1) "And this shall be his tumah in his flux": His tumah is contingent upon his flux (i.e., sightings) and not upon (the passage of) days (— two sightings for tumah, three for an offering.) 2) (For without this verse we would say:) Now if a zavah, who confers tumah upon one who lives with her, (as a niddah does,) requires (stringent) tumah, three sightings on three days, then a zav, who does not confer tumah upon one he lives with, how much more so should he require for (stringent) tumah three sightings on three days. It is, therefore, written "And this shall be his tumah in his flux." His tumah is contingent upon his flux (i.e., sightings) and not upon (the passage of) days. 3) (Vayikra 15:3) "in his flux … his flux … with his flux": We are hereby taught that he acquires (stringent) tumah with three sightings. This ("flux") tells me only of long (flows). Whence do I derive (the same for) short ones? From "shall be" — any amount. "his flesh drips" — any amount. "his flesh be stopped up" — any amount. "his flesh" — any amount. If short ones are mentioned, why mention long ones? To set a (time) limit for long ones. So that if he sees one (flux) as (long as) three (short ones) — (the time it takes to walk) from Gidiyon to Shiloach, corresponding to two immersings and two wipings — he is a confirmed zav. 4) Rebbi says: To what may this be compared? To a rope of one hundred cubits. If he saw (zivah) at the beginning of a hundred, at the end of fifty, and at the end of a hundred, he is a confirmed zav. If he saw at the beginning of a hundred, before fifty and at the end of a hundred, or at the beginning of a hundred, after fifty, and at the end of a hundred, he is not a confirmed zav. 5) (Vayikra 15:3) "from his zov, it is his tumah": even part of his zov confers tumah. (Vayikra 15:5) "mishkav" (his couch) and "moshav" (his seat): This includes a zav of two sightings as conferring mishkav and moshav tumah. 6) (Why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a zavah, who does not count seven (days) for two sightings, confers mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings, then a zav, who does count seven (days) for two sightings, how much more so should he confer mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings! — No, this may be true of a zavah, who confers mishkav and moshav tumah with one sighting. Would you say the same for a zav, who does not confer mishkav and moshav tumah with one sighting? Since he does not confer mishkav and moshav tumah with one sighting, (I would say that) he does not confer mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings. It is, therefore, written "from his zov" — even part of his zov confers mishkav and moshav tumah — to include a zav of two sightings as conferring mishkav and moshav tumah. 7) ("And this shall be) his uncleanliness in his zov": He confers tumah in his white (discharge) and not with (a penis discharge of) blood. Does it not follow a fortiori (that he should confer tumah with blood)? viz.: If a zavah, who does not confer tumah with white, confers tumah with blood, then a zav, who does confer tumah with white, how much more so should he confer tumah with blood! It must, therefore, be written "his tumah in his zov": He confers tumah with white and not with blood. 8) Let it follow a fortiori, then, that a zavah confers tumah with white! viz.: If a zav, who does not confer tumah with blood, confers tumah with white, then a zavah, who does confer tumah with blood, how much more so should she confer tumah with white! It is, therefore, written "it is his tumah" — his tumah and not her tumah. The tumah of the man is with white and the tumah of the woman is with blood.
Sifra Metzora Zavim Chapter 1
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.