Komentarz do Kapłańska 15:2

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...”

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.)