איש איש כי יהיה זב מבשרו זובו טמא הוא, “any man who will have a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is contaminated.” Rashi comments that the last two words, זובו טמא, refer to the drop of the discharge which confers impurity on the person whom it touches. The appearance of the discharge described here is similar to the colour of water from a dough made from barley flour; it is also similar in appearance to the white of an egg turned bad, i.e. mixed with the yolk. This is different from sperm which looks like the white of an egg which retained its consistency. The Torah adds the words (verse 3) רר בשרו את זובו, “running with the discharge from his flesh;” to tell us that the discharge resembles the saliva which comes out of the mouth as a clear fluid. When the verse continues with או החתים בשרו מזובו, this describes a thicker opaque fluid which has a tendency to block the exit from the urinal canal. The reason that the man afflicted with this disease has to bring only two birds as an offering after he has completed the purification rites is that seeing he had been smitten with a severe and infectious disease from which he has been healed by the grace of G’d, he has to offer the thanksgiving offerings anyone who has recovered from a serious disease is commanded to offer. The Torah does not belabor that point at this stage. The sin-offering legislated here is so that G’d will grant atonement for any sin which had caused the disease in the first place. The burnt-offering is an expression of gratitude for having been healed from the discharge.

וידיו לא שטף במים, “before he rinsed his hands in water.” The Torah does not mean this literally but means an immersion of the whole body in a ritual bath (compare Maimonides Mikvaot 1,2). The reason the Torah used the expression שטף is because the Torah wanted to indicate that nothing must prevent the water from touching the entire surface of the body. In other words, the water must be applied to the whole body just as when you wash your hands the entire hand is touched by the water. The word occurs in 6,21 ומורק ושוטף במים, “purged and rinsed in water,” where it clearly means that the copper vessel of which the Torah speaks must be completely covered by water. We find the word also in Jeremiah 47,2, לנחל שוטף, “the waters shall become a raging torrent.” According to Rashi, the use of the word for “rinsing” mentioned here means that if the water in the ritual bath did not enter hidden crevices of the body but came into contact only with surfaces of the body this would suffice. Just as the hand has no hidden crevice, so only the parts of the body which can easily be accessed by the water are meant.

ורחץ במים את כל בשרו, “he must wash his entire body with water.” This is the only time in connection with the legislation of ritual impurity that the Torah speaks of washing “the entire body.” Even when purification from more severe levels of ritual impurity is discussed, such as the person suffering a discharge, the Torah did not demand that “the whole body” be washed. The reason for all this may have to do with the four basic raw materials man is made of, i.e. fire, spirit (wind), water and dust. This was not the order in which these elements appear in the report of the creation in Genesis where the first element mentioned is the spirit (רוח) in Genesis 1,1, followed by water and fire and dust (earth).

In the Sefer Yetzira, (oldest kabbalistic text) air-(רוח)- fire-water are listed as the three “mothers,” so-called because they are like mothers to all that is found in the universe. These three elements are perceived as “descended” from the other, i.e. air begets water and water begets fire. This view is supported by verses from the Scriptures, of course. When the Torah writes in Genesis 1,2: בהו, וחושך; this means that fire is descended from water. The words ורוח אלו-הים מרחפת על פני המים mean that the water is “descended” from the element רוח, “air or spirit.” This is the reason why in our daily prayers we refer to the sequence משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם, “who makes the air blow and makes the rain descend.” Support for the statement that fire is “descended” from water comes from the scientific fact that fire is [or at least may be Ed.] extracted from water. (compare Talmud Beytzah Mishnah folio 33 that “on the festival it is forbidden to extract fire from the water.”) [apparently experiments were conducted with glass bottles filled with water being exposed to intense sunlight. After a while, due to the water having become overheated, the glass burst into flames. quoted by Rashi. Ed.] Dust, i.e. earth is “descended” from fire. The reference is to the fertiliser left behind after something has been burned up. [Dust or earth in this instance refers to the earth and its ability to produce crops, etc. Perhaps the earth thrown up as volcanic ash is the best example of fire “producing” fertile earth. Ed.] When these three elements surface as part of a human being they have been metamorphosed, the white part of man corresponds to the element water; the red part of man corresponds to the element fire; the black part of man corresponds to the element dust=earth. The element רוח, “spirit,” which is a fundamental part of man is the basic element and dominates all the other elements of which he is composed.

It is common knowledge that every such element contains within it particles of each of the four elements; seeing that this is so whenever one of these elements displays signs of becoming dominant, the other parts of the same element which up to that time were dormant within their respective “master” element, now awaken. Let us say that the רוח המתאוה, “the element called the spirit of desire“ awakens in a person, the parallel minor particles of that element which had been lying dormant within the other three elements now “awaken” even while the other three elements and their respective minor particles within them remain “asleep, dormant.” Seeing that the element רוח was the basic element which aroused these “dormant” particles of it within the other elements, it may be considered as “eternally awake, never dormant.” Seeing that this is so our verse demands that the person who has had an emission of sperm wash his entire body as due to the desire awakened in all parts of the body as a result of that emission, or “wakeful state of the spirit of desire,” the secondary particles of that spirit throughout the other parts of the body have been awakened, have been activated. Seeing they were all participants, they all have to be immersed in water for the entire body to become purified. The element called “spirit of desire” is different from the other three elements making up the body, as the other three are “dead” when the body is asleep. This fourth element, the רוח המתאוה, “the spirit of desire,” is not “dead” even while the body is asleep. The reason that there is a need for purification of the entire body in water is that the drop of sperm in question was not even potentially able to fertilize a woman’s ovum seeing that its “partners” in the body of the person emitting it had been asleep, i.e. “dead” when this emission occurred. They had not agreed to it, so to speak. Seeing that as a result of these considerations the sperm was defective, useless, it produced a greater degree of impurity than normal cohabitation between man and woman. When you look at verse 18 in our verse describing cohabitation between a man and a woman (while both are awake I presume), the Torah, while requiring that they both “wash in water,” does not require that they bathe their entire body in water as it did here concerning a nocturnal emission. The reason is that all parts of the “elements” were “awake” in both parties to this sexual union, i.e. gave their consent, thus enabling the sperm to potentially fertilise an ovum.

A further consideration explaining the difference in the degree of purification required between people who cohabit and someone who experiences a nocturnal involuntary emission of semen, is that an intentional emission of semen prepares the semen to be imbued with the power to become alive, as it represents the natural urges of the body emitting it, its true purpose. Although the Torah does decree impurity for a person indulging in such a normal, in fact mandatory activity if he wants to fulfill the commandment of being fruitful, most people are not dominated by such lofty considerations at the time they indulge their libido. [I have paraphrased this somewhat. Ed.] However, when semen is emitted nocturnally, the very material may be considered as at least ”semi-dead” seeing that the spirit of the person is asleep, he is not in the least motivated by the intention of fulfilling a positive commandment. You may wish to compare our verse with Deut. 23,11-12: “If there be amongst you a man who will not be clean because of a nocturnal emission of semen, he shall go outside the camp; he shall not enter the midst of the camp; when it will be toward evening he shall wash (immerse) himself in water, ירחץ במים, and when the sun sets he may enter the midst of the camp.” In that instance the Torah does not mention the words כל בשרו, “all of his flesh,” as it did in our verse. The meaning of the words ירחץ בשרו therefore is the same as in other similar verses, i.e. את כל בשרו, “all of his flesh.”

ואשה כי תהיה זבה, דם יהיה זובה בבשרה, “when a woman has a discharge,-the discharge from her flesh being blood;” the reason the Torah adds the words דם יהיה זובה is to contrast it with the discharge of a man who emits a whitish fluid. שבעת ימים תהיה בנדתה, “she will remain in her state of separation for seven days;” even if she saw only a single discharge she must still remain in her state of impurity for seven days.

This entire paragraph discusses the normal menstruation of a woman experiencing her monthly cycle. The verses are rather inconclusive when read at first glance. We do not find any mention of the woman in question requiring immersion in a ritual bath; the only thing we are told is that if someone touches the bed she has lain on while she is in the state of impurity described, such a person is contaminated by her ritual impurity. The Torah does say (verse 21) that this second person will have to immerse himself in a ritual bath in order to become ritually pure again. We find a responsum quoted by Tosafot Yuma 78 that Rabbi Yehuda Gaon was told in answer to his inquiry that the requirement of a menstruous woman to immerse herself in a ritual bath at the conclusion of the seven days (minimum) is a Biblical requirement derived by simple logic (קל וחומר). “If someone merely touching her bed requires immersion in a ritual bath in order to regain his ritual purity, she, who is the source of that impurity, most certainly does not require any less.” The Talmud Shabbat 64 understands the words “she shall remain seven days in her state of separation” to mean that this is the minimum length of time before she is allowed to immerse herself in a ritual bath. This is in contrast to her companion who has touched her bed who may immerse himself immediately and be ritually clean after sunset on that day. The Torah makes her regaining her ritual purity subject to two conditions, a) the number of days after she started menstruating, b) that she immerses herself in a ritual bath.

Some of the authorities such as Maimonides (Issurei Biah 4:3) derived the law from the words ורחצו במים, “they are to immerse themselves in water” (Verse 18). They consider that verse as the בנין אב, precedent, for all similar situations when people who have incurred ritual impurity have to immerse themselves in a ritual bath in order to regain their status of being ritually pure. Our sages (Ketuvot 61) have said further that a woman who is ritually unclean due to her menstruation may perform all the normal tasks she ordinarily performs for her husband, the exception being that she must not pour wine or water into his cup, put linen on his bed, or wash his hands or feet. Seeing that she is so used to pour drinks into his cup, as long as there is a reminder on the table to remind him not to touch her due to her state of impurity she may even fill his cup. One such “reminder” would be that she performs this task with her alternate hand, i.e. if she is right-handed, with her left hand. She is not to pour directly into his cup even with the left hand but to put the jug on the table after having filled it with her left hand. Abbaye used to put the cup of wine of her husband on top of the wine-casket at such times, whereas his colleague Rava’s wife put it at the side of his pillow. Changing the linen of the husband’s bed is only prohibited in the husband’s presence; when he is not present the wife may perform this chore. Washing her husband’s hands and feet is prohibited not only with hot water but even with cold water. If the wife contravened this rule and in the process touched her husband’s body this is considered equivalent to קירוב בשר, and even touching her husband only with her small finger is prohibited. She is not even allowed to pour the water on her husband without actually coming into contact with him. Such an act would result in too close an association between their minds. A person must endeavour to keep a certain distance from his wife during the days that she is נדה, menstrually impure. Our sages in Shabbat 13 base this on Leviticus 18,6 לא תקרבון לגלות ערותן, “you must not approach to uncover nakedness.” The word תקרבון, implies not to come even near the person with whom sexual contact is forbidden. Seeing that within woman is the organ which enables the formation of human beings one must always conduct oneself with her in a state of purity in order for the baby to be conceived in a state of purity and for it to be able to receive its soul in a state of purity. It is common knowledge that the various character traits of a personality are strongly influenced by the condition of mother and father at the time of the baby’s conception (Compare Nachmanides Iggeret Hakodesh chapter 5). Our sages in Keritut 2 have stated that if someone has sexual relations with a woman who is in a state of menstruation he becomes guilty of the penalty of karet, (premature death, or death without children). It is even forbidden to share the same bed with his wife if both husband and wife are fully clothed (Shabbat 13). This is based on Leviticus 18,19 לא תקרב לגלות ערותה, “do not approach (a woman in that state) to uncover her nakedness.” G’d has warned the Israelites not to conduct their sex lives in a manner similar to that of the Gentiles.

If you will take a good look at this paragraph you will find that the Torah did not obligate the menstruous woman to offer a sacrifice at the termination of her period whereas the woman experiencing a discharge (of a similar nature, emanating from the same orifice in her body) has to bring an offering at the end of her purification period. The reason for this difference is that the monthly menstruation cycle is considered a “natural disease,” something that she does not get cured from during all her child-bearing years. This is why the Torah prescribed a fixed number of days which have to elapse before this “natural disease” is presumed to have disappeared.

The discharge called זיבה is not of the same category; this is why when the Torah describes the phenomenon it emphasises that it occurs during the days of the month when menstruation cannot be expected (verse 25). Alternatively, this discharge may occur many days after she had finished her monthly cycle. This discharge is an abnormality just as the discharge of semen-like fluid in the male is an abnormality. In both instances the cure has to be followed by a sacrificial offering. It is worth noting that we are not familiar with the disease called נדה, menstrual discharge, amongst any other female species. It is something exclusive to the human species and due to the sin committed by the first woman when she ate from the tree of knowledge. According to Sotah 12 it was the result of a decree recorded at that time that not only she but all women after her would experience discomfort, pain, etc., in anything connected with conception, pregnancy, birthing, etc., (compare Genesis 3,16). Seeing that the beasts have no intelligence and their entire lives are not based on considerations involving reward and punishment, there is no reason to afflict the female of their species with such a natural disease. One may speculate that due to the spirit of impurity which has become an integral part of woman ever since that experience with the serpent, woman is able to display drops of blood on a mirror or glass surface after she has looked at it with intensity during the beginning of her state of menstruation. (compare what we wrote on Leviticus 12,2 at the end.)

You should also know that although the state of being נדה is a “natural disease,” it is something beneficial for the fetus that will develop after she has been cured and has resumed marital relations with her husband, as during the period of her menstruation her body discharged extraneous, potentially harmful materials from her body. When a new fetus is conceived its conception occurs under biologically optimal conditions. The woman’s “blood” which is her contribution is in a medically purified state at that time. In that condition the fetus is able to receive Divine input, i.e. intelligence. [The author perceives of intelligence as an “angel,” intermediary between man and his G’d, according to Ibn Ezra’s introduction on Genesis. Ed.] Elimination of menstrual blood from a woman’s body is comparable to the removal of rust from iron. Only after this rust has been removed can the iron absorb the rays of sunlight in its full effectiveness. These considerations explain why the phenomenon of menstruation is found in human females but not in female animals. An allusion to this basic difference between man and beast is that baby animals derive their mother’s milk from a part of the body adjoining the sex of the animal, whereas human babies suckle on the mother’s breast which is far closer to the head, the seat of man’s intelligence. Each species derives its nutrients from areas adjacent to those representing its primary function.

ימים רבים, “many days.” Our sages (Sifra Zavim section 5, items 8-9) define the word רבים here as “three.” They reason as follows: had the Torah spoken only of ימים, “days,” I would have assumed that what is meant is two days. Why would I have concluded that the word ימים refers to only two and not many? Rabbi Akiva said that whenever a word lends itself to two possible interpretations, one involving more than the other, I choose the minimum meaning compatible with that word; in this instance the minimum of ימים is “two.” Rabbi Nechemyah said: Does then the text of the Torah mean to confuse us? Surely it is meant to enlighten us! If you were to say that the word ימים without the addition רבים could have meant either ten, a hundred, or two hundred, etc., the choices would be unlimited and confusing. Therefore by understanding the word ימים as meaning the minimum, i.e. “two,” the Torah opened the way for us to understand its meaning. Rabbi Mona said: the word ימים without further detail means “two.” In the event I would have thought that it means many days this would be superfluous as the Torah already wrote the word רבים, “many.” This indicates that the total number of days the Torah had in mind were relatively few. Seeing that such a minimum of a few days is two, it stands to reason that the word רבים increases this number by a further minimum, i.e. one day more, i.e. a total of three days.

A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Metzora 6): Seeing that the woman who is a Niddah has to observe at least seven days in that state how can three days be considered “many,” seeing seven days is much more than three days? Furthermore, we find in Kings I 18,1 that the prophet Jeremiah speaks of: “it was during these many years when G’d spoke to Elijah in the third year saying to him: ‘show yourself to Achav and I will bring on rain.’” The fact is that this did not take place after three years but it was only a single month after the first year full year of the drought had been completed! The drought began at the beginning of the last month of the year during which Elijah had proclaimed it; it lasted the entire second year, i.e. at the end of the second year no rain had fallen for 13 months. [When G’d told Elijah to reveal himself to Achav, one month had passed of the third year, so that altogether the famine had been in effect for only 14 months. Ed.] Seeing that the period under discussion was one in which hardship and discomfort was experienced, even a relatively short period was described as “many years;” the same is true here. Seeing that the period during which the woman remains relatively isolated and suffers indisposition is an unpleasant period for her, the Torah describes even three days of such a period as ’many days.’

ואם טהרה מזובה, “when she becomes purified from her discharge, etc.;” when a woman with such a discharge begins the process of healing and purification she has to count seven days just as has the male who had experienced the discharge from his sexual organ. After the seven days have elapsed she is potentially pure, just as the male is potentially pure after the seven day count. This would have led us to believe that just as the male who had a similar discharge had to immerse himself in מים חיים, water directly from a spring, the woman would have to do the same.

Seeing that the words “and after that she will be purified” are unnecessary, the sages decided that the woman though not requiring מים חיים, spring water to complete her purification rites, does require immersion in the regular ritual bath

וספרה לה שבעת ימים, ”she has to count seven days for herself.” She does not have to recite a benediction prior to counting such as is the case when counting the Omer. The reason is that generally speaking, the benediction is recited immediately before the commandment is performed. In this instance, assuming that the woman in question were to see blood during the days she was counting, the days prior to that count would be retroactively annulled; as a result her benediction would amount to uttering the Lord’s name in vain. Due to such a consideration she is not allowed to recite the benediction over her count.

The reason why woman has been assigned the commandment to perform this count and the related procedures is best understood by the words of the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 13,17 that woman “spilled the blood of man,” i.e. caused his mortality. In return for this her own blood is to be spilled. This is also why the commandments to set aside challah and to light the Sabbath candles have been assigned to woman to give her an opportunity to rehabilitate the calamity original woman had caused. Adam was considered the challah of mankind, of the universe, as it were. Seeing that through her deed she extinguished the “light” of the universe on the original Sabbath eve, she was given the task to rehabilitate her species through the lighting of the Sabbath candles every Sabbath eve.

והזרתם את בני ישראל מטומאתם, “you shall separate the Children of Israel from their ritual impurities.” These additional words are the source for our sages having instructed husbands to separate from their wives when these are about to menstruate (Shevuot 18). As to the length of time a husband has to separate from his wife, Ravina said a 12-hour period. The Talmud Niddah 63 elaborates that if a woman was in the habit of seeing menstrual blood each month at midday, her husband has to stay away from her on that entire day, but he may cohabit with her on the preceding night. If she usually experiences this phenomenon in the second hour after daybreak, she is also still permitted to her husband on the preceding night. If, on the other hand, she usually notices such blood as beginning to flow during the night, even near daybreak, she is out of bounds for intercourse with her husband the entire night before that. However, she is permitted to her husband during the entire daylight period preceding that night. Even if she normally experiences a blood flow during the second hour of the night, her husband may still disregard her approaching menstruation until sunset before the night in question. According to theTalmud in Shevuot which we quoted, when a husband disregards these admonitions of the sages, his children (if not of age) even if of the excellence of the sons of Aaron, may be liable to die as a punishment for his lack of restraint. The sages derive all this from the admonition in our verse to separate themselves from contact with their contamination. Immediately after this paragraph the Torah reports (a second time) that the two older sons of Aaron had died. This may be taken as a warning. The sages have actually been warned by our verse to warn the people of the possible consequences of disregard of the instructions in this verse.

והדוה בנדתה, “concerning a woman experiencing this flow, etc.” The sequence in which the Torah has arranged all the paragraphs describing these sources of impurity originating in our bodies is this: the Torah first listed the male who experiences an involuntary discharge of something similar to seminal fluid (verse 2); next the Torah writes about the result of cohabitation between man and woman (verse 18) resulting in contamination, seeing that also the first example (verse 16) of man having a nocturnal emission had resulted in such contamination. As a result, the Torah here can write: “this is the legislation concerning the male who experiences a discharge” (verse 32). This is followed by the woman who experiences a vaginal discharge at times other than her menstrual cycle, followed by the woman who experiences her regular menstrual cycle (verse 33). At the very conclusion of our portion the Torah speaks about someone who defies this legislation by cohabiting with a woman while she is contaminated through vaginal discharge of either kind.

If the Torah had remained true to the sequence followed earlier, the words ולאיש אשר ישכב עם טמאה, “and concerning the man who cohabits with a woman who is in a state of contamination,” should have been written before the words לזכר ולנקבה which would have made a more appropriate ending for this portion. I believe the reason that the Torah changed the sequence of the words here was in order to conclude with the words עם טמאה, “with a contaminated woman,” in order to establish the conceptual linkage with the death of the sons of Aaron at the beginning of the next portion. The message is that the Israelites must be warned that unless they observe the laws legislated in our portion including separating themselves from their wives in anticipation of the menstrual cycle setting in, their children would be at risk. Tanchuma Acharey 6 quotes an opinion that the sons of Aaron died as they entered the Sanctuary in a state of ritual impurity not having purified themselves first. If that opinion is correct, the fact that our portion concludes with the words טמאה provides a conceptual link to the recapping of the death of the sons of Aaron in the following verse, the first in Parshat Acharey Mot. [Our author uses this verse to list all the various deficiencies the sons of Aaron have been accused of by the sages of the Midrash. Seeing this has been discussed at length in Leviticus 10,1, I have not repeated this here. Ed.]

A Midrashic approach to our verse based on Tanchuma Metzora 9: when the Torah writes והדוה בנדתה, this is a reference to the Jewish people whose contamination is comparable to that of a menstruous woman. Such a woman while conferring ritual impurity on others is nonetheless slated to become purified again. Similarly, Israel, though in a state in which it disseminates impurity is liable to become purified again as we know from Ezekiel 36,17 “their way used to be before Me like that of the contaminated state of the menstruous woman.” Significantly, the prophet does not compare the impurity and contamination of the Jewish people as like the impurity and contamination of a dead body which is so severe that a priest may not even enter the house in which a body is lying, but describes it as a far lesser degree of contamination. Had the prophet compared the impurity of the Jewish people to that of a dead body no hope would have been held out for the eventual return of the Shechinah to the people. However, seeing their degree of impurity is compared to that of a נדה, this means that just as a priest may enter the house of such a woman and sit on the porch, so G’d may spread the wings of His Shechinah over the Jewish people even before they have become purified from their state of contamination, i.e. even while they are still in exile among the pagans. We have a specific verse confirming this in Leviticus 16,16 השוכן אתם בתוך טומאתם, “Who dwells with them amidst their contamination.” In that verse G’d is saying that “you are contaminated only in this world; in the world to come. I will purify you once and for all;” we know this from Ezekiel 36,25: “I will sprinkle upon you pure water and cleanse you from all your contaminations and from all your filth I will purify you.”