Niddah 35a (לה.) — the Talmud in English

For if

it causes others

the discharge

ritual impurity,

for the discharge renders the person from whom it emerges impure, and he renders one who carries him impure , —

with regard to itself

the discharge,

all the more so

that it should impart impurity through carrying it?!

Rather, it is obvious that

the novelty of the verse—that a discharge imparts impurity through carrying—applies

to a zav who is a metzora,

whose discharge, upon the second emission, renders one impure through carrying, like that of any person [and this additional teaching was necessary for the discharge of a metzora, because he cannot be rendered impure by means of a kal va-chomer: the person from whom the discharge emerges is not impure because of the discharge, but because of the leprous affliction]] who also imparts impurity through carrying .

And since a verse was necessary to include

the discharge of a metzora, so that it should impart impurity as a discharge

upon the second emission—

infer from this: the source of the discharge is not a “spring,”

for if it were the metzora’s “spring,” it would render objects impure like his saliva and urine even without the kal va-chomer and without the additional teaching from the verse!

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said to Rava:

From where

is it established that this verse comes to include a zav who is a metzora with regard to the second emission?

Perhaps, in fact, I could say to you

that the verse concerns

an ordinary zav,

and comes to teach us that the discharge itself renders objects impure.

And as for what you said

that it is a kal va-chomer: if

it causes impurity to others, all the more so should it cause impurity to itself—

the scapegoat sent to Azazel proves otherwise, for it causes impurity to others,

the person who sends it into the wilderness,

while it itself is pure,

since an animal does not become impure. Rava’s proof is thereby rejected! And the Gemara challenges the very question of Rav Yosef:

Abaye said: What is Rav Yosef uncertain about

—whether the first emission of a metzora who is a zav renders objects impure through carrying?

But

Rav Yosef himself

is the one who said

that the verse, “This is the law of the zav, for a male and for a female,” should be expounded in the following manner:

“This is the law of the zav”—

both an adult and a minor!

And since he derives

the impurity of a minor zav

from there,

from the beginning of the verse,

the end of the verse remains available

for exposition—

“For a male”—

to include a metzora with regard to his sources,

so that they render objects impure like those of a full-fledged zav; and likewise

“and for a female”—

to include a female metzora with regard to her sources.

And the Merciful One compared a metzora to a full-fledged zav,

because the beginning of the verse, “This is the law of the zav,” concerns a full-fledged zav who has had two emissions and whose discharge renders objects impure through carrying. Thus, according to Rav Yosef, who expounds the end of the verse, “for a male and for a female,” with regard to the sources of a male and female metzora, the sources of a metzora are compared to a full-fledged discharge. If so—

Just as a full-fledged zav renders objects impure through carrying, so too, the first emission of a metzora renders objects impure through carrying.

Since according to Rav Yosef a metzora is compared to a zav, the comparison includes all the emissions of a metzora, even his first discharge.

For if we were to expound that a minor zav renders objects impure from the end of the verse, “for a male,” while we would derive the sources of a metzora from the sources of a female metzora, there would be room to be uncertain whether the discharge [which is the white discharge of a male zav] from that place is called a “spring,” since a female does not have such a form of emission.

But since according to Rav Yosef a minor zav is derived from the beginning of the verse, while “for a male” is superfluous and serves to include the sources of the metzora himself, it follows from the comparison that all the emissions of a metzora, even his first discharge, are compared to those of a full-fledged zav and render objects impure through carrying] .

Rav Huna said: The first emission of a zav—

renders impure

the one who experiences it and another who touches it with impurity lasting until evening even if he experienced it

involuntarily!

For only with regard to the second emission, through which he becomes a full-fledged zav, is the exclusion “from his flesh—but not due to an accident” stated; not with regard to the first emission, which is compared to one who experiences a seminal emission, and the impurity of one who experiences a seminal emission applies even when the emission was involuntary.

As it is stated: “This is the law of the zav, and that which issues from him is semen”

— his first emission is compared to one who experiences a seminal emission:

Just as semen renders one impure when emitted involuntarily, so too, the first emission of a zav renders him impure when emitted involuntarily!

The Gemara proves that this is not in accordance with Rav Huna:

Come and hear: If

the zav

experienced a first emission

of discharge,

he is examined

whether the emission was solely involuntary, by means of the seven factors through which a zav is examined—whether it was caused by excessive food or drink, jumping, or the like .

Is it not

that he is examined with regard

to impurity,

and if an involuntary cause is found, he is entirely pure? Infer from this that an involuntary emission does not render him impure even with the first emission?!

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

this examination is not conducted to determine whether to render him impure with the impurity of a zav; rather, it is conducted to determine his liability

for an offering,

for if the first emission was involuntary, it does not join the count of the three emissions that render him liable for an offering.

The Gemara challenges this from the latter clause of that same Mishna:

Come and hear:

if the zav experienced

the second emission, he is examined!

For what purpose

is he examined with regard to the second emission?

If you say

that this examination, like the examination after the first emission, serves only to determine

obligation

the liability

for an offering, but not with regard to impurity,

the examination would not be effective, since he becomes impure by the law of a full-fledged zav even when the emission is involuntary.

It is impossible to interpret it this way, since

the verse “from his flesh” is applicable here—

“but not due to an involuntary cause,”

meaning that a second emission resulting from an involuntary cause does not render him impure.

Rather, is it not—

he is examined with regard

to impurity?

And since the latter clause

concerns an examination of the second emission

with regard to impurity, the first clause likewise,

the examination of the first emission also concerns

impurity,

and it is demonstrated that even with the first emission he does not become impure when it is involuntary?!

The Gemara distinguishes:

Are the cases necessarily parallel?!

This one is as it is, and that one is as it is!

The second examination concerns both impurity and the offering, while the first concerns the offering alone and not impurity.

Come and hear: “

With the third emission, he is not examined;

Rabbi Eliezer says—

with the third emission as well he is examined because of the offering!”

The Gemara infers:

By inference, the first tanna—

who said that he is not examined with the third emission, necessarily holds that with regard to the examinations of the other emissions,

he said it is because of impurity!

And it follows that even with the first emission he is examined to determine whether he became impure involuntarily or willingly?!

The Gemara rejects this:

No; everyone

understands that the examinations concern

the offering!

And here they disagree with regard to the words “et,”

whether the word “et” in the verse, “And the zav and his discharge, for a male and for a female,” is expounded.

The Sages do not expound the words “et,” whereas Rabbi Eliezer does expound the words “et.”

The Gemara explains:

The Sages do not expound the words “et,”

and therefore they expound the verse as follows:

“The zav”—

one

emission, ["

“‘Et’—the Sages do not expound it”

“His discharge”—

“His discharge”— two

emissions.

Accordingly, the continuation of the verse refers only to the first two emissions, and it is expounded as follows:

“For a male”—

the first two emissions join with a third emission to create liability for an offering only if they were voluntary, and not if they were involuntary.

But

with the third emission—

the Merciful One compared it to a female—

so that even if the third emission was involuntary, it joins the first two, which were voluntary, to create liability for an offering. Its law is like that of the emissions of a female, all of which are involuntary, and she becomes liable for an offering as a zava .

And Rabbi Eliezer expounds the word et,

and therefore expounds the verse in this manner:

The zav –

one

sighting.

Et –

two

sightings.

His discharge –

three

sightings. Up to this point, the sightings require examination, because we expound “to remember” to mean that they obligate a korban only if all three were sightings that did not result from duress.

Only

at the fourth did the Torah liken him to a woman –

so that even a sighting resulting from duress is considered a sighting. The practical difference is that a sighting of a discharge resulting from duress negates the count of the seven clean days of a zav [but with regard to impurity and a korban, in either case there is no practical difference at the fourth sighting as to whether it resulted from willingness or duress].

It follows that, according to everyone, the first sighting does not require examination with regard to impurity, because even if he saw it as a result of duress, it counts toward impurity, in accordance with Rav Huna.

Ta shma

contrary to Rav Huna:

Rabbi Yitzhak says: Was the zav not included within the category of one who experiences a seminal emission?

[For the zav was likened to seminal emission, as stated below.]

And why was it singled out

to have the passage concerning the zav written as a separate law?

To be lenient with him

in one matter

and to be stringent with him

in another matter!

To be lenient with him –

that he does not convey impurity under duress,

whereas one who experiences a seminal emission conveys impurity even under duress,