דברו אל בני ישראל ואמרתם, "speak to the children of Israel and say to them, etc." This entire verse appears redundant in view of verse 1 before it. Perhaps we may understand it in light of Torat Kohanim which explained that whereas the Israelites confer ritual impurity when they suffer from the involuntary seminal emissions called זיבה, the Gentiles do not confer such ritual impurity if they come into contact with Jews or touch their belongings, etc. The Torah therefore employed the expression דברו to indicate the relative severity of this legislation. Expressions such as דבר always indicate some degree of harshness when compared to the expression אמור. A Jew suffering from this disease transmits ritual impurity to anything he sits on or lies on, even. The Torah continued with the softer ואמרתם to console the Israelites that the fact that they transmit ritual impurity is a compliment for them as it shows that prior to that disease they were in a state of ritual purity, a status never enjoyed by Gentiles. The word אמר is used as indicating spiritual superiority in Deut. 26,17 where G'd described the mutual bond between G'd and Israel in those terms. The considerations we have just outlined form the mystical dimension of the statement in Shabbat 13 that a שוטה, a person of unsound mind, does not suffer afflictions. The meaning is that he does not realise that he is discriminated against by suffering what others do not suffer.

איש איש כי יהיה זב, any man that has an issue, etc. Why did the Torah repeat the word איש? Perhaps the Torah wanted to inform us of something we learned in Tanna de bey Eliyahu chapter 15 that if a man experiences a seminal emission he is obligated to immerse himself in a ritual bath. Such a person may reason that inasmuch as no outsider is aware of this emission, he need not bother to go to a ritual bath. He will use the same kind of reasoning when it occurs a second time. If he experiences such an emission a third time without having purified himself in the interval, he would become guilty of what is written in Job 33,29 פעמים שלוש עם גבר, "twice or three times with a man;" i.e. that G'd lets man get away with his inadequacies twice or three times before disciplining him severely. Ignoring the need for ritual immersion will eventually result in such a man becoming a זב, afflicted with the flux which forms the subject matter of our paragraph. The word ,איש איש alludes to the person who ignores the need to purify himself repeatedly. We find the word איש used in Deut. 23,11 where the Torah speaks of a man experiencing nocturnal seminal emissions and becoming ritually impure as a result. The Torah hints that such a person cannot expect to get away with his failure to purify himself more than twice.

זוכו טמא הוא, in his issue, he is impure. Our sages in Torat Kohanim understand the last three words of the verse, i.e. זובו טמא הוא as belonging together. The verse tells us that the flux he emitted is ritually impure. You may ask that this could have been arrived at by simple logic, seeing that the Torah had told us that the person who emitted the flux is ritually impure although he is one step removed from the cause of the impurity; it would therefore stand to reason that the agent causing the impurity would be ritually unclean! We may counter that we do not apply this kind of reasoning in connection with the scapegoat which is considered pure although it confers ritual impurity on the persons touching it (compare Leviticus 16,28). The Torah therefore had to write that the emission itself is ritually impure. Torat Kohanim uses another argument justifying the statement זובו טמא הוא. The emission is ritually impure whereas any blood issuing from the same bodily orifice of this afflicted person is not impure. Had it not been for these three words I would have reasoned that seeing that the spittle of the afflicted person is impure although it issues forth from a pure area of the individual, blood which issues forth from the same orifice as the seminal discharge would most certainly be ritually impure! The Torah therefore wrote זובו טמא הוא, that only "it," i.e. the seminal discharge from that canal is ritually impure. The scholar quoted in Torat Kohanim uses similar reasoning in reverse when he needs to find an otherwise unnecessary word or letter to include the urine of the person afflicted with זוב as conferring ritual impurity. This is based on the letter ו in the word וזאת in verse 3. Had it not been for that extra letter I would have reasoned that if the spittle which issues forth from a "clean" part of the afflicted person's body transmits ritual impurity then urine which issues forth from an already impure part of his body certainly does so? Why then did the Torah have to include such a הלכה by writing וזאת? Answer: Seeing above reasoning is not true in the case of any blood issuing forth from that orifice which nonetheless does not transmit impurity, the Torah had to write a letter to include urine in the liquids which do transmit impurity. Niddah 56 raises the question of why blood is included in the list of liquids which does not transmit impurity whereas urine is included in the list of liquids which does transmit impurity. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai answers that urine leaves the body only after a quantity has collected, similar to spittle, whereas blood leaves the body one drop at a time. Besides, both spittle and urine can be re-absorbed by the body in the form in which they left the body, something that is not possible with blood seeing it congeals and hardens.

The difficulty with this answer is that if true, all the Torah had to write was the word וזאת in order to include urine. I would then have applied the previously mentioned contradictory two קל וחומר to arrive at the conclusion that the logic of either cancel each other out. This would have led me to realise that the Torah wrote the inclusive letter ו in וזאת in order to demolish the קל וחומר. Seeing that the letter ו could include only one liquid, I would have known that the liquid in question had to be urine according to the explanation offered by Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. I would therefore have excluded blood. I would not have needed the word הוא to exclude blood as not transmitting ritual impurity. [I have omitted a few more arguments along this line presented by the author. Ed.]

The author concludes from all this that there is a moral-ethical dimension to the restrictive word הוא. The Torah teaches by means of the superfluous word הוא that not only the body of the afflicted person causes him to be impure but there is a meta-physical dimension. G'd is trying to impress the afflicted person that his affliction is due to his sinful conduct. The word הוא refers back to the afflicted person, not to the seminal fluid. This is why the Torah decreed that the entire person becomes a primary source of ritual impurity, i.e. אב הטומאה. In that capacity the afflicted person confers ritual impurity on both humans and all kinds of vessels he will come in contact with. Although the scholar in the Torat Kohanim had used the word הוא to exclude the afflicted person's blood from conferring impurity on others, this was prior to the exegetical use made by the interpretation of the word וזאת. After having explained the word וזאת, the previous interpretation of the word הוא became subject to revision and to different interpretations. There are numerous instances in which Torat Kohanim proceeds in this manner. The author of Torat Kohanim thus left room for subsequent scholars to offer their own interpretations.

טומאתו בזובו, his impurity in his issue, etc. According to Torat Kohanim the sequence of these words mean that only the whitish coloured discharge transmits impurity as distinct from a reddish, blood-coloured discharge. The meaning is that but for the restrictive letter ב in the word בזובו, a discharge of blood would have been considered as conferring impurity even if the Torah had written the word זובו טמא הוא as it did in verse 2, we would have had to rule that a discharge of blood is also conferring ritual impurity. In other words, the restrictive expression we discussed at length in verse 2 would not have sufficed. The reason would have been that the expression זובו was used by the Torah in both verses. We would have been forced to conclude that the restrictive nature of the word זובו referred only to the afflicted person himself and not to his discharge. I would then have learned the קל וחומר from the הלכה that his spittle confers impurity as we explained on verse 2. Alternatively, we would have reasoned that the reason we have to exclude it is only because there was a special letter needed (the letter ו in the word וזאת) to include urine otherwise we would have excluded it.

טומאתו היא. it is his impurity. In Torat Kohanim the sages explain the logic as follows: If a זב, a male afflicted with this discharge who does not transmit impurity through a discharge of blood, nonetheless transmits impurity when discharging a whitish fluid, a זבה, female equivalent, who transmits impurity when discharging blood (from that orifice), most certainly would also transmit impurity if she discharges a whitish fluid. Therefore the Torah had to write טומאתו היא, it is his impurity, seeing the word טומאתו was quite unnecessary unless it was meant to tell us that a female when in the throes of this disease does not confer impurity by the discharge of a whitish fluid but only by discharging blood. This exclusion is based on the pronoun-ending טומאת־ו as opposed to the pronoun-ending טומאת־ה. We disagree with the author of Korban Aharon who uses the word היא as the basis for this exclusion. When you will examine the exclusion to be derived from the word היא more carefully you will be forced to admit that the word describes the impurity and not the person who has become impure.

I have already discussed at length the fact that the קל וחומר that Torat Kohanim presents here as a possible reason why the text had to specifically teach us an exclusion is the exact opposite of the קל וחומר the author of Torat Kohanim suggested as a possible reason for the inclusion of the urine in the fluids causing impurity. I have told you that such hypothetical logical approaches are not necessarily final and may be abandoned when new tools of exegsis come to light. Another example had been Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 14,7. We can answer these apparent contradictions by pointing out -as did the Talmud in Niddah 54- that there are elements in the laws about the blood of a menstruating woman which provide us with a reason to consider her as the more stringent case. Details are that her blood confers impurity regardless of whether it is still wet or has already dried whereas the discharge of someone afflicted with זיבה transmits impurity only while it is wet. Also, a menstruating woman causes impurity as soon as she has spotted blood the first time, whereas the blood of a person afflicted with זיבה transmits impurity only after several sightings or sightings on consecutive days respectively. The menstruating woman causes impurity to things she sits on or lies on as soon as she sights her menstruating blood the first time, something that is not the case with a male זב. These factors combined entitle us to assume that discharge of blood should cause impurity, more so than the discharge of a whitish fluid. On the other hand, the fact that a male זב transmits impurity already after several sightings of discharge even on the same day, as opposed to his female counterpart who only causes such impurity, after sighting a discharge on the third of three consecutive days, indicates that his discharge is viewed more severely and that therefore also a bloody discharge of his could confer impurity. For the above cited reasons we can understand why the two apparently contradictory attempts to learn a hypothetical קל וחומר are both reasonable.

The reason why the Torah wrote the word היא (a second restrictive expression in addition to טומאתו בזובו), may be because the Torah was concerned that unless there was an additonal restrictive expression one might interpret the first such expression as merely reducing the level of impurity the whitish fluid from a זבה transmits i.e. a lower degree of impurity than that transmitted by her blood. Whereas the blood she emits confers ritual impurity on anything she sits or lies on already at the first sighting, the whitish fluid would not have that effect until after several sightings on several days, etc,. I would not conclude, however, that the whitish fluid does not confer impurity at all. Hence the restrictive word היא is needed to teach that whitish fluid issuing from a זבה does not confer impurity at all. Only the male זב confers impurity through emission of a whitish fluid. [I confess I have some problem with this seeing that verse 25 did not mention anything other than the blood of a זבה. Why was there a need to exclude anything other than blood? Ed.]

ורחצו במים, they shall both bathe themselves in a ritual bath. The reason the Torah again mentions the male partner and the requirement that he has to bathe himself -something mentioned expressly in verse 16- is explained by Torat Kohanim as teaching that both he and she are subject to exactly the same procedure when it comes to the immersion in a ritual bath. You may argue that if that was all the verse teaches us there was no need to write ורחצו..וטמאו, but we could have derived all this from the letter ו in the word ואשה, seeing we have numerous instances where that letter was used to compare the laws in a later paragraph to those spelled out in the Torah in a previous paragraph (compare the first few chapters of Leviticus)! The fact is that Torat Kohanim already used the letter ו in the word ואשה to teach that it includes a minor of three years and one day. Accordingly, if the Torah had not written the word ורחצו, I would have interpreted that letter as referring to details about the immersion in the ritual bath instead of interpreting it as including a girl of three years plus. We would have had no extraneous letter or word to teach us that even a three-year old girl would have to purify herself if she had become the victim of sexual intercourse with a male.

Had it not been for the interpretation of the sages in Torat Kohanim, I would have interpreted the words אשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע in verse 16 to mean that unless the semen actually leaves the body of the man who became aroused by it, and is visible on the male's flesh, there is no need for a ritual bath because all of it has been absorbed internally. The same law would not apply to a woman; she could become ritually defiled even if the semen entered her without a trace of it being visible on her body. If she touched herself internally and came into contact with the semen she would be ritually impure. The Torah had to write ורחצו, "they have to bathe themselves," to make it clear that both the male and the female partner in such intercourse have to undergo the same procedure to become ritually clean again although the manner in which they each contracted the impurity differed. We are now able to explain the additional letter ו at the beginning of the word ואשה to mean that on occasion also the woman may be subject to the same law as the male in that her hidden parts do not become defiled if her partner cohabited with her in a manner which is not the standard way of conducting sexual intercourse [anal intercourse, for instance, Ed.]. This would be so according to the view of the majority of rabbis cited in Yevamot 34. According to the view of Rabbi Yehudah there, the example of such a הלכה would be a virgin bride on her wedding night. The rabbis derived this rule from the word אותה. Had the Torah not written the word ורחצו and I would have had to figure out the need for both the man and the woman who was his partner to bathe themselves in a ritual bath based only on the additional letter ו in the word ואשה, I would have concluded that the man transmits ritual impurity even if his semen had not seen the light of day. I would have interpreted the word תצא in verse 16 to mean that the semen had left its customary place, i.e. the scrotum, and that it had merely entered the seminal canal of the male member without being ejaculated. Alternatively, I would have understood the words כי תצא as a future tense, i.e. that the man's semen was capable of being ejaculated even though it had not actually been ejaculated, a situation which is similar to the normal situation in a woman. Both would be considered as ritually impure in such a situation. The Torah wrote the word ורחצו to prevent us from pursuing this kind of exegesis, i.e. that in this instance the inference we normally draw from the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of a paragraph such as the word ואשה does not apply. If the Torah had written אשה אשר ישכב איש אותה ורחצו, i.e. the letter ו at the beginning of the verse would have been absent, I would still have been left with the restrictive meaning mentioned in connection with the word אותה (see above: Rabbi Yehudah, etc.), but I would have to apply this restriction differently having been told explicitly by the text that the woman transmits impurity even if the semen is inside her private parts. In such circumstances there would be no logical reason to differentiate between a virgin-bride (whose hymen was still intact and who therefore could not keep the semen inside her private parts) and any other woman. I would have been forced to conclude that the expression אותה is inclusive rather than restrictive and that the woman transmits impurity if the semen is in any of her private parts (such as her armpits). By adding the letter ו at the beginning of the word אשה, the Torah makes it clear that just as a woman's private parts other than her vagina do not transmit ritual impurity due to the presence of semen, so her vagina does not either. Torat Kohanim made it clear by using the letter inclusively, that the word אותה is to be used only as a restrictive clause. As a result, the letter ו in ואשה was superfluous and could be used to include a girl of three years plus one day and up.

ואם טהרה מזובה וספרה, But if she be cleansed from her issue, then she shall number, etc. We have to try to understand the use of the past tense for the word וספרה instead of the future tense, i.e. ותספור. Precisely when is the count to commence? If the count is to commence immediately, why does the Torah not write ותספור? If it is to occur only after she has become purified, the words "afterwards she shall be clean" do not make sense. We may have to explain this in light of what Torat Kohanim wrote on the meaning of the words טהרה מזובה. They interpret it as a cessation of the issue. The Torah tells us how we are to know that she may be considered cleansed from her issue, i.e. from the time the flow of blood stops. Her "purity" is then sufficient to permit her to begin the count of seven days (during which the flow must not recur). Rashi concurs with this interpretation in Megillah 8. He writes that she may begin counting without first having to immerse herself in a ritual bath.

There is another way of interpreting our verse. The words ואם טהרה, "if she is cleansed," mean that the flow of blood has stopped; after all, this is the plain meaning of "she is clean from her flow of blood." You should not think, however, that the impurity has departed from her; the only thing which has departed from her is the contaminating issue. This is why the Torah underlined this by the extraneous word מזובה, "from her issue." What has not departed is the impurity transmitted to people touching the afflicted person. She is still ritually impure and has to count seven days during which she must be free of renewed symptoms. This is why the wording וספרה, a past tense converted by the use of the וו ההיפוך, the letter ו which reverses the tenses is in order.