1) (Vayikra 15:2) ("Speak to the children of Israel, etc.") The children of Israel become tamei with zivah (a type of genital discharge); gentiles do not become tamei with zivah (by edict of the Torah). But even though they do not become tamei with zivah, they confer tumah as zavim (by Rabbinical enactment). And terumah is burned because of them (by their touching it), and there is no liability because of them for entering the sanctuary (i.e., If a gentile zav touched a Jew and he entered the sanctuary unwittingly, he is not liable to bring an offering.) If "the children of Israel," this tells me only of (native) Israelites. Whence do I derive for inclusion proselytes and bondsmen? From "and you shall say to them." "a man": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive a minor for inclusion? From "a man, a man." These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon b. R. Yochanan b. B'rokah says: It is written (Vayikra 15:22) "and of one who flows his flux for male or for female." "for male": anyone (even a minor) who is a male. "or for female": whether grown or a minor. 2) "if there be a flux (zov) from his flesh": from the command on. (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow (inductively)? viz.: There is plague-spot tumah and there is zav tumah. Just as plague-spot tumah does not obtain before the command, so zav tumah does not obtain before the command. (And, furthermore, it follows) a fortiori, viz.: If plague-spot tumah, where tumah obtains (even) through external causes, does not obtain before the command, then zav tumah, which does not obtain through external causes (viz. Vayikra 15:7 below) — how much more so should it not obtain before the command! — No, this may be so with plague-spots, whose tumah and taharah obtains only by (declaration of) a Cohein, as opposed to zavim, whose tumah and taharah obtains through (ascertainment of ) any man. This being the case, I would think that it obtains (even) before the command. It must, therefore, be written "if there be a flux" — from the command on. 3) "if there be a flux": I might think even if it flows from any place (i.e., from his nose or from his mouth), he becomes tamei. But it follows (that this is not so, for) there is tumah with a zav (a male) and tumah with a zavah (a female). Just as with a zavah, the place (the uterus) from which she becomes tamei with lesser tumah, (that of niddah, which does not require seven clean days or an offering), she becomes tamei with stringent tumah, (that of zivuth, which requires seven clean days and an offering) — so, with a zav, the place (the penis) from which he becomes tamei with lesser tumah (that of keri [an accidental seminal discharge]), he becomes tamei with stringent tumah (that of zivuth). 4) — No, this may be so with a zavah, who becomes tamei only with three sightings in three days, as opposed to a zav, who becomes tamei with three sightings in one day. This being the case, (then without being apprised otherwise, we would assume that) he becomes tamei (as a zav from any place). It must, therefore, be written "from his flesh," and not from all of his flesh. 5) Now that Scripture has made this distinction, we can reason (as in 3) above): There is tumah with a zav and tumah with a zavah. Just as with a zavah, the place from which she becomes tamei with lesser tumah, she becomes tamei with stringent tumah — so with a zav, the place from which he becomes tamei with lesser tumah, he becomes tamei with stringent tumah. 6) "from his flesh": (He is not tamei) until his tumah (i.e., his discharge) comes outside of his flesh. (For if not for the verse, I would say) Does it not follow (otherwise)? viz.: If a zavah, who becomes tamei only with three sightings in three days, becomes tamei (if the flux remains) inside as well as (if it comes) outside, then a zav, who becomes tamei with three sightings in one day, how much more so should he become tamei inside as well as outside. It must, therefore, be written "from his flesh": (He is not tamei) until his tumah comes outside of his flesh. 7) "from his flesh" he is tamei, and not from any external cause — whence they ruled: In seven ways they examine a zav (for possible external causes) before he is "bound" to zivah (after the first two sightings): for (excessive) eating, for drinking, for jumping, for (carrying) a burden, for sickness, for sight (of a woman), and for thought (of a woman). Once he is "bound" to zivah (after the first two sightings), he is not examined. His accident (i.e., one of the external causes) and the possibility of his having seen it (the third sighting) because of (an antecedent discharge of) his semen, render him tamei (and liable for an offering), for there is reason to suppose (that this third sighting is not caused by the other factors). 8) "his flux is tamei": We are hereby taught that his flux (itself) is tamei (and not only the man). Now does this not follow (even without a verse, viz.:) If the zav, whose tumah was caused by the flux is tamei, how much more so, the flux itself! — This is refuted by the sent-away he-goat (of Yom Kippur) which causes tumah (to the sender), but which itself is tahor. 9) Do not wonder, then, that the flux, even though it causes tumah (to the man) is itself not tamei. It must, therefore, be written that the flux is tamei. 10) I might think that blood flowing from his penis is tamei; it is, therefore, written "his flux," but not blood. 11) (Vayikra 15:3) ("And this shall be his tumah in his flux. Whether his flesh drip his zov or his flesh be stopped up with his zov, it is his tumah.") This tells me only of his zov (discharge as being tamei). Whence do I derive the same for his urine? It follows, viz.: If spittle, which issues from a place of cleanliness, is tamei, then his urine, which issues from a place of tumah (i.e., from the place of his zivah), how much more so should it be tamei! — This is refuted by blood which issues from there, coming from a place of tumah and itself being tahor. 12) Do not wonder, then, if urine, even though it issues from a place of tumah, is not tamei. It must, therefore, be written "And this" — to include urine. 13) I might think that his sweat, his pus, and his excrement are also tamei; it is, therefore, written "it" (is his tumah" — to exclude the above,) that are not subject to the tumah of liquids; but I would not exclude his tears and the blood of his plague (-wound), and a woman's milk, which are subject to the tumah of liquids. It is, "therefore," written "this (shall be his tumah" — to exclude the above). In sum, there are nine liquids in respect to a zav: Pus, sweat, and excrement are not subject to all (forms of tumah). Tears, plague (-wound) blood, and a woman's milk are subject to the tumah of liquids, (but do not confer tumah upon men and vessels.) His zov (flow) and his spittle and his urine are subject to stringent tumah (and confer tumah upon men and vessels).
Sifra Metzora Zavim Section 1
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.