must be]: “To include a saddle.” If so, that which is written, “when he touches it...” refers to a saddle, as Rashi explains later that it does not require washing clothes.

ואם על המשכב הוא, “if he is on the bed (of his partner) with most of his body.” (Sifra) Some commentators understand the word הוא in this verse as referring to the person who has contracted the disease of involuntary seminal emission. According to them, we must understand the verse as follows: “if that blood which was on the couch or on any chair on which the woman in question has sat after having experienced the symptoms has now been touched or even if he touched the vessel or chair on which she had sat, he will remain ritually impure until nightfall after he has immersed himself in a ritual bath. Let us quote a practical example, using verse 17. We read there: וכל בגד אשר יהיה עליו שכבת זרע, “and every garment on which has come moist human semen, (Jewish) etc.,” you might well ask why this verse has been written at all. If someone who has only come into contact with the garment that had been stained with semen by its wearer has thereby become ritually impure, how much more so will someone who has been lying with the body from which this blood was emitted does not have to undergo purification rites? Answer: Jewish law does not permit a judge to impose a penalty based only on logic; unless the penalty has been spelled out in the Torah it cannot be imposed (as the guilty party will plead ignorance of the law.) We find the same thing Numbers 19,14: וכל הבא אל האהל וכל אשר באהל יטמא, “anyone entering such tent (containing a corpse) will become ritually defiled.” The beginning of the verse refers to someone whose body has partially entered the covered airspace within which the corpse lies. The second part speaks of someone whose entire body is within that airspace. It is no more than logical that the second party will not have to do less than the first party in order to purify himself. Nonetheless, because of the rule we just mentioned, the Torah had to spell this out.

על הכלי UPON A VESSEL — This is intended to add to משכב and מושב any article for riding on (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 4 15).

ואשר היא יושבת עליו, our sages (in Torat Kohanim zavim 4,18 understand this as referring to the relatively low level of ritual contamination called טומאת מרכב, see beginning of this verse).

בנגעו בו WHEN HE TOUCHETH IT — "it" (בו) — this refers only to מרכב which, as has just been stated, is included in the law on account of the words על הכלי.

בנגעו בו יטמא WHEN HE TOUCHETH IT HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN, but does not require washing of the garments, because so far as the מרכב is concerned its being touched does not communicate uncleanness to people so that they in turn should render their garments unclean (cf. Mishnah Kelim 23:3).

ותהי נדתה עליו [AND IF ANY MAN LIE WITH HER AT ALL] THEN SHALL HER UNCLEANLINESS OF SEPARATION BE UPON HIM — One might think that he follows in her wake — that if he had intercourse with her e. g. on the fifth day of her separation he shall become unclean for three days only (for the fifth, sixth and seventh) like herself (i. e. because these are the remaining days during which she is unclean)! Scripture, however, states: "he shall be unclean seven days”. Therefore these words cannot refer to the duration of her uncleanness. What then is the force of ותהי נדתה עליו? They mean: her state of uncleanness as a נדה shall be upon him. How is it in the case of her? She, being an אב הטומאה, makes man unclean, and also earthen vessels by means of ‎‎היסט! So, too, he becomes an אב הטומאה (not a ולד הטומאה), and makes man unclean, and also earthen vessels by means‎ of היסט! (Niddah 33a)

אשר ישכב עליו יטמא. This degree of ritual contamination is sufficient to confer further contamination on food and drink coming into contact with it. The severity of contamination of someone lying on top of a menstruating woman is equivalent to that of someone below a male afflicted with the disease of being zav. This is spelled out in Niddah 32.

Perhaps he will join her in her state. Meaning: For her sake, as in the expression (Shemos 11:8): “And all the people that follow you (ברגליך),” which means: that are drawn after you. [Perhaps] he will enter the days of her purity for her sake, i.e., straight away when she enters the days of purity he will immediately follow her. [Therefore,] the verse says...

ישכב איש אותה, “a man will lie with her;” this excludes a woman suffering from the skin disease tzoraat; she does not confer her specific impurity to her partner, as the word אותה, implies a limitation, i.e. “only her, someone in her state.” (Chafetz Chayim)

‎ימים רבים [AND IF A WOMAN HAVE AN ISSUE OF HER BLOOD] MANY DAYS — at least three days (since the plural ימים suggests at least two days, the word רבים, “more", must imply at least three days) (cf. Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 5 9),

בלא עת נדתה, after the days of her menstruation have passed, as explained in Niddah 73 A woman is not described as being a zavah so that she would have to bring an offering after being healed unless the seven days during which she was a menstruant or expected to be a menstruant have passed. If after that period during the next 11 days she sees the symptoms of a zavah for three consecutive days she will require to count seven consecutive days during which she is free of these symptoms in order to be able to become ritually pure again. On the eighth day she is ready to offer her two bird offerings, one as a sin offering the other as a burnt offering.

Three. And so we learn in Toras Kohanim: Many days, three; or perhaps it means ten? It says “days” and it says “many.” The minimum number for [the plural] “days” is two; so too, the minimum number for [the adjective] “many” is three. Perhaps two and three equals five? But does it say “days and many”? etc. We need not ask from the phrase “many days” regarding Yaakov where Scripture writes (Bereishis 37:34): “He mourned for his son for many days,” and Rashi explains it means twenty-two years. This is because regarding Yaakov, we cannot explain it means three days, for what would Scripture be informing us [by saying] that he wept for three days? Any man would mourn three days! Furthermore, regarding the laws of the Torah where it is written, “her [blood-]flow, many days,” and one must give a minimum amount for the matter. Otherwise, we would not know how many [days] constitutes a zovoh, thus, one must explain there a minimum amount. And that is: If you hold onto the minimum amount you will take hold, but if you take hold of too much, you will lose everything, and that is the Torah’s measure. However, the verse, “He mourned for his son for many days,” only comes to tell us an excessive amount, and we do not need to know any minimum measurement — how many days, no more or no less. Scripture does not depart from its plain meaning (Gur Aryeh).

זוב דמה,ואשה כי יזוב, “and if a woman have an issue of her blood, etc.” what is described here is what Solomon in Kohelet 10,18 alluded to when he said: בעצלתים ימך המקרה, “through slothfulness the ceiling sags, and through idleness of the hands, the house leaks.” The symbolism contained in this verse refers to the neglect by a woman in observing the laws of ritual purity, especially those laws involving menstruation. If the woman fails to examine herself before the onset of her menses this can have dire consequences, both for herself and the husband with whom she entertains marital relations. In the Talmud tractate Shabbat second chapter, death in childbirth by a woman is mentioned as one of these consequences. If she handled certain hallowed foods while in a state of ritual impurity, she made these foods unfit for consumption and conferred ritual impurity on the party handling them without even having eaten them. An interesting story on this subject is related in the Talmud, tractate, Niddah, folio 6. The famous Rabbi Gamliel had a servant woman working for him, who would regularly be required to seal caskets of wine [of a highly consecrated level, Ed.] and move them to another. After each single time she had moved them, she examined herself about whether her menses had begun, as otherwise the whole casket and its contents would have been unfit for further use. This servant maid found that after she had moved the last casket she had started her period. Upon telling this to her master, she was told that if she had not been in the habit of checking herself after each time she moved a casket, not only the last one but all of them would have become ritually contaminated. This is also why on folio 13 of the same tractate, we have a statement to the effect that anyone who makes a point of frequently checking herself out in this respect is especially praiseworthy.

ואשה כי יזוב זוב, “if a woman have an emission of her blood for many days, (not connected to her menstrual cycle);” this includes when such a flow was the result of some accident, a power completely beyond her control.

בלא עת נדתה OUT OF THE TIME OF HER SEPARATION — i. e. at least three days immediately after the seven normal days of her separation have expired.

Seven days of her menstrual uncleanness. Meaning: After the seven [days] she saw three consecutive days, then, she is a zovoh and she requires seven clean days and a sacrifice. However, if she saw three consecutive days within the time of her menstrual impurity she is only a menstruant woman [and she counts seven days even if she sees during that time, and if she stopped seeing at the end of] seven she immerses and is permitted to have marital relations with her husband. She needs neither seven [clean days] nor a sacrifice. For this reason the verse needs to say, “Outside her menstrual cycle,” to teach this. The first section in which it is written, “When a woman has a discharge,” refers [to the case] when she saw one day or two days, where she is a zovoh ketanoh (lesser zovoh). Re’m writes: However, this raises a difficulty: Why did Rashi derive this teaching from the verse, “outside her menstrual cycle”? Why did he ignore the Beraisa in Toras Kohanim which derived this teaching from the phrase, “after her menstrual cycle”? However, I am astounded that the Rav missed what the Rabbis derived at the end of Maseches Nidah (73a), and Rashi’s words are explicit in the Talmud in Maseches Nidah, see there.

דמה, “her blood;” not the blood related to any pregnancy or fetus.

או כי תזוב OR IF SHE HAS A FLOW during these (the above mentioned) three days,

These three days. I.e., it does not mean, “if [the discharge] flows” without specifying — even one day — because someone who has a flow of one day is not a zovoh gedoloh but rather a zovoh ketanoh, and she “keeps watch day by day.” In the evening she immerses herself and is permitted to have marital relations with her husband. Rashi mentions “these” as if to say: Those mentioned above. This is so that you will not ask: Why does the verse not specify? [The answer is] because they are mentioned above.

ימים רבים, “many days;” an unusual expression as in halachah as few as three days are considered as the minimum for the expression: “many days.” Seeing that this woman had to be physically separated from her husband such a separation is already considered as psychologically painful as if it had been “many” days, literally.(Tanchuma on this portion, section 6).

על נדתה BEYOND THE TIME OF HER SEPARATION — i. e. being remote (distant) from her time of separation by one intervening day — this woman (such a woman) is, in both cases, termed a זבה and the law regarding her is decreed in this section that follows; and it is not like the law of a נדה, because she (the former) requires the counting of seven clean days (i. e. her uncleanness does not end until she has counted שבעה נקיים, seven consecutive days that are clean of any flux; cf. v. 28) and a sacrifice on the following day (cf. v. 29); whilst the נדה does not require the counting of the clean days (i. e. התורה ‎מן nor does she require a sacrifice) but she remains seven days in her separation and no longer irrespective as to whether she has or has not seen a show of blood (i. e. even if there is a flow on the seventh day and it then ceases she is still clean on the eighth day after having immersed herself). And they (our Rabbis) in expounding this section in the Sifra explain. There are eleven days intervening between the end of one ,נדה-period and the beginning of the next נדה-period, so that if she sees blood on three immersed herself. And they (our Rabbis) in expounding this section (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 8 2-3) derived the Halacha of the eleven days that intervene between the expiration of one נדה period and the commencement of another ‎נדה period — i. e. that as a result of any three consecutive days that she sees blood within these eleven days she shall be (come under the law of) a זבה and not a נדה.

After. We should not say “close to her menstrual cycle,” i.e., she never stopped seeing all the seven days of her menstrual cycle, and on the eighth day of her menstrual cycle she also saw. If so, she is still a menstruant woman, and she does not enter the category of a zovoh until she stops [seeing completely] and becomes pure for at least one day. This demonstrates that she stopped seeing the menstrual blood and the source of the menstrual blood is closed. And from this point, another source [of blood] has been opened. Here as well, Re’m says that Rashi’s words originate in the Midrash of Toras Kohanim and he raised a difficulty (see there). However, Rashi’s comment originates from the Midrash Aggadah in Maseches Nidah (73a), and there it was expounded from the verse, “Outside her menstrual cycle” — close to her menstrual cycle, and from the verse, “or if it flows after her menstrual cycle” — distant from her menstrual cycle.

על נדתה, as if the Torah had written: עם נדתה, “with her state of menstrual impurity.” Another example of the use of the word על in the sense of עם, is found in Leviticus 25, 31: על שדה הארץ יחשב, “it is considered as belonging with the field of the land.”

For three. Meaning: [Regarding] all the blood of a woman, from the day she has a regular monthly period until she dies or until her period changes to a different day, she counts seven [days] from the beginning of the day of her period, and then afterwards eleven days. And after them, seven [days], and thus the cycle repeats over and over again. All the blood she sees in those seven days is the blood of menstruation, and she sits seven days in her menstrual cycle, even if she saw only one day, and even if blood flowed freely all seven days of her menstrual cycle and stopped within the seven [days] before evening, she immerses and is permitted to have marital relations with her husband. She does not need [to count] seven clean days or [to bring] a sacrifice. All the blood she sees in the eleven days between one menstrual cycle and the next are the blood of zivah. The following is her law: If she sees one day or two days during those eleven days she “keeps watch day by day” and is only impure the day of the sighting alone. And the next day, if she does not see [blood] that entire day she immerses in the evening and is permitted to have marital relations with her husband. But if she sees three consecutive days in those eleven days then she needs [to count] seven clean days and [to bring] a sacrifice.

וכל הנוגע בם, “and anyone touching them;” even if touching them only indirectly, as for instance by holding on to the same rope.

ואם טהרה מזובה וספרה, But if she be cleansed from her issue, then she shall number, etc. We have to try to understand the use of the past tense for the word וספרה instead of the future tense, i.e. ותספור. Precisely when is the count to commence? If the count is to commence immediately, why does the Torah not write ותספור? If it is to occur only after she has become purified, the words "afterwards she shall be clean" do not make sense. We may have to explain this in light of what Torat Kohanim wrote on the meaning of the words טהרה מזובה. They interpret it as a cessation of the issue. The Torah tells us how we are to know that she may be considered cleansed from her issue, i.e. from the time the flow of blood stops. Her "purity" is then sufficient to permit her to begin the count of seven days (during which the flow must not recur). Rashi concurs with this interpretation in Megillah 8. He writes that she may begin counting without first having to immerse herself in a ritual bath.

ואחר תטהר, “and after that she is ritually clean.” Immersion of her whole body in forty measures of water in the ritual basin are what made her clean. Our sages in the Talmud tractate Eyruvin, folio 75 derive this from the words: אך במי נדה יתחטא, “but in the waters in which a menstruating woman bathes it will be cleansed.” [after waiting for the appropriate number of days without bleeding, Ed.] (Numbers 31,23). In verses 16-17 in our chapter, these steps to obtain ritual cleanliness are spelled out. Midrash Rabbah on Isaiah 8,6, describing the slow moving river Shiloah as moving לאט, points out that the numerical value of that word is 40; hence 40 saah of rainwater or well water is the minimum required for a ritual bath this has become the minimum amount stipulated by our sages as adequate for submersion.

וספרה לה, “then she shall count for herself, etc.” she does not recite a blessing over her counting such as we do when we count the omer as she cannot be sure that she will complete the count, for instance if the bleeding recurs before seven days of counting have elapsed. She would then have uttered the name of the Lord in vain, a major sin.

There is another way of interpreting our verse. The words ואם טהרה, "if she is cleansed," mean that the flow of blood has stopped; after all, this is the plain meaning of "she is clean from her flow of blood." You should not think, however, that the impurity has departed from her; the only thing which has departed from her is the contaminating issue. This is why the Torah underlined this by the extraneous word מזובה, "from her issue." What has not departed is the impurity transmitted to people touching the afflicted person. She is still ritually impure and has to count seven days during which she must be free of renewed symptoms. This is why the wording וספרה, a past tense converted by the use of the וו ההיפוך, the letter ו which reverses the tenses is in order.

והביאה אותם אל הכהן, “and she will bring them (the two birds) to the priest;” whence do I know that this woman is permitted to immerse herself in a ritual bath before the evening, even? The clue are the words: ”to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting;” how could she have done this on this day if she had not first immersed herself in a ritual bath? She would still have been ritually impure? Having immersed herself in a ritual bath before sunset enabled her to bring the birds to the priest still on the same day. (Sifra)

והזרתם THUS SHALL YE PUT APART [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — The word נזר has wherever it occurs the meaning of "separating". Similar is (Isaiah 1:4) “they are gone away (נזורו) backward" ; (Genesis 49:26) “him that was separated from (נזיר) his brethren” (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 9 6).

והזרתם את בני ישראל מטומאתם, “you shall separate the Children of Israel from their ritual impurities.” These additional words are the source for our sages having instructed husbands to separate from their wives when these are about to menstruate (Shevuot 18). As to the length of time a husband has to separate from his wife, Ravina said a 12-hour period. The Talmud Niddah 63 elaborates that if a woman was in the habit of seeing menstrual blood each month at midday, her husband has to stay away from her on that entire day, but he may cohabit with her on the preceding night. If she usually experiences this phenomenon in the second hour after daybreak, she is also still permitted to her husband on the preceding night. If, on the other hand, she usually notices such blood as beginning to flow during the night, even near daybreak, she is out of bounds for intercourse with her husband the entire night before that. However, she is permitted to her husband during the entire daylight period preceding that night. Even if she normally experiences a blood flow during the second hour of the night, her husband may still disregard her approaching menstruation until sunset before the night in question. According to theTalmud in Shevuot which we quoted, when a husband disregards these admonitions of the sages, his children (if not of age) even if of the excellence of the sons of Aaron, may be liable to die as a punishment for his lack of restraint. The sages derive all this from the admonition in our verse to separate themselves from contact with their contamination. Immediately after this paragraph the Torah reports (a second time) that the two older sons of Aaron had died. This may be taken as a warning. The sages have actually been warned by our verse to warn the people of the possible consequences of disregard of the instructions in this verse.

Separation. This is because the ז of והזרתם is stressed, bringing a נ before it, as if it is written, והנזרתם. Thus, the root of היזרתם is נזר (to abstain from).

והזהרתם, “you shall issue the warning to the Children of Israel;” these words are the warning not to violate the law;

And they will not die. There is a difference between ‘being cut off’ and ‘death at the hands of Heaven.’ Death by Heavenly hands means the transgressor alone will die, but ‘being cut off’ means he and his progeny will die. Nevertheless, we find here that the excision of the one who defiles the Mikdash is called death.
The explanation for this is that it is also dealing with women, and both a woman and her progeny are not cut off, for the sons will not die because of their mother.
Therefore, the main warning here is regarding the death of the transgressor himself.

ולא ימתו בטמאתם THAT THEY DIE NOT IN THEIR UNCLEANNESS [WHEN THEY DEFILE MY TABERNACLE] — Thus you see that the penalty of “excision” to which one who defiles the Holy Place is subject (cf. Numbers 19:13) is here called מיתה (i. e. מיתה בידי שמים) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 125).

One who causes impurity to the sanctuary is called “death.” Rashi is answering the following question: here it mentions “death” regarding causing impurity to the Temple, but “death” connotes that he is cut off but his seed is not cut off, whereas koreis — he and his seed are cut off. However, it is written in the beginning of Parshas Chukas that causing impurity to the Temple is punished by koreis! He answers: “Thus the ‘being cut off,’ etc.” Thus, “death” refers to, in general, death by the hands of Heaven, and [it includes] the particulars as well.

ולא ימותו, “so that they will not die (on account of the sin)” these words are the announcement of the potential penalty for violation.

בטומאתם, “on account of their ritual contamination;” (IbnEzra)

זאת תורת הזב THIS IS THE LAW OF HIM THAT HATH AN ISSUE, i.e. anyone who has but one appearance of flux. And what is his law?

זאת תורת הזב, the following considerations dealing with our subject need to be kept in mind: 1) seeing that the male afflicted with the discharge in question is required to bring a sin offering at the termination of the healing process teaches that the affliction was due to sin both in deed and in thought.
2) ואשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע לטמאה בה the fact that ejaculation of seminal fluid by a man results in his becoming ritually impure is due to the contamination of man the species by the original serpent, for ever since the original sin seminal ejaculation has been used for physical gratification also, not only for the function allocated to it by G’d, propagation of the species. Had it not been for the serpent’s seduction of Eve, nothing spiritually negative would have become part of the act of ejaculating seminal fluids.

ואשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע, he is like him to whom a pollution happened: he is unclean with an uncleanness lasting only till the evening (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 9 8; cf. v. 16).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is that He commanded us that any man who is healed from a discharge offer a sacrifice. And this is the sacrifice of the zav; and he is lacking [full] atonement until he offers it. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, "When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge [...]. On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves" (Leviticus 15:13-14). (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 1-3.)

That is that He commanded us that any woman who is healed from a discharge offer a sacrifice - and that is two turtledoves or two young pigeons. And this is the sacrifice of the zavah; and she is lacking [full] atonement until she offers it. And perhaps the questioner will challenge me and say, "Since the sacrifice of the zav is like the sacrifice of the zavah, why don't you [just] count the type of sacrifice that one is obligated, regardless of who is obligated - like you did with the sacrifice of the sin-offering, the definite guilt-offering, the uncertain guilt-offering and the variable sacrifice? As you counted each and every one as only one commandment, each; and you did not concern yourself with the multiplicity of transgressions for which one is liable, such that one is liable a sacrifice for each and every one of them. So it would have been appropriate for you not to concern yourself with the multiplicity of [classes of] people that are liable for the fowl offering!" That questioner should know that the sacrifices of the zav and the zavah are not for sins, but rather for a specific matter. And if the matter of discharge were the same in men and women, like the name is the same - as the name of one is zav and the name of the other is zavah - it would have then been appropriate to count them as one. But the matter is not like this. For the displacement of blood in a woman - if blood would [likewise] be displaced in a man, he would not be liable for a sacrifice. And the word, zivut, relates to the matter of displacement. But the displacement is not the same in both of them. So in the explanation (Niddah 32b), they said, "A man becomes impure with white, and a woman with red." And the law of the zav and the zavah is not like the law of a man with tsaraat and a woman with tsaraat. And the open proof about this is their saying in Keritiot (Keritiot 8b), "Four are lacking [full] atonement: The zav; the zavah; the woman after childbirth; and one with tsaraat." Behold you see how they counted the zav and the zavah as two, but counted tsaraat as one - whether it is a man or a woman. For the discharge of a man is different than the discharge of a woman. And the verse that appears about this matter is His saying, "When she becomes clean of her discharge [...]. On the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons" (Leviticus 15:28-29). (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 1-3.)

That is that He commanded us that a menstruant woman be impure. And this commandment includes the impurity of the menstruant woman and all of her regulations. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat 4.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

That is that He commanded us that semen be impure. And this commandment includes the regulations of [the impurity of] semen. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement 5.)

That is that He commanded us that a zavah be impure. And this commandment includes the exact ways through which the zavah transmits impurity to others after [it] has come to her. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat 5.)

That is that He commanded the metsora (a person with tsaarat) to shave, and that is its second purification - as it is explained at the end of Negaim. And that is His saying, "And [...] on the seventh day, he shall shave" (Leviticus 14:9). And the essence of their words has already preceded [this] (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 93), "Three shave, and their shaving is a commandment: The nazarite; the metsora; and the Levites." And the laws of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Negaim. And here I will explain the reason for our counting the shaving of the metsora and the bringing of his sacrifice as [two] separate commandments. And that is because there is no connection for the metsora between the shaving and the bringing of his sacrifices. And the purpose of the shaving is distinct from the purpose that is accomplished by bringing his sacrifices. And that is because the purification of the metsora is dependent upon his shaving. And in the sixth chapter of Nazir (Nazir 44b), they said, "What is the difference between a nazarite and a metsora? It is only that the purification of this one is dependent upon days and the purification of that one is dependent upon his shaving" - meaning to say the metsora. And when the metsora shaves and completes his second shaving, he is pure from [continuing to] give off impurity like a creeping animal, as is explained at the end of Negaim (Negaim 14). However, he is still lacking [complete] atonement until he brings his sacrifices - like the other ones that lack [complete] atonement, as is explained there. So the purpose of his shaving was to be pure from [continuing to] give off impurity like a creeping animal - whether or not he brought his sacrifices. Whereas the purpose of bringing his sacrifices is the completion of his atonement - like the other ones that lack [complete] atonement, meaning the zav, the zavah and the woman after childbirth. And we have already been preceded by their saying (Keritot 8b), "Four are lacking [complete] atonement." And there it is made clear that the nazarite is not one lacking atonement. Rather that action (his sacrifice) is included in it - meaning to say that the [shaving] and the bringing of the sacrifice permit him to drink wine; however one of them will not suffice without the other. Instead, the shaving is connected to the sacrifice and the sacrifice is connected to the shaving, and they [only] achieve their purpose when they are combined - and that is that they permit those things that were forbidden to him in the days of his being a nazarite. And in the sixth [chapter] of Nazir (Nazir 46b), they said, "One who shaves over his sacrifice, and it is found to be disqualified - his shaving is disqualified and his sacrifices do not count for him." Behold it has been made clear to you that the shaving is from the stipulations of the sacrifice and the sacrifice is from the stipulations of the shaving. And it is also explained in the Tosefta (Nazir 15a) that a nazarite that has completed his days is [still] forbidden to shave, to drink wine and to become impure with corpses until he does that whole process - and that is the shaving of purification, as it is explained in the sixth [chapter] of Nazir (Nazir 45b). And that is that he shaves at the opening of the Tent of Meeting, throws his hair under the urn and offers his sacrifices - as Scripture explains. And you will find that in most places, they called the bringing of [these] sacrifices, "shaving." And in some places in the Mishnah, they said in explanation (Nazir 11b), "[One who says,] 'Behold I am nazarite and it is upon me to shave, etc.'" - by which, he means that he will bring the sacrifices of the nazarite and offer them on his behalf. Behold it has already been made clear to you that "shaving" is used [to mean] the bringing of the sacrifices. And the reason for this is that it is a part of them - as we have explained - and it is with their combination that the status of nazarite is removed, and the nazarite may drink wine. However the shaving of impurity (of a metsora) is a law of the commandment, as we have explained earlier (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 93). (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 11.)