## Niddah Daf 35a

###### Niddah 35a:1
[Niddah 35a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:1)

לַאֲחֵרִים גּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה, לְעַצְמוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּזָב מְצוֹרָע,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
there is no need for the verse to teach this. After all, if this drop of *ziva* **causes impurity for others,** i.e., if the person emitting the drop imparts impurity through carrying, is it **not all the more so** that the drop **itself** imparts impurity through carrying? **Rather,** it is **obvious** that the verse is referring **to** a drop of *ziva* from **a *zav*** who is also **a leper.** And it was necessary for the verse to teach this *halakha*, as it could not be derived by means of the *a fortiori* inference. This is because this drop of *ziva* is not what causes the leper to impart impurity through carrying; rather, it is his leprosy that causes him to impart impurity through carrying.


###### Niddah 35a:2
[Niddah 35a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:2)

וּמִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי בִּרְאִיָּיה שְׁנִיָּה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מְקוֹם זִיבָה לָאו מַעְיָן הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava concludes: **And** as the verse mentions the word “issue” twice, it is evident that it is referring to a second sighting of *ziva*. **From** the fact that **a verse was necessary to include a second sighting** of *ziva* of a leper, teaching that his *ziva* imparts impurity through carrying, **conclude from it** that the **place of *ziva* is not** considered **a source.** If it were a source, then even the first sighting of *ziva* would impart impurity through carrying.


###### Niddah 35a:3
[Niddah 35a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה מִדִּסְקַרְתָּא לְרָבָא: מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ בְּזָב גְּרֵידָא, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ לַאֲחֵרִים גּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה, לְעַצְמוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן — שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁגּוֹרֵם טוּמְאָה לַאֲחֵרִים, וְהוּא עַצְמוֹ טָהוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said to Rava: From where** do you know that the verse is referring to a *zav* who is also a leper? **Actually, perhaps I will say to you** that the verse is referring **to** the *ziva* of one who is **just a *zav*. And** as for **that** *a fortiori* inference **that you said:** If this drop of *ziva* **causes impurity for others,** is it **not all the more so** that the drop **itself** imparts impurity through carrying, one can counter that inference. The case of the **scapegoat** brought on Yom Kippur **will prove** that this *a fortiori* inference is not valid, **as it causes impurity to others,** since the dispatcher of the scapegoat is rendered ritually impure, **and** yet the goat **itself is pure,** as a living animal cannot be rendered impure.


###### Niddah 35a:4
[Niddah 35a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:4)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי תִּבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, וְהָא הוּא דְּאָמַר ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב״ — בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן, וְכֵיוָן דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהָתָם, אִיַּיתַּר לֵיהּ ״לַזָּכָר״ לְרַבּוֹת מְצוֹרָע לְמַעְיְנוֹתָיו, (נקבה) [״וְלַנְּקֵבָה״] לְרַבּוֹת מְצוֹרַעַת לְמַעְיְנוֹתֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the dilemma raised by Rav Yosef about the first sighting of *ziva* of a leper, **Abaye said: What** is the reason **he raises** such **a dilemma? But it was he who said** that when the verse states: **“This is the law of the *zav*”** (Leviticus 15:32), it thereby teaches that the *halakhot* of a *zav* apply **whether** he is **an adult** or **whether** he is **a minor. And since he derives** this *halakha* **from there,** the verse: “And of them that have an issue [*vehazav*] of *ziva*, whether it be a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:33), **remains** available **for him** to derive as follows: **“Whether it be a male”** serves **to include a male leper** with regard **to his sources** of bodily emissions, and “or **a female”** serves **to include a female leper** with regard **to her sources** of bodily emissions.


###### Niddah 35a:5
[Niddah 35a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:5)

וְאַקְּשֵׁיהּ רַחֲמָנָא מְצוֹרָע לְזָב גָּמוּר — מָה זָב גָּמוּר מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא, אַף רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as this verse discusses a full-fledged *zav*, and the word “issue” is mentioned twice, **the Merciful One compares a leper to a full-fledged *zav*: Just as a full-fledged *zav* imparts impurity through carrying, so too,** the **first sighting** of *ziva* **of a leper imparts impurity through carrying.**


###### Niddah 35a:6
[Niddah 35a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:6)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל זָב מְטַמְּאָה בְּאוֹנֶס, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב וַאֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״, מָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, אַף רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל זָב מְטַמְּאָה בְּאוֹנֶס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Huna says:** The **first sighting** of *ziva* **of a *zav* imparts ritual impurity** to one who comes into contact with it, even if the emission occurred **due to circumstances beyond** his **control, as it is stated: “This is the law of the *zav*, and of him from whom the flow of seed goes out”** (Leviticus 15:32). The verse compares the first sighting of *ziva* to a seminal emission: **Just as semen imparts impurity** even if it occurs **due to circumstances beyond** his **control, so too,** the **first sighting of a *zav* imparts impurity** even if it occurs **due to circumstances beyond** his **control.**


###### Niddah 35a:7
[Niddah 35a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רָאָה רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה — בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. מַאי לַָאו לְטוּמְאָה? לָא, לְקׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rav Huna: **Come** and **hear** a mishna (*Zavim* 2:2): With regard to a man who **saw a first sighting** of *ziva*, **one examines him** to determine whether the discharge was caused by circumstances beyond his control. **What, is it not** that the purpose of this examination is **to** clarify that he does not have **ritual impurity,** i.e., if the discharge was due to circumstances beyond his control he remains pure, which contradicts the statement of Rav Huna? The Gemara responds: **No,** the purpose of this examination is **to** determine whether he will be obligated to bring **an offering** if he experiences another two discharges of *ziva*. If the first sighting was caused by circumstances beyond his control, it is not counted toward the three sightings that render one liable to bring an offering.


###### Niddah 35a:8
[Niddah 35a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּשְּׁנִיָּה בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְקׇרְבָּן, אֲבָל לְטוּמְאָה לָא? אִקְּרִי כָּאן ״מִבְּשָׂרוֹ״ וְלֹא מֵחֲמַת אוֹנְסוֹ! אֶלָּא לָאו לְטוּמְאָה, וּמִדְּסֵיפָא לְטוּמְאָה — רֵישָׁא נָמֵי לְטוּמְאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** the latter clause of the same mishna: **When** he experiences **the second** sighting of *ziva*, **one examines him** to determine whether the discharge was caused by circumstances beyond his control. **For what** purpose does one examine him? **If we say** that it is **to** exempt him from bringing **an offering** in the event that he experiences a third discharge **but not to** clarify that he does not have **ritual impurity,** this is untenable, as one may **read here** the verse: “An issue **out of his flesh”** (Leviticus 15:2), from which it is derived that one is **not** rendered a *zav* if the discharge occurred **due to circumstances beyond his control. Rather, is it not** that the examination serves **to** clarify that he does not have **ritual impurity? And from** the fact **that** the examination in **the latter clause** is **for** purposes of **impurity,** one may conclude that the examination of **the first clause** is **also for** purposes of **impurity.**


###### Niddah 35a:9
[Niddah 35a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:9)

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַאּ, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַאּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Are the cases comparable? This** case is **as it is, and that** case is **as it is.** In other words, it is possible that each examination is intended for a different purpose. In particular, the first examination is meant to exempt him from bringing an offering, and the second examination pertains to both the offering and ritual impurity.


###### Niddah 35a:10
[Niddah 35a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַקׇּרְבָּן, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא מִפְּנֵי הַטּוּמְאָה קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** the same mishna, which states that **Rabbi Eliezer says: Even** after **the third** discharge **one examines him, because of the offering.** In other words, if the third discharge occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, he is not liable to bring an offering. From the fact that according to Rabbi Eliezer the examination is due to the offering, one may conclude **by inference that the first** *tanna* **is saying** the examinations are **for ritual impurity.** If so, then according to the mishna one who has an initial discharge of *ziva* due to circumstances beyond his control remains pure.


###### Niddah 35a:11
[Niddah 35a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:11)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְקׇרְבָּן, וְהָכָא בְּ״אֶתִּים״ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: רַבָּנַן לָא דָּרְשִׁי ״אֶתִּים״, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דָּרֵישׁ ״אֶתִּים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No,** this is not the proper explanation of the mishna. Rather, **everyone agrees** that the examination serves **to** exempt him from bringing **an offering. And here they disagree with regard to** whether one interprets instances of the word **“*et*”** in a verse. With regard to a *zav*, the verse states: “And of them that have an issue of *ziva* [*vehazav et zovo*], whether it be a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:33). **The Rabbis do not interpret** instances of the word **“*et*,” and Rabbi Eliezer interprets** instances of the word **“*et*.”**


###### Niddah 35a:12
[Niddah 35a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:12)

רַבָּנַן לָא דָּרְשִׁי ״אֶתִּים״: ״הַזָּב״ — חֲדָא, ״זוֹבוֹ״ — תַּרְתֵּי, ״לַזָּכָר״ — בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי אַקְּשֵׁיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **The Rabbis do not interpret** instances of the word **“*et*.”** Therefore, they explain the verse as follows: **“*Hazav*”** is referring to **one** sighting; **“*zovo*”** makes **two** sightings, and when the verse states: **“Whether it be a male,”** this indicates that **for the third** sighting **the Merciful One compares** the *halakha* of a male **to** that of **a female,** i.e., just as a woman is rendered impure even through an emission of *ziva* due to circumstances beyond her control, so too, the third sighting of *ziva* by a man renders him impure even if it occurs due to circumstances beyond his control. Accordingly, the Rabbis maintain that there is no need for an examination after the third sighting.


###### Niddah 35a:13
[Niddah 35a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:13)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דָּרֵישׁ ״אֶתִּים״: ״הַזָּב״ — חֲדָא, ״אֶת״ — תַּרְתֵּי, ״זוֹבוֹ״ — תְּלָת, בָּרְבִיעִי אַקְּשֵׁיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Eliezer interprets** instances of the word **“*et*.”** Therefore, he explains the verse as follows: **“*Hazav*”** is referring to **one** sighting; **“*et*”** makes **two** sightings; **“*zovo*”** totals **three** sightings. Accordingly, even for the third sighting of *ziva* one must examine whether it was caused due to circumstances beyond his control. If it was, he is not liable to bring an offering. When the verse states: “Whether it be a male,” this indicates that **for the fourth** sighting **the Merciful One compares** the *halakha* of a male **to** that of **a female,** in that it is counted as a sighting even if it occurred due to circumstances beyond his control.


###### Niddah 35a:14
[Niddah 35a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/35a:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר, וַהֲלֹא זָב בִּכְלַל בַּעַל קֶרִי הָיָה, וְלָמָּה יָצָא — לְהָקֵל עָלָיו וּלְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו; לְהָקֵל עָלָיו — שֶׁאֵין מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, וּלְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to refute the statement of Rav Huna: **Come** and **hear** that which **Rabbi Yitzḥak says: But wasn’t a *zav* included in** the category of **one who experienced a seminal emission? Why,** then, **was he taken out** and discussed in a separate passage? In order **to be lenient with him and to be stringent with him** relative to the *halakhot* of one who experienced a seminal emission. Rabbi Yitzḥak elaborates: The separate passage serves **to be lenient with him, as he is not rendered impure through** an emission that occurs **due to circumstances beyond** his **control,** unlike one who experienced a seminal emission. **And** the separate passage serves **to be stringent with him,**