Metzora מצורע

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

'תהיה תורת וגו ‎זאת THIS SHALL BE THE LAW [OF THE LEPER IN THE DAY OF HIS BEING PRONOUNCED CLEAN] — The words “in the day” inform us that we may not pronounce him clean at night (Sifra, Metzora, Section 1 3; Megillah 21a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אל מחוץ למחנה OUT OF THE CAMP — outside the three camps to where he (the leper) had been sent during the days he was decidedly a leper (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 13:46).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

חיות LIVING [BIRDS] — This term excludes רפות‎ט, birds that suffer from some fatal organic disease (חיות does not only mean “living”, but also “capable of continuing to live”).

הרות‎ט CLEAN — This term excludes an unclean bird (of a species that may not be eaten) (cf. Chullin 140a). Because the plagues of leprosy come as a punishment for slander, which is done by chattering, therefore birds are compulsory for his (the leper’s) purification, because these chatter, as it were, continuously with a twittering sound (Arakhin 16b).

ועץ ארז AND CEDAR WOOD — This lofty tree was used because plagues come also as a punishment for haughtiness (cf. Arakhin 16a).

ושני תולעת ואזוב AND CRIMSON AND HYSSOP — What is the remedy he should use, that he may be healed? Let him, abandoning pride, regard himself lowly as a worm (תולעת) and as hyssop (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Metzora 3).

עץ ארז means a stick of cedar wood (not a cedar tree).

שני תולעת — a strip of wool dyed crimson.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אל מים חיים OVER RUNNING WATER — He first places it (the water) in the vessel but only, just enough that the bird’s blood may remain discernible in it. And how much is this? The fourth of a log (Sotah 16b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

את הצפור החיה יקח אתה AS FOR THE LIVING BIRD HE SHALL‎ TAKE IT — The phrasing (since it does not state ‘‘the living bird and the cedar wood etc. he shall take”, but, “the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar stick etc.”) informs us that he does not bind it (the bird) together with them (the cedar wood etc.) but keeps it apart by itself. The cedar stick, however, and the hyssop are tied together by the crimson slip, just as it is stated: “and the cedar wood and the crimson slip and the hyssop” — one “taking” for the three (since these three are grouped together after the word יקח). One might think that just as it (the bird) does not come under the regulation as regards binding, so, too, it does not come under the regulation as regards “dipping”; it therefore states “and he shall dip them and the living bird” — thus it (Scripture) mentions the bird again in connection with them to bring it, too, under the regulation of dipping (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 1 6).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וישב מחוץ לאהלו AND HE SHALL ABIDE OUTSIDE HIS TENT — This informs us that matrimonial intercourse is forbidden to him (מחוץ לאהלו implies outside his home — his family life; cf. Deuteronomy 5:27: שובו לכם לאהליכם) (Sifra, Metzora, Section 2 11).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

את כל שערו [HE SHALL CUT OFF] ALL HIS HAIR etc. — We have a generalisation (“all his hair”), a particularisation (“his head and his beard and his eyebrows”), and again a generalisation (“and all his hair”). According to the rule of interpretation (מדה ו' י״ג מדות) the purpose of this is to include in the generalisation only such things as are similar to those contained in the particularisation; here it intends to include every spot of the body where there is a collection of hair, it (the hair) being visible (these being the characteristics of the head, beard and eyebrows) (Sotah 16a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וכבשה אחת AND ONE EWE-LAMB for a sin-offering.

ושלשה עשרנים AND THREE TENTH DEALS [OF FLOUR] — as the drink-offerings of these three he-lambs (Menachot 91a) — because the sin-offering and the guilt-offering of the leper require drink-offerings (although they are not required with other sin- and guilt-offerings).

ולג אחד שמן AND ONE LOG OF OIL — to sprinkle on his behalf before the Lord seven times (cf. v. 17), and to put of it upon the tip of his ear and for putting it upon his thumbs (v. 25).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

'לפני ה BEFORE THE LORD — i. e. in the gate of Nicanor and not in the court itself (Sifra, Metzora, Section 3 6; Sotah 8a), since he was still short of atonement (as the sin-offering had not yet been brought, and under such circumstances he was not permitted to enter the court).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והקריב אתו לאשם AND HE SHALL BRING IT FOR A GUILT-OFFERING - This means: he shall bring it inside the court as a guilt-offering to wave it, for it required waving whilst alive (for it states that he shall bring it “and the log of oil” and the latter was not brought as a sacrifice; besides, the act of slaughtering is mentioned in v. 13) (Menachot 62b),

והניף אתם AND HE SHALL WAVE THEM — the guilt-offering and the log of oil.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

‎ ‎'במקום אשר ישחט וגו‎‎‎ IN THE PLACE WHERE HE SHALL SLAUGHTER etc. — i.e. on the side of the altar on the north. But why is this stated at all? Has it not already been stated in in the law about the guilt-offering in the section צו את אהרן that the guilt-offering requires slaughtering on the north side of the altar? But because this guilt-offering has gone forth from (was made an exception to) the general rule of the guilt- offerings in that it is subject to the law of being placed before the Lord (v. 11), one might think that its slaughtering should be in the spot where it was placed (in the gateway of Nicanor; i. e. it shall be made an exception also in respect to the place where it should be slaughtered); on that account it states, “and he shall slaughter [the lamb] in the place where he slaughters [the sin-offering] etc ” (Sifra, Metzora, Section 3 8).

‎י כחטאת‏‎כ FOR AS THE SIN-OFFERING [SO IS THE GUILT-OFFERING TO THE PRIEST] — This means, for as all sin-offerings so this guilt-offering הוא לכהן is to the priest, i. e. as regards all sacrificial rites which depend upon the priest this guilt-offering is made exactly similar to the sin-offering. In order that you should not say: Since its blood is made an exception to the general rule governing other guilt-offerings in that this is placed upon the tip of the ear and upon the thumbs, it must also form an exception in that it should not require the placing of the blood and the fat portions upon the altar, it therefore expressly states, “for as all sin-offerings so is this guilt-offering to the priest” (לכהן, in reference to the priest, so far as he is concerned). One might also think that its blood must be sprinkled on the upper part of the altar as is the case with the sin-offering! Therefore it says: (Leviticus 7:1, 2) “it is most holy … and its blood shall he sprinkle round about the altar”. So it is set forth in Torath Cohanim (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 3 1; Zevachim 49a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

תנוך is the inner wall of the ear. The etymology of the word תנוך is unknown to me, and the compilers of glossaries call it (translate it by) tendron (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:22).

בהן means THUMB.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

'לפני ה‎ [AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE …] BEFORE THE LORD — in the direction of the Holy of Holies (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 3 9).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואת המנחה AND THE MEAL-OFFERING — the meal-offering of the drink-offering that accompanies an animal sacrifice.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ועשרון סלת אחד‎ AND ONE TENTH DEAL OF FLOUR — for this lamb which is a single one he shall bring one tenth part of flour to accompany its drink-offering.

שמן ‎‏ ולג AND A LOG OF OIL — to place of it upon the thumbs. The quantity of the oil required for the libations of the meal-offering Scripture did not find it necessary to specify here (since it is given in Numbers 15:4 where three logs are prescribed; consequently the one log mentioned hero cannot be intended for the libations but for placing on the thumbs).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ביום השמיני לטהרתו ON TIIE EIGHTH DAY OF HIS BEING PRONOUNCED CLEAN — i. e. the eighth day after the birds have been brought and he has been sprinkled with the cedar stick, the hyssop and the crimson wool (cf. v. 10).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

על מקום דם האשם UPON THE PLACE OF THE BLOOD OF THE GUILT-OFFERING — even though the blood has been wiped off; this teaches that it is not the presence of the blood that brings about the validity of this rite but it is the place (the fact that the oil has been placed on the proper spot) that brings it about (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 3 10; Menachot 10a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ונתתי נגע צרעת [WHEN YOU COME TO THE LAND …]I WILL PUT THE PLAGUE OF THE LEPROSY — This was an announcement to them that these plagues would come upon them (Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 4; Horayot 10a), because the Amorites concealed treasures of gold in the walls of their houses during the whole 40 years the Israelites were in the wilderness (in order that these might not possess them when they conquered Palestine,) and in consequence of the plague they would pull down the house and discover them (Leviticus Rabbah 17:6).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כנגע נראה לי בבית SOMETHING LIKE A PLAGUE HATH SHOWN ITSELF TO ME IN THE HOUSE — Even if he (the owner of the house) be a learned man and knows for sure that it is a plague he shall not decide the matter as a certainty saying, "a plague hath shown itself to me" but, “something like a plague hath shown itself to me" (Mishnah Negaim 12:5; Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 10).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

'בטרם יבא הכהן וגו‎ [THEY SHALL CLEAR THE HOUSE] BEFORE THE PRIEST COME etc. — For so long as the priest has not yet engaged himself with it no law of uncleanness is applicable there.

ולא יטמא כל אשר בבית THAT ALL THAT IS IN THE HOUSE BE NOT MADE UNCLEAN, for if he does not clear it out and the priest comes and examines the plague, it requires shutting up and all that is inside immediately becomes unclean. To what is it that the Torah has regard in ordering these precautions to be taken? If it had in mind wooden or metal vessels that need only be rinsed in order to restore them to cleanness, he can immerse them and they will become clean (and there is no need to remove them from the house for fear that they will become unclean if he does not do so), and if it has in mind food and liquids, he can eat them during the time of his uncleanness (in which case also he suffers no loss since he may consume them at a time when he himself happens to be unclean). Consequently it follows that the Torah must have regard only to earthen vessels for which there is no means of purification by immersion in a ritual bath (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 11:35) and which therefore will remain unusable except in connection with ordinary food (חולין) (Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 12).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

שקערורת denotes lying deep because of their colors (they appear to lie deep in the stones) (Sifra, Metzora, Section 6 5).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וחלצו את האבנים — Understand וחלצו as the Targum does: וישלפון, i.e. they shall remove them from there. It is similar to, (Deuteronomy 25:9) וחלצה נעלו— which is an expression for removing ("she shall remove his shoe”).

אל מקום טמא UNTO AN UNCLEAN PLACE — i. e. a place where clean things are not likely to be handled. Scripture teaches you that these stones make the place where they are deposited unclean for the time they are there.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

יקצע — rogner in old French, SCRAPE OFF, and in Mishnaic Hebrew it occurs many times.

‎מבית INSIDE.

סביב ROUND ABOUT — i. e. the place round about the plague-spot; and in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 4 5) it is also thus explained: that he shall peel off the plaster which is round about the area where the plague-stricken stones had been.

הקצו is connected in meaning with the word קצה, end, — it means: which they had scraped off at the edges of the plague-spot round about it. (The words mean: the dust which they have removed from the edges. It has nothing to do with “scraping off”).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

הִקְצוֹת — The grammatical form expresses the idea of something “having been done” (passive) and so, also, is the word הִטּוֹחַ (both are Niphal construct infinitive), but in חִלֵּץ את האבנים the expression refers to the man who removes them (i. e. it is active, the subject having to be supplied. The translation is: “after he has removed the stones”, whilst the following words denote: after the house has been scraped at its edges and after it has been plastered), it (the word חִלֵּץ) being of the heavy conjugation (Piel), just as כִּפֵּר and דִּבֵּר‎.

‎ ישוב מגע ‎ואם‎ AND IF THE PLAGUE RETURN [AND BREAK OUT IN THE HOUSE] — One might think that this means: if it returns on the self-same day it shall be unclean as it stated in v. 44. It, however, says, (v. 39) ושב הכהן “when the priest returns [on the seventh day]”, and here, also, it says, ואם ישוב, “and if it (the plague) return”. What is the case of “return” mentioned there? It is at the end of a week! Similarly, too, “return” mentioned here means at the end of a week (Sifra, Metzora, Section 7 6).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ובא הכהן וראה והנה פשה THEN THE PRIEST SHALL COME AND LOOK, AND, BEHOLD, IF THE PLAGUE HATH SPREAD … [IT IS UNCLEAN] — From this one might think that a recurring plague is unclean (i. e. renders the whole house unclean) only if it spreads. But the phrase צרעת ממארת. “a fretting leprosy”, is mentioned in connection with houses and the phrase. צרעת ממארת is mentioned in connection with garments (Leviticus 13:51), thus making that plague analogous to this: What is the case there? Scripture declares the recurring plague unclean although it has not spread (Leviticus 13:55)! Similarly, here, it declares the recurring plague unclean even though it has not spread. But if this be so, why does it state here “and, behold. [the plague] hath spread"? As a matter of fact this is not the proper place of the verse), and the statement “he shall pull down the house” (v. 45) it ought to have written immediately after (v. 43), “and if the plague return”). The words in v. 44, “he shall look, and, behold, if the plague hath spread”, consequently only intend to tell us something about a plague which has remained in the same condition during the first week, and to which he (the priest) comes at the end of the second week and finds that it has spread, for Scripture has not explained anything at all about the case where the plague remains in the same condition during the first week. (It speaks in v. 39 only of when the plague has spread during the first week.) It tells us here (in the section which speaks about what happens a week after the house has been scraped etc., i. e. after the end of the second week) the law regarding it by mention of this spreading (i. e. by the words וראה והנה פשה) which can only speak of the case that it remained in the same condition during the first week, and has spread during the second week. Now what shall he do with it? One might think that he must demolish it, even as it states immediately after it, (v. 45) “He shall break down the house”. It, however, states, (v. 39) “if the priest returneth” at the end of the week and finds that it has spread, and (v. 44) “and if the priest cometh” at the end of the second week and now finds that for the first time it has spread — thus we may learn what is to be done after this “coming" from what happens after that “returning”! What is the law in the case of that “returning”? He must remove the stones, scrape and re-plaster (vv. 40—42), and give it another week! Similarly, here, in the case of this “coming” after a second week, he must remove the stones, scrape and re-plaster and give it a further week! If it recurs he must demolish the house: if it does not recur, the house is clean. And whence may we infer that if it remained in the same condition both during this week (the first) and that (the second), he must remove the stones, scrape and re-plaster, and give it another week (just as he did when it spread in the second week, as we have just stated)? Because it states, (v. 44) ובא ”and if [the priest] cometh”, and (v. 48) ואם בא יבא “and if [the priest] cometh”, the expression “coming” being used in each case to indicate an analogy between them, the reasoning being as follows: About what can this verse 48 which refers to the plague not having spread be speaking? If you say it speaks of a plague which has spread during the first week but did not spread during the second week, behold, this has already been mentioned (vv. 39—43, and second half of v. 44)! If you say that it speaks of a plague which has spread during the second week but has not spread during the first week, behold, this has already been mentioned (v. 44 according to Rashi's explanation above). Consequently it can only be saying the words ואם בא יבא, “if having come once (בא), he cometh again (יבא)”, about one who comes at the end of the first week and comes again at the end of the second week, “and, behold, [the plague] had not spread” in either instance. In the case of such a plague which remains as it was during two successive weeks, what shall he do to it? One might think he departs and gets himself off without doing anything more because the house is clean, since it states here (immediately afterwards), “he shall pronounce the house clean”. It, however, states, “if the plague is healed”, — which implies that Scripture says as it were: I do declare clean only the plague which is healed (i. e. when something has been done by which it is removed). What, then, shall he do to it? The reply is: above (v. 44) it has spoken of “coming”, and further on (v. 48) it also speaks of “coming”. What is the law in the previous case? He removes the stones, scrapes and re-plasters and gives it another week — for, as we have stated above, we have it as tradition that “return” (v. 39: ושב הכהן) and “coming” (v. 44: ובא הכהן) are identical in regard to their law; similarly, too, must be done in the later case (v. 48 which as we have proved, must be speaking of עמד בראשון ובשני etc.), as it is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Metzora, Section 7 10). The conclusion of the matter is: Demolishing a house takes place only in the case of a plague that recurs after removal of the stones, scraping and re-plastering, and such a recurring plague does not require that it should also have spread in order to make it necessary to demolish the house. The sequence of the verses is as follows: “If it returns” (v. 48), “he shall break down” (v. 45), “But if one cometh” (v. 46) “[And he that lieth in the house] … and he that eateth in the house” (v. 47), and only then v. 44: “And if the priest come and look, and, behold, the plague hath spread”; — and the last verse speaks, as shown above, of the case of a plague that remained as it was during the first week to which one has therefore given a second week for being shut up, and at the end of the second week he comes and sees it that it has spread. And what shall he do to it? He removes the stones, scrapes and re-plasters and gives it another week. If it returns he demolishes the house, if it does not return, it is clean and requires two birds for purification, but this third week is the utmost time for investigation, for not more than three weeks are to be spent in the investigation of plagues.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כל ימי הסגיר אתו [AND HE THAT COMES INTO THE HOUSE] ALL THE DAYS THAT IT IS SHUT UP [SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING] — "the days that it is shut up", but not during the days in which he had scraped the plague-spot (for through the scraping the uncleanness has, at least for the time being, departed, and the house is only closed again for investigation). I might think that I may also exclude from this law the house that is decidedly unclean through a recurring plague and which must be demolished from which one has scraped the plague-spot (but which has not yet been demolished, for we might assume that for the time being the uncleanness is departed)! It, however, states, "all the days" (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 5 4).

יטמא עד הערב [AND HE THAT COMES INTO THE HOUSE] SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING — This tells us that merely going into the house does not render his garments unclean (since it does not state, as in the next verse, that he shall wash his garments) (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 5 5). I might think that his garments do not become unclean even if, after coming into the house, he remained there long enough to eat a half-loaf (an ordinary meal, equal in mass to 4 eggs)! It, however, states, (v. 47) "And he that eateth in the house shall wash his garments", for we may reason as follows: I have here only the law regarding one who actually eats. Whence may I derive that this applies also to one who sleeps in the house? Because Scripture states "and he who sleeps [shall wash his garments]". Now I have only the law regarding one who eats and regarding one who sleeps in the house; whence may I derive that the same law applies to one who neither eats nor sleeps (but merely stays in the house)? Because it states ‎יכבס יכבס (twice) in v. 47 where it could have written: והשכב והאכל בבית יכבס את בגדיו, and such wording would imply that only those who actually sleep and eat in the house must wash their garments. By the insertion of the first יכבס we have two coordinated sentences of similar import and this suggests that sleeping and eating are merely examples of cases where garments would require washing. Thus the use of the first יכבס serves to include besides one who sleeps and one who eats in the house anyone who stays there. If this be so (i. e. if it means that the garments of anyone who stays in the house become unclean) why does it expressly mention one who eats and one who sleeps? Let it merely state: one who stays in the house shall wash his garments, when these also would be included! But this is done in order to designate for him who sleeps in the house (i. e. who does anything in the house beyond entering and immediately leaving it, as is mentioned in v. 46) a minimum period of time the stay during which renders his garments unclean, viz., a time long enough to eat a half-loaf (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 5 7-8).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואם בא יבא AND IF [THE PRIEST] SHALL COME IN at the end of the second week,

וראה והנה לא פשה AND LOOK UPON IT, AND, BEHOLD, THE PLAGUE HATH NOT SPREAD … [THEN THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE THE HOUSE CLEAN].— This verse, as shown above, is intended to teach the law regarding the case that it (the plague) has stayed as it was during both the first week and the second week. What shall he do to it? One might think that he shall pronounce it clean just as the verse literally implies: וטהר הכהן את הבית "and the priest shall pronounce the house clean"! It, however, states, "[The priest shall declare the house clean] כי נרפא הנגע if the plague is healed" — Scripture says, as it were, I pronounce clean only that plague which is healed, and only that house is healed which has been scraped and re-plastered and in which the plague has not recurred, but this, in which during two weeks the plague has remained in the same condition, is not yet healed and thus not yet clean, and requires removal of the stones, scraping and re-plastering and yet a third week. And the verse is accordingly to be explained as follows: ואם בא יבא, And if having come once he comes again at the end of the second week and he looks upon it, and, behold, it has not spread, he shall re-plaster it and of course also remove the stones and scrape it — for re-plastering never takes place without removal of the stones and scraping (and Scripture merely states אחרי הטוח for the sake of brevity) — אחרי הטוח את הבית and after the house has been re-plastered, וטהר הכהן את הבית, shall the priest pronounce clean, if the plague has not returned at the end of the third week, כי נרפא הנגע FOR THEN THE PLAGUE IS HEALED. If, however, it has returned at the end of that week it is unnecessary to state the law here since it has already explained regarding a recurring plague that it requires the demolition of the house (cf. Rashi on v. 44).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

להורת ביום הטמא — This may be translated: TO GIVE INSTRUCTION "CONCERNING" THE DAY OF ITS BEING UNCLEAN, i. e. which day renders it clean and which day renders it unclean (to point out that particular day on which, according to circumstances, a house or a garment or a person is to be declared clean or unclean).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כי יהיה זב WHEN THERE BE A RUNNING ISSUE — One might think if there be a running issue from any portion of his body (e. g., ear, nose) he shall be unclean! Therefore it states מבשרו “from his flesh" (i.e. from some part of his flesh) and not from all parts of his flesh (the prefix מ is a partitive מ). Now, however, that Scripture has made a difference between one part of his flesh and another part of his flesh, I have the right to draw a conclusion: it (the Torah) pronounces uncleanness in a case of a man with a running issue (זב) and it pronounces uncleanness in a particular case of a woman with a running issue (זבה). How is it in the case of a זבה? Through that place in her body where she becomes unclean with a lighter uncleanness, viz., that of a נדה, she also becomes unclean with a more stringent uncleanness i.e. through זיבה, a continuance of the issue beyond the usual period! Similarly the זב: through the place where he becomes unclean with a lighter uncleanness, viz., קרי, (an involuntary emission of semen which makes him unclean only until evening; cf. v. 16), he also becomes unclean through a more stringent uncleanness, viz., זיבה (when he is unclean seven days and must bring a sacrifice; cf. vv. 13 ff. with 16 ff.; from the latter it is evident which part of the body is in question; it follows logically that the same part is here intended) (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 1 5).

טמא‎ זובו HIS ISSUE IS UNCLEAN — This teaches regarding a drop (i.e. the semen itself) that it communicates uncleanness (and it is not only the man that has the issue who is unclean) (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 1 8-9; Niddah 55a). The זב issue referred to here is similar to water of dough (that runs out of dough) made of barley and it is dissolved (fluid) being similar to the white of an addled egg (where the white and the yolk have run together); שכבת זרע, however, is viscid and looks like the white of an egg that has not become addled (Niddah 35b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

רר [WHETHER HIS FLESH] DRIP — This word is connected with ריר "spittle" — the meaning is that his flesh runs with its issue as spittle, i. e. that it (the flow) comes forth clear in appearance (not thick and troubled).

או החתים OR [HIS FLESH] BE STOPPED — it means, that the flow issues thick and closes up the orifice of the membrum, so that his flesh is stopped up by the drop that issued from him. This is its literal meaning. The Halachic explanation is: The first verse (v. 2) enumerates two appearances of the issue and then terms him (the man affected by them) unclean, for it is said, "when there flows from his flesh a flowing he is unclean" and the other verse (v. 3) enumerates three appearances of the issue and only then terms him unclean, as it is said, "his uncleanness through his flow: if his flesh drips through its flow as with spittle, or if his flesh is stopped up through his flowing then only is it his uncleanness!" How can this be reconciled? Two appearances of the flow serve to make him unclean, and the third obligates him also to bring an offering (Niddah 43b; Megillah 8a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כל המשכב EVERY PLACE OF REPOSE — This means: everything that is fitted for sleeping on (thus excluding a door or plank etc.). One might, however, think that it includes anything intended for some other action also, as long as it can be used for sleeping and he actually slept upon it! It, however, states אשר ישכב — it does not state אשר שכב, “upon which one has slept" but אשר ישכב, “upon which one sleeps usually" — i.e. that which is intended to be used for this always, thus excluding that of which people can say to him, “Get up and let us to our work [with that upon which you are lying]" (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 1 1-3).

אשר ישב [EVERYTHING] WHEREON HE SITTETH — It is not said here ‎יָשַׁב ‎‏ אשר, "on which he has sat", but אשר יֵשֵׁב, “on which one sits usually" — it speaks therefore of something that is intended to be used for this always (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 1 3; Shabbat 59a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואיש אשר יגע במשכבו AND WHOSOEVER TOUCHES HIS PLACE OF REPOSE [SHALL WASH HIS GARMENTS … AND BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING] — This tells us regarding the object on which he lies down that it is more stringent than an object touched by him in any manner other than lying on it — for this (the former) becomes a primary source of uncleanness (אב הטומאה) communicating uncleanness to any man who touches it, he in turn making unclean the garments he happens to wear at that moment, while anything touched by him that is not his bed becomes only a secondary source of uncleanness of the first degree (ולד הטומאה) communicating uncleanness only to food and drink (but not to men or garments) (cf. Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 2 1).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והישב על הכלי AND HE THAT SITTETH ON ANY THING [WHEREON HE SAT THAT HATH AN ISSUE … SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — even though he (the person) is not actually in contact with it: even if there be ten things one upon the other, the lowest being that upon which a זב has once sat, they all communicate uncleanness according to the law applicable to a seat upon which an unclean person has sat, and similarly is the case with an object upon which he has lain (cf. Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 3 1).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וכי ירק הזב בטהור AND IF HE THAT HATH THE ISSUE SPIT UPON ONE WHO IS CLEAN — and he (the clean person) comes in contact with it (the spittle; i. e. it actually falls upon him) or even if he only bears it (i. e. it has, for instance, fallen upon a stick which he is carrying) then HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN, for the spittle communicates uncleanness through carrying it (cf. Niddah 55b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וכל המרכב AND ANYTHING FOR RIDING — even though he has not sat upon it when riding, e. g. the hold in front of the saddle, which is called arcon in old French, becomes unclean as a part of something for riding on (משום מרכב), and the אוכף, saddle, which is called alves in old French, is unclean as being something to sit upon (משום מושב) (Eruvin 27a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וכל הנגע בכל אשר יהיה תחתיו AND WHOSOEVER TOUCHETH ANYTHING THAT WAS תחתיו — under the זב. This intends to teach regarding such an object for riding upon (if a זב has ridden on it) that whoever touches it becomes unclean, but he does not require washing of clothes and this is something stricter in the case of a thing for sleeping on than in that of a thing for riding on (since the former necessitates that his garments should be washed; cf. v. 5).

והנושא אותם AND HE THAT BEARETH THEM — “them” means all that have been mentioned in the matter of a זב — his flow, his spittle, his semen, and his urine, and that upon which he has slept or ridden — the bearing of them makes a man unclean so that he in turn makes his garments unclean (cf. Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 4 4).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וידיו לא שטף כמים [AND WHOMSOEVER HE THAT HATH THE ISSUE] TOUCHETH AND HE HATH NOT RINSED HIS HANDS IN WATER [… SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN] — "and has not rinsed his hands” means: so long as he (the זב) has not immersed himself to cleanse himself from his uncleanness: even if he has ceased from his issue and has counted seven clean days (v. 13) but still lacks immersion he communicates uncleanness in all forms of defilment peculiar to him. And the reason why Scripture expresses the immersion of the whole body of the זב by the term “rinsing his hands” is to teach you that the hidden parts of the body (בית הסתרים, the inside of the mouth, ear, nose, etc., and the folds between adjoining portions of the body, קמטים) do not require “the coming of water” upon them (i. e. need not become wet when he immerses himself), but only such a limb which is visible, such as the hands (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 4 5).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וכלי חרס אשר יגע בו הזב AND THE VESSEL OF EARTH THAT HE WHO HATH THE ISSUE TOUCHETH [SHALL BE BROKEN] — One might think that the law applies also if he touched it from outside (its exterior) etc., as it is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 3 1).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וכי יטהר means WHEN HE CEASETH [FROM HIS ISSUE] (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 5 1).

שבעת ימים לטהרתו [THEN SHALL HE NUMBER TO HIMSELF] SEVEN DAYS FROM THE DATE WHEN HE CEASED — i. e. seven days clean (free) from the uncleanness resulting from the issue, i. e. in which he sees no issue, and all of them (of the seven days) must be consecutive (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 5 6).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ורחצו במים THEY SHALL BOTH LAVE THEMSELVES IN WATER — It is a decree of the King that a woman should become unclean through sexual intercourse. The reason is not because of the law of “one who touches שכבת זרע” (who, according to Leviticus 22:7 is unclean; cf. Sifra on that verse) for in her case it is מגע בית הסתרים and this does not render her unclean (Niddah 41b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כי תהיה זבה AND IF A WOMAN HAVE AN ISSUE — One might think that this means: if there be an, issue from any limb of her body (e. g. ear, nose)! It, however, states in a law referring to this matter, (Leviticus 20:18) “and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood” — only that issue of blood therefore makes her unclean which comes from her fountain (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 4 2).

דם יהיה זובה בבשרה AND HER ISSUE IN HER FLESH BE BLOOD — Her issue does not come under the term “flux” to cause uncleanness except if it is red (cf. Niddah 19a).

בנדתה [SHE SHALL BE] PUT APART [SEVEN DAYS] — The word has the same meaning as, (Job. 18:18) “and they shall drive him out (ינדהו) of the world” — and her state is so called because she is set apart from the touch of any person (separated, so that no-one shall touch her).

תהיה בנדתה [SEVEN DAYS] SHALL SHE BE IN HER SEPARATION. even though she has seen a show of blood only once (lit., only the first show — i. e., not 7 days continuously) (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 4 5).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואם על המשכב הוא AND IF ONE BE ON HER PLACE OF REPOSE [OR ON ANY THING WHEREON SHE SITTETH] — This means, one who sleeps or sits on the place where she has slept or has sat even though he does not directly touch it (e. g. if there are covers upon the couch or the seat; for if he touches it vv. 21 and 22 apply); he also comes under the law of uncleanness that is stated in the above verse — that he requires washing of garments.

על הכלי UPON A VESSEL — This is intended to add to משכב and מושב any article for riding on (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 4 15).

בנגעו בו WHEN HE TOUCHETH IT — "it" (בו) — this refers only to מרכב which, as has just been stated, is included in the law on account of the words על הכלי.

בנגעו בו יטמא WHEN HE TOUCHETH IT HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN, but does not require washing of the garments, because so far as the מרכב is concerned its being touched does not communicate uncleanness to people so that they in turn should render their garments unclean (cf. Mishnah Kelim 23:3).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ותהי נדתה עליו [AND IF ANY MAN LIE WITH HER AT ALL] THEN SHALL HER UNCLEANLINESS OF SEPARATION BE UPON HIM — One might think that he follows in her wake — that if he had intercourse with her e. g. on the fifth day of her separation he shall become unclean for three days only (for the fifth, sixth and seventh) like herself (i. e. because these are the remaining days during which she is unclean)! Scripture, however, states: "he shall be unclean seven days”. Therefore these words cannot refer to the duration of her uncleanness. What then is the force of ותהי נדתה עליו? They mean: her state of uncleanness as a נדה shall be upon him. How is it in the case of her? She, being an אב הטומאה, makes man unclean, and also earthen vessels by means of ‎‎היסט! So, too, he becomes an אב הטומאה (not a ולד הטומאה), and makes man unclean, and also earthen vessels by means‎ of היסט! (Niddah 33a)

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

‎ימים רבים [AND IF A WOMAN HAVE AN ISSUE OF HER BLOOD] MANY DAYS — at least three days (since the plural ימים suggests at least two days, the word רבים, “more", must imply at least three days) (cf. Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 5 9),

בלא עת נדתה OUT OF THE TIME OF HER SEPARATION — i. e. at least three days immediately after the seven normal days of her separation have expired.

או כי תזוב OR IF SHE HAS A FLOW during these (the above mentioned) three days,

על נדתה BEYOND THE TIME OF HER SEPARATION — i. e. being remote (distant) from her time of separation by one intervening day — this woman (such a woman) is, in both cases, termed a זבה and the law regarding her is decreed in this section that follows; and it is not like the law of a נדה, because she (the former) requires the counting of seven clean days (i. e. her uncleanness does not end until she has counted שבעה נקיים, seven consecutive days that are clean of any flux; cf. v. 28) and a sacrifice on the following day (cf. v. 29); whilst the נדה does not require the counting of the clean days (i. e. התורה ‎מן nor does she require a sacrifice) but she remains seven days in her separation and no longer irrespective as to whether she has or has not seen a show of blood (i. e. even if there is a flow on the seventh day and it then ceases she is still clean on the eighth day after having immersed herself). And they (our Rabbis) in expounding this section in the Sifra explain. There are eleven days intervening between the end of one ,נדה-period and the beginning of the next נדה-period, so that if she sees blood on three immersed herself. And they (our Rabbis) in expounding this section (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 8 2-3) derived the Halacha of the eleven days that intervene between the expiration of one נדה period and the commencement of another ‎נדה period — i. e. that as a result of any three consecutive days that she sees blood within these eleven days she shall be (come under the law of) a זבה and not a נדה.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והזרתם THUS SHALL YE PUT APART [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — The word נזר has wherever it occurs the meaning of "separating". Similar is (Isaiah 1:4) “they are gone away (נזורו) backward" ; (Genesis 49:26) “him that was separated from (נזיר) his brethren” (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 9 6).

ולא ימתו בטמאתם THAT THEY DIE NOT IN THEIR UNCLEANNESS [WHEN THEY DEFILE MY TABERNACLE] — Thus you see that the penalty of “excision” to which one who defiles the Holy Place is subject (cf. Numbers 19:13) is here called מיתה (i. e. מיתה בידי שמים) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 125).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

זאת תורת הזב THIS IS THE LAW OF HIM THAT HATH AN ISSUE, i.e. anyone who has but one appearance of flux. And what is his law?

ואשר תצא ממנו שכבת זרע, he is like him to whom a pollution happened: he is unclean with an uncleanness lasting only till the evening (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 9 8; cf. v. 16).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והזב את זובו — This refers to anyone who has two appearances and to anyone who has three appearances, the law regarding whom is set forth above (cf. Rashi on v. 3).