Commentary for Zavim 1:7

הרואה ראיה אחת של זוב – flux that comes from the flesh of a corpse and it is similar to the white of a rotten/smashed egg. But effusion of semen comes from flesh that has not died, and is joined like the white of an egg that is not rotten/smashed.

If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes day a for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. The two houses disagree in this mishnah concerning a man who had one emission of discharge of zov (see intro for all terms). According to Bet Shammai his status is like a woman who had an emission of zivah one time. Such a woman must wait a day and if she is pure that day, she will be pure at the end of the day. If she sees zivah for three straight days then she will be a full zavah. So too a man who saw one issue of zov must wait a day to see if he sees another issue. If he does, he is a zav and he will retroactively defile everything he touched, laid upon or sat upon from the time he saw the first issue. One who shifts the zov itself is also defiled. Bet Hillel says that a man who has had one issue of zov has the same status as one who has had a seminal emission. He does not defile things by laying on them or sitting on them and one who shifts the semen is not defiled. If he sees a second time, then he is a zav, but only from that point and onward.

בית שמאי אומרים כשומרת יום [כנגד יום] (like a woman who observes a day for a day) – for even though she is not a complete woman who experiences a flow of menstrual-type blood on three consecutive days during a time of the month when she is not due to experience menstrual bleeding until three sightings, nevertheless, with one sighting, she makes a surface designated for lying and sitting ritually impure, just like a person with gonorrhea, even though he does not become a complete person with gonorrhea/flux until three sightings, nevertheless, with one sighting he makes surfaces designated for lying and sitting ritually impure.

Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. As we learned in the introduction, a full zav is one who saw three issues in one day or one issue for three straight days. The two houses here debate concerning a man who saw three issues, but not in one day or in three straight days. According to Bet Shammai this person is considered a full zav, for the first sighting of zov counts with the second two. Not only is he impure and must immerse in living water, but he is also liable to bring a sacrifice. Bet Hillel says that the discharge on the first day does not count together with the discharges that came two days later. Therefore, he is considered as if he had seen discharge only twice. He defiles through lying or sitting and he must immerse in living waters (a live spring, not a mikveh), as must a zav, but he is not liable for a sacrifice.

ובית הלל אומר כבעל קרי (like a person who experienced a seminal emission) -and he does not make surfaces designated for lying and sitting ritually impure, and a sighting does not defile through carrying, but only through contact/touching.

Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah disagrees with the version of this dispute contained in section two. According to him since he only saw zov once and then had a day in which he was pure, the sightings on the third day do not join the sighting on the first day.

ראה אחת ובשני הפסיק ובשלישי ראה שתים – for if he saw two sightings on one day or on two consecutive days, he must count seven clean [days], and he is exempt from the sacrifice. But if he saw three sightings on one day or on three consecutive days, he must count seven clean [days] and he is liable for a sacrifice, as it teaches in a Baraita: Scripture counted two [days] and called him ritually impure, as it is written (Leviticus 15:2): “When any man has a discharge issuing from his member, he is impure”/"זב מבשרו זובו טמא הוא"; three [sightings] and he is called impure, (Leviticus 15:3): “The impurity from his discharge shall mean the following – whether his member runs with the discharge or is stopped up so that there is no discharge, his impurity means this:”/ואתה תהיה טומאתו בזובו רר בשרו את-זובו או-החתים בשרו מזובו טמאתו היא.", how so? Two [sightings] for ritual impurity and three [sightings] for [an obligatory] sacrifice. But a woman who experiences a flow of menstrual-type blood on three consecutive days during a time of the month when she is not due to experience menstrual bleeding/זבה if she saw many sightings on one day or on two days not during the time of her menstrual bleeding, observes one day in cleanliness and she is ritually pure in the evening. But if she saw three sightings [of non-menstrual bleeding] on three consecutive days, she needs to count seven clean days and she is liable for a sacrifice. For concerning a זבה/a woman who experiences a flow of menstrual -type blood on three consecutive days during a time of the month when she is not due to experience menstrual bleeding, it is written (Leviticus 15:25): "ואשה כי-תזוב [יזוב] דמה ימים רבים בלא עת-נדתה"/When a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her menstrual impurity” (The text of Bartenura “misquotes” the Biblical verse -what is in brackets is what is found in the text of the Torah); [The word] "ימים"/days- are two; [the word] "רבים" /many – are “three.” Scripture suspends/hangs the man who has gonorrhea through sightings, and the woman who has discharges of blood outside the time of her menstrual impurity through days, and now it states, that if the man who has a flux has three sightings, but that he stopped for one day between the first sighting and the latter two sightings.

What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah says that the disagreement is concerning a slightly different situation. He saw zov twice on the first day, or one discharge that counted as twice. Now he is clearly a zav, although he is not yet liable for a sacrifice. If he sees discharge again on the third day, Bet Shammai says that since he is already a zav, this sighting joins with the first two and he is a full zav. Bet Hillel maintains their opinion that unless he sees for three straight days or three times on one day, he is not a full zav.

בית שמאין אומרים זב גמור [he is a complete man with flux/gonorrhea] and he is liable for a sacrifice like a person with three sightings.

ובית הלל אומרים – the pure day [in-between] nullified the first sighting, and there isn’t here other than the two latter sightings [of flux], and he is exempt from the sacrifice.

מודים בית שמאי בזה שאינו זב גמור – for the pure day that interrupted nullified the first sighting, as we have stated.

על מה נחלקו על הרואה שתים וכו', בית שמאי אומרים זב גמור – for since it was joined to the counting of seven [days] when he saw two [sightings] at the outset, the sighting nullified the pure day (i.e., without sightings), and he has in his hands three sightings.

ביום השלישי לספירת זובו – as for example, a personw ho two sightings who needs to count seven clean [days], and he counted the first and the second, and on the third saw an emission, it invalidates the two days that preceded it, and he returns and counts seven [days] like at the outset.

Introduction A zav must wait for seven clean days to become pure. Our mishnah deals with a man who during those seven days in which he is supposed to be clean sees a discharge of semen.

לא סתר אלא יומו – and he counts five [days] to complete the seven, for the first two did not count for him.

If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Bet Shammai holds that if he has a seminal discharge on the third day of waiting to become clean from his zov, the first two days of cleanness are undone. He must now start his count over again. Bet Hillel says it only undoes the day on which he experienced the discharge. After that day he may resume his count.

הרואה בשני – that he counted one [clean day], and on the second saw an emission, he invalidated that which was before it, even according to the School of Hillel, but Rabbi Akiba holds that in this also they disagree. But the Halakah is not according to Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day. Rabbi Ishmael says that even Bet Hillel agrees that if one sees a seminal discharge on the second day, it undoes the first day. He must have two days of cleanness for them not to be undone.

ומודים – The School of Shammai. ברואה קרי ברביעי שלא סתר אלא יומו – that those that were before it counted for him. For specifically when the fluxes were not interrupted with three clean days, according to the number of days that makes a person a complete זב, it is this case where the School of Shammai states that the effusion of semen invalidates it, but after three pure days have passed, the School of Shammai agrees that an emission does not invalidate anything other than that day, and in this that one calls that a person with gonorrhea invalidates, one derives from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 15:32): “This is the ritual concerning him who has a discharge: concerning him who has an emission of semen and becomes impure thereby.” Just as flux invalidates, even effusion of semen invalidates. If just as a flux invalidates everything, so the effusion of semen invalidates everything, the inference teaches us (Leviticus 15:32): "לטמאה בה"/”and become pure thereby,” she only has one day. But if he saw a flux, even on the seventh day, it invalidates what is before it, as it is written (Leviticus 15:13): “[he shall count off] seven days for his purification,” until all seven days would be pure from the discharges.

But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael and maintains that according to Bet Hillel it doesn't matter whether the seminal discharge occurred on the third or second day; in both cases Bet Hillel holds that it causes only that day not to count.

But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day. The two houses agree that if he counted three full days of cleanness, they are not undone by seeing a seminal discharge. This is because three days is the amount of time it takes one to become a zav in the first place.

This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded. However, this is only true if he had a discharge of semen. The two houses argue whether and when a discharge of semen undoes the clean period for a zav. But if he sees another issue of zov, clearly this undoes the entire clean period and he must start the count all over again.

הרי זה זב גמור – and he is liable for a sacrifice, for the All-Merciful suspended it/hung it upon appearances, as it is written (Leviticus 15:3): “the impurity from his discharge”/"טומאתו בזובו", and the impurity is dependent upon his discharge, but it is not dependent upon the days. However, when there is an interruption in-between as the School of Hillel states above (in Tractate Zavim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2), he is not a complete Zav, and the appearances do not combine, there is no difference regarding the matter of impurity as for example, that he saw two appearances alone with the interruption of the day in-between and there is no difference regarding the matter of a sacrifice, as for example that he saw three appearances [of emissions].

If he saw one issue on one day and two on the next day, or two on one day and one on the next day, or three on three [consecutive] days, or three nights, he is a full zav. This mishnah lays out the bottom line rule with regard to what is required for a person to become a full zav. If he has a three discharges on up to three days or nights straight, no matter what the combo, he is a full zav. He must bring a sacrifice at the end of his period of cleanness. We should note that this is different from a zavah. For a woman to become a zavah she must have non-menstrual blood flow on three consecutive days. Three times on one day does not make her a zavah.

כדי טבילה וסיפוג (long enough to immerse/bathe and dry one’s self) – in order that he can ritually immerse and wipe himself off after the ritual immersion, but less than this measurement is not an interruption, and it is not considered other than one appearance.

If he saw one [issue] and it stopped long enough for an immersion and a drying, and after that he saw two issues, or one as copious as two;
Or if he saw two [issues] or one as copious as two, and it stopped long enough for an immersion and a drying, and after that he again saw an issue, he is a full zav.
This mishnah deals with the question of how to determine if one discharge should be divided into two. In other words, how long must there be between discharges for them to count as two?
The answer in both of these cases is that if the flow stops long enough for him to have immersed and then dried off, the second flow is considered to be new.

או אחת מרובה כשתים – that he had between the beginning of the first appearance and the end of the appearance in order that he could perform a ritual immersion and wipe himself off, and he would continually see [the emission] without interruption.

כמין גד יון לשילוח – a place in Jerusalem that the Canaanite kings preserved idolatrous worship, and that same place was distant from the Shiloah as a measure [of time] of twice bathing and getting dry. Like from Gad Yon. It is the language of (Isaiah 65:11): “Who set a table for Luck” (a name of heathen deity). Shiloah is the name of the river, as it is written (Isaiah 8:6): “Because that people has spurned the gently flowing waters of Siloam” (the conduit – and later the tunnel – of Siloam conveyed into Jerusalem the waters of Gihon, which symbolize “The LORD of Hosts who dwells on Mount Zion – see verse 18).

If he saw one issue which was as copious as three, lasting as long [as it takes to go] from Gad-Yav to Shiloah, which is the time it would take to bathe and dry twice, he becomes a full zav. The mishnah now mentions the possibility that a man could have one issue of zov (discharge) and it would be sufficient to count as all three issues necessary to become a full zav. The discharge would have to last long enough to bathe and dry twice, once in between each issue, had they been separate. In addition, the mishnah defines this as the time it would take to walk from a place called Gad Yavan to the Shiloah spring in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, we don't know where "Gad Yavan" is. But assumedly it is near the Shiloah spring, the source of water for the ancient city of Jerusalem.

מטמא משכב ומושב – that we consider it as two sightings.

If he saw one issue which was as copious as two, he defiles [objects] on which he lies or sits and he must immerse in running water, but he is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. One issue can count as two to make a man into a zav, but not a full zav. The difference between a full zav and a zav is that a full zav must bring a sacrifice at the end of his period of cleanness.

אלא אם ען יש בה כדי שלש (unless it sufficed to make up three [emissions]) – as for exzmple like from Gad Yon to Shiloah, for then it is considered like a complete Zav, even with regard to the sacrifice. But with one profuse as two, they do not divide it, and it is considered like one sighting. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

Rabbi Yose said: they have not spoken of "one issue as copious" unless there was sufficient to make up three. Rabbi Yose said that there is no legal consequences to seeing one issue of zov that is as copious as two. Either the issue was as copious as three, in which case he would be a full zav, or it would count as only one. This means that Rabbi Yose would disagree with most of the mishnayot that we have seen so far in this chapter.

אם ידוע שמקצת הראיה מהיום וקצתה למחר – that he saw part of the appearance [of the flux] at the end of today and part of it at the beginning of the night of the morrow, even though there weren’t between them [sufficient time] in order to perform [both] the ritual immersion and the drying off, they are considered as two appearances [of flux], because the days divide them.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with a man who has an issue at twilight. The question is does the change of day divide one issue into two issues?

ודאי לקרבן ולטומאה – that there are three appearances [of flux] here. And that of at twilight is divided into two [appearances], since there is in it from two [different and consecutive] days.

If he saw one issue during the day and another at twilight, or one at twilight and the other the next day: If he knew that part of the issue occurred at day-time and part the next day, he is certain with regard to a sacrifice and uncleanness. But if it is in doubt whether part [of the issue] occurred at day-time and part on the next day he is certain with regard to uncleanness, but in one of doubt in with regard a sacrifice. In this case a person had an issue of zov during the day and then another at twilight, a time which is not easy to determine as either night or day. Or he had an issue at twilight and then another the following day. We need to determine whether the issue he had at twilight counts as two issues, such that he is now a full zav. Or does it count as only one, such that he is a zav, but not a full zav? If he knew that part of the issue that happened at twilight occurred during one day and part the next, then he would certainly be impure and he would certainly be liable for a sacrifice. We learn here that a new day causes one issue to be legally considered two. [We should note that I'm not sure if it's all that possible to know whether it occurred during one day or the next day. The mishnah wants to teach the principle, the turn of a day separates one sighting from another]. However, if he is not certain whether one occurred one day and the other the next, then there is doubt as to whether he has seen three issues or two. Since in any case he has seen two issues, he is certainly unclean for seven days, as is always the case with a person who saw two issues. However, since it is uncertain whether he has seen two issues or three, he is not liable to bring a sacrifice.

ואם ספק – that perhaps all of it is from today or all of it is from the night.

If he had seen issues on two separate days at twilight, he is in doubt both with regard to defilement and with regard to a sacrifice. In this case, he saw an issue for two days straight at twilight. It is possible therefore that an entire day interrupted between the first issue and the second. In such a case he wouldn't even be impure. His purity status is therefore doubtful. On the other hand, he might have seen three issues, one of them being divided by the turn of the day into two. Therefore, he might be liable for a sacrifice. His status vis a vis a sacrifice is therefore also doubtful.

ודאי לטומאה – for at any event, there are two [appearances].

If [he had seen only] one issue at twilight, he is in doubt [also] with regard to [his] defilement. One issue seen at twilight is enough to create a doubt with regard to his purity status, for the turn of the day could divide the issue into being considered two issues. However, there is no possibility to consider this to be three sightings. Clearly, he is not liable for a sacrifice.

וספק לקרבן – for we are in doubt that perhaps there are two [appearances], perhaps three [appearances of flux]. For if all of it is from the day or all of it is from the night, there are two [appearances of flux]. But if it is from part of the day and part of the night, there are three {appearances of flux].

שני ימים בין השמשות – as for example, that the first [appearance] is at the beginning at the first twilight, and the second is at the end of the second twilight, as for example, that the first [appearance] is on Friday/the Eve of the Sabbath at the beginning of twilight and one is on Saturday night at the conclusion of twilight. For if the beginning of twilight is day and the end of twilight is night, we don’t have two appearances [of flux] on two consecutive days, for Shabbat interrupts and there isn’t the defilement of gonorrhea (but rather, like a person with an emission). But if the entire twilight from the day or all of it is from the night, there are two appearances here on two consecutive days, and which require counting seven clean [days] and one is exempt from the sacrifice. But if the beginning of twilight or at its end, half of it is from the day and half of it is from the light, the appearance [of flux] was divided into two and one is required to bring a sacrifice. But because there are all of these doubts, it is taught [in the Mishnah]: "ספק לטומאה ולקרבן"/”he is in doubt as to its imparting uncleanness and in doubt as to bring a sacrifice, lest there isn’t uncleanness here, and lest there is uncleanness here but not a sacrifice, or lest thee is [both] uncleanness here and a sacrifice. Therefore, he brings a sacrifice, but it is not consumed.