1) (Vayikra 15:4) ("Every [object of] lying which the zav lies down upon shall be tamei, and every implement of sitting which he sits upon shall be tamei.") "which the zav lies down upon": I might think even if he lies on a pit cover or on a door; it is, therefore, written (object of) "lying"; not on a pit cover and not on a door. 2) I would exclude these, but I would not exclude a mat of reeds or shoots; it is, therefore written "the lying" (connoting something which is) customarily used (for lying on). 3) This tells me only of a bed or a garment. Whence do I include a sagus (a kind of cloak), a wrap, a frock, a talith, a fodder basket of four kabim, a traveling bag of five kabim, a crituth (a type of bag) of a sa'ah, and a chemeth (a type of bag) of seven kabim? From "all the lying." I might then think that I include the sarud (a shelf stand), the baker's frame, and the large kneading trough in which the niddoth wash? It is, therefore, written "which he shall lie upon," something intended for lying, and not something about which he is told: "Get up and let us do our work!" 4) I might then think that I exclude a sagus, a wrap, a frock, a fodder basket of four kabim, a traveling bag of five kabim, a crituth of a sa'ah, and a chemeth of seven kabim. It is, therefore, written "all the lying," for inclusion (of these). Why do you see fit to include these and to exclude the others? After Scripture included, it excluded. I include these, which can combine lying on them with their work, and I exclude the others, which cannot combine lying on them with their work (viz.: "Get up and let us do our work!") ("And every implement) which he sits upon shall be tamei." I might think even if he sits upon a stone or upon a beam; it is, therefore, written "implement" — not a stone and not a beam. I would exclude these, but I would not exclude a chair (made of) dried dung and of (sun-baked) earth, and of stones, (which, even though they are not subject to tumah, are considered "implements.") It is, therefore, written "the implement," (i.e., the specific implement which is subject to tumah.) 5) This tells me only of a chair, a bench, and a katedra ( soft seat with a back, which are intended for sitting). Whence do I derive for inclusion the chest of the bathing attendants, (with a hole on top for the entrance fee), a chest open on the side, (on which one can sit), and a kneading trough of two logs until seven kabim, which was split, so that he could not wash one of his feet in it? From: "every implement." I might think, even if he inverted a sa'ah (size implement) and sat on it or a tarkav and sat on it; it is, therefore, written "that he shall sit on," i.e., one that was intended for sitting, and not one about which he is told "Get up and let us do our work!" 6) — But perhaps I should exclude the chest of the bathing attendants and the chest open on its side, and the kneading trough of two logs until seven kabim, which was split, so that he could not wash one of his feet in it. It is, therefore, written "every implement." For inclusion (of these). Why do you see fit to include these and to exclude the others? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include these, which can combine sitting with their work (i.e., the work they were intended for), and I exclude the others, which cannot combine sitting with their work. 7) This tells me only of (the zav's conferring tumah) when he lay on the couch or sat on the seat. Whence do I derive (that the same obtains) when he lay on the seat and sat on the couch, or when he stood, was suspended (by a couch or a seat on the other end of a balance [so that he was in effect "lying" or "sitting" on them]) or leaned on them? From (the redundancy of (Vayikra 15:4) "he shall be tamei" - he shall be tamei." 8) "the zav": and not a ba'al keri (one with a nocturnal discharge). (Why is the verse needed to tell us this?) Does it not follow inductively? viz.: The tumah of the zav is from his organ, and the tumah of the ba'al keri is from his organ. Just as a zav confers tumah to couch and seat, so the ba'al keri confers tumah to couch and seat. It is, therefore written "the zav," and not the ba'al keri. 9) "the zav": and not a stone with a plague-spot. (Why is the verse needed?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If the zav, who does not effect (tent-) tumah by entry (into a house), does effect couch and seat tumah, then a plague-spot stone, which does effect tumah by entry, how much more so should it effect couch and seat tumah! It is, therefore, written "the zav," and not a plague-spot stone. 10) "the zav": and not one with dead-body tumah. (Why is the verse needed?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If the zav, who does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh (days), confers tumah upon couch and seat, then one with dead-body tumah, who requires sprinkling on the third and seventh (days), how much more so should he confer tumah upon couch and seat! It is, therefore, written "the zav," and not one with dead-body tumah. 11) "the zav": and not the dead body: (Why is the verse necessary?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If the zav, who does not confer seven-day tumah (by being touched) confers tumah upon couch and seat, then a dead body, which does confer seven-day tumah, how much more so should it confer tumah upon couch and seat! It is, therefore, written "the zav," and not the dead body. 12) R. Shimon says: "which he lies on" and "which he sits on": One who has (volition for) lying down and sitting confers tumah to couch and seat — a dead zav does not confer tumah to couch and seat. 13) As to their saying that a zav who dies confers tumah (to the couch or seat) that he carries (upon him) until his flesh has atrophied (and he is known to be dead and not merely to have fainted), this is an ordinance of the scribes (and not a Torah ordinance). "upon it": until most of him (i.e., most of his leaning) is upon it.
Sifra Metzora Zavim Chapter 2
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.