Niddah 35a — the Talmud in English

For if

it causes others

the discharge

impurity,

for the discharge renders impure the person from whom the discharge emerges, and it renders impure through carrying ,

itself

the discharge,

all the more so

should render impure through carrying!?

Rather, it is obvious that

the innovation of the verse, that a discharge renders impure through carrying, is

in the case of a zav who is a metzora,

whose discharge, upon the second emission, renders impure through carrying like any person [and this additional derivation was necessary for the discharge of a metzora, because it cannot be rendered impure by a kal va-chomer, since the person from whom the discharge emerges is not impure on account of the discharge, but on account of the affliction of leprosy] , who also renders impure through carrying .

And since Scripture was necessary to add that the discharge of a metzora should render impure

through discharge

upon the second emission—

infer from it: the place of the discharge is not a “spring,”

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

Rav Yehuda of Masekarta said to Rava:

From where

is it established that this verse comes to add a zav who is a metzora upon the second emission?

Perhaps, in truth, I will say to you that the verse is concerned

with

an ordinary zav

and is informing us that the discharge itself renders impure.

And as for what you say

that it is a kal va-chomer: if

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

the scapegoat sent away will prove otherwise, for it causes impurity to others,

to the one who sends it into the wilderness,

while it itself is pure,

for an animal or beast does not become impure. And by this Rava’s proof is rejected ! The Gemara raises an objection against the very question of Rav Yosef:

Abaye said: What is the uncertainty for him

for Rav Yosef, whether the first emission of a metzora who is a zav renders impure through carrying?

But

Rav Yosef himself

is the one who said

that one should expound the verse, “This is the law of the zav, for a male and for a female,” in this manner:

“This is the law of the zav”—

both an adult and a minor!

And since it emerges for him

that a minor zav is impure

from there,

from the beginning of the verse,

there remains for him

the end of the verse for exposition—

“For a male”—

to include a metzora with regard to his springs,

that they render impure like a complete zav, and likewise

“for a female”—

to include a female metzora with regard to her springs.

And the Merciful One compared a metzora to a complete zav,

for the beginning of the verse, “This is the law of the zav,” concerns a complete zav with two emissions, whose discharge renders impure through carrying. It follows that according to Rav Yosef, who expounds the end of the verse, “for a male and for a female,” concerning the springs of the male and female metzora, the springs of the metzora were compared to a complete discharge, and if so—

Just as a complete zav renders impure through carrying, so too the first emission of a metzora renders impure through carrying.

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

For had we expounded that a minor zav renders impure from the end of the verse, “for a male,” while we learned the springs of the metzora from the springs of the female metzora, there would be room to be uncertain whether the discharge [which is the whiteness of a male zav] from that place is called a “spring,” since in a female there is no such form of emission.

But since according to Rav Yosef a minor zav is learned from the beginning of the verse, while “for a male” is superfluous to include springs for the metzora himself, one should learn through the comparison that all the emissions of the metzora, even the first discharge, were compared to those of a complete zav and render impure through carrying .

Rav Huna said: The first emission of a zav—

renders impure

the one who sees it and another who touched it with impurity lasting until evening , even if he saw it

through accident!

For only concerning the second emission, through which he becomes a complete zav, was the exclusion stated, “from his flesh—but not through accident,” but not concerning the first emission, which was compared to one who experiences a seminal emission; and the impurity of such an emission applies even when the emission occurred through accident.

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

his first emission was compared to one who experiences a seminal emission:

just as semen renders impure through accident, so too the first emission of a zav renders impure through accident!

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

Come and hear: If he saw

the zav

a first emission

of discharge,

he is examined

whether the emission occurred only through accident, by the seven methods through which a zav is examined—whether it was caused by an excess of food, or drink, or by jumping and the like .

Is it not

that they examine him with regard

to impurity,

and if an accident were found, he would be entirely pure? Infer from it that through accident he does not render impure even upon the first emission!?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

this examination is not performed in order to determine whether to render him impure with the impurity of a zav. Rather, it is performed to determine his obligation

for a sacrifice,

for if the first emission occurred through accident, it does not join the count of the three emissions that obligate him to bring a sacrifice.

The Gemara raises an objection to this from the conclusion of that same Mishna:

Come and hear:

if the zav saw

a second [emission], he is examined!

For what purpose

do they examine him upon the second emission?

If you say

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

the

obligation

for a sacrifice, but not for impurity,

the examination is of no avail, because he becomes impure according to the law of a complete zav even through accident.

It is impossible to explain it this way, for

“from his flesh” is stated here—

“and not because of his accident,”

that is, a second emission caused by accident does not render impure.

Rather, is it not—they examine him with regard

to

impurity?

And since the conclusion

concerns examination for the second emission

with regard to impurity, so too the beginning,

the examination of the first emission, also concerns

impurity,

and it is proven that even with the first emission he does not become impure through accident!?

The Gemara distinguishes:

Is it necessarily so!?

This one is according to its matter, and that one is according to its matter! The second examination concerns impurity and a sacrifice, while the first concerns a sacrifice only and not impurity.

Come and hear: “Upon the third [emission]—he is not examined;

Come and hear a proof: “With regard to the third sighting, he is not examined;

With the third emission, he is not examined;

Rabbi Eliezer says—

even upon the third [emission] he is examined because of the sacrifice!”

The Gemara infers:

by implication, the first Tanna—

who said that he is not examined upon the third [emission]—necessarily held that in the examinations concerning the other emissions,

he said [they are] because of impurity!

And it is proven that even concerning the first emission they examine whether he became impure through accident or willingly!?

The Gemara rejects this:

No, everyone

is discussing examinations

for a sacrifice!

And here they disagree concerning the “et”s, whether they expound the word “et” stated in the verse, “And the zav, his discharge, for a male and for a female.”

whether the word “et” in the verse “And the man with a gonorrheal discharge and his discharge, for a male and for a female” should be expounded.

The Sages do not expound “et”s, while Rabbi Eliezer expounds “et”s.

The Gemara explains:

The Sages do not expound “et”s,

and therefore they expounded the verse in this manner:

“The zav”—

one

emission, [“et”—the Sages do not expound it!]

The word “et” is not expounded by the Sages!]

“His discharge”—

two

emissions.

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

“For a male”—

that they join with a third emission to create an obligation for a sacrifice only if they were voluntary, but not if they were caused by accident.

But

upon the third [emission]—

the Merciful One compared it to a female,

so that even if the third emission occurred through accident, it joins the first two, which were voluntary, to create an obligation for a sacrifice. And its law is like the emissions of a female, all of which are through accident, and she becomes obligated in a sacrifice—a zavah .

And Rabbi Eliezer expounds “etim,”

and therefore expounds the verse in this manner:

The zav -

one

emission.

“Et” -

two

emissions.

“His discharge” -

three

emissions, and until here the emissions require examination, for we expound “for a male”: they do not obligate an offering unless all three were emissions not caused by compulsion.

And only

at the fourth [emission] the Merciful One likened him to a female -

so that even an emission caused by compulsion is considered an emission. And the practical difference is that an emission of ziva caused by compulsion negates the count of seven clean [days] of a zav (but with regard to impurity and an offering, in either case there is no practical difference at the fourth [emission] whether it is voluntary or caused by compulsion).

It follows that the first emission, according to everyone, does not require examination with regard to impurity, because even if he saw it through compulsion, it joins [the others] for impurity, and this is in accordance with Rav Huna.

Ta shma

not in accordance with Rav Huna:

Rabbi Yitzhak says: Was not a zav included in the category of one who experienced a seminal emission

(for ziva was likened to seminal emission, as below)

and why did it emerge

to be written as a separate section with the law of a zav?

To make it lenient for him

in one matter

and to make it stringent for him

in another matter!

To make it lenient for him -

that he does not cause impurity through compulsion,

whereas a seminal emission causes impurity even through compulsion,