English translation — מצורע

1.

After the portions about the laws of: zav,

“When a man has an emission of semen,”

niddah,

and zavah

— the Torah concludes

(at the end of the section)

: “This is the law of the zav and of him from whom an emission of semen goes out, etc., and of the woman who is in her menstrual impurity, and of the male with a discharge and the female, etc.”

Rashi on this explains: “This is the law of the zav,

one who has a single appearance, and what is his law.

he is like one who has a seminal emission, impure with evening impurity.

‘And the zav with his discharge,’

one who has two appearances and one who has three appearances, whose law is explained above.”

Learn commentators⁵,

that Rashi's necessity to learn that "This is the law of the zav" means

(not the "law of the zav" about which it speaks earlier in the portion,

but)

"one who saw a single emission",

that "his law" is first said in the verse <b>here</b>

("And what is his law,

‘And from whom an emission of semen goes out,’

and from him goes forth semen emission")

— is from that which the Torah repeats once again

(in the verse after this)

— "and the zav, his flow

(for a male)

Therefore Rashi learns that the two verses⁶

— "This is the law of the zav" and "the zav, his flow" — speak about two types:

a)

"This is the law of the zav" speaks about "one who had a single emission",

and that which the verse distinguishes it from the zav in general,

is because

one who had a single emission has a different law — "and what is his law"

(regarding this "one who had a single emission")

— "he is like one who had a seminal emission".

"And the zav, his flow" means "one who has two sightings and one who has three sightings, whose Torah portions are explained above"⁷.

b)

2.

One must, however, understand: the explanation — that the two types

(in the two verses here)

are "one who has one sighting" and "one who has two sightings and one who has three sightings" — has several difficulties in the plain sense⁸,

because:

a)

Why does the "Torah" of ba'al ray'ah achat stand only <b>at the end</b> of the sedra,

after all the other types

(and after the verse⁹

"And you shall separate Bnei Yisrael from their impurity etc.")

— and not <b>earlier</b>,

by the laws of zav or ba'al keri¹⁰

(and especially since he is indeed

also a ba'al ray'ah achat,

and — it cannot be "shtei re'ayot" unless there was first "ray'ah achat")?

b)

according to this, it turns out,

that one must distinguish the words “zot torat” in two directions¹¹

: in relation to “

(torat)

hazav” it means — the <b>following</b>,

which comes <b>later</b>,

is “torat hazav”; and in relation to “vehadav beniddatah vehazav et zovo etc.” “zot torat” means — the said <b>earlier</b>

(“hameforashet <b>above</b>”)

c)

according to this, the conclusion,

the summary of the previous sections entirely not according to the order in which they stand: the section of zav came <b>before</b> “ish ki tetze mimeno shikhvat zera” and niddah,

and here it says “vehazav et zovo”

(which according to Rashi it means the zav whose torah is “meforashet above”)

<b>after</b> “vehadav beniddatah” —

It is not understood: why does Rashi teach

(which is the plain meaning of Scripture&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;)

that the

Two types are "one who had one emission" and "one who had two emissions and one who had three emissions" — he should have learned that

("This is the law etc." is only a summary of earlier,

and)

"This is the law of the zav" means "one who had two emissions" and "and the zav who has his emission" — "one who had three emissions"&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;,

as Rashi already earlier brought

(at the beginning of the portion of Zav&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;)

that they are divided among themselves: "two for impurity and the third obligates him to a sacrifice".

(not in its place — before "And when there goes out from him" — but)

together with a zavah,

one can explain,

that this is because only these two have the unique law

(which distinguishes them from all the other types here)¹⁵,

that they require to bring an offering¹⁶

(to atone for the impurity of the zivah)].

3.

At first glance one could answer,

that Rashi is bothered here by the double language — "And the zav, his zov"

(not as in the previous verse "This is the law of the zav" where the word zav appears only once).

And from this Rashi learns,

that the verse here alludes to <b>two </b>types within "zav"

— about this

as Rashi earlier taught the distinction

(above)

between "one who has two sightings" and "one who has three sightings" from the double language in the two verses there: "the first verse counted sightings two..

a zav from his flesh his flow..

and the second verse counted sightings three..

"in his flowing his flesh flows with his flow or his flesh is stopped from his flow" —

and since in the two verses

(together)

it is said three times zav,

therefore Rashi teaches,

that "this is the law of the zav" means "one who has one sighting",

and "and the zav who has his flow" — "one who has two sightings and one who has three sightings".

But it is difficult to learn this way,

because the double language "והזב את זובו" <b>here</b> is not such a strong emphasis

(according to the plain meaning)

— it is in the manner of

(and moreover — it comes in continuation to)

the double language "והדוה בנדתה"¹⁸

; and consequently there is no place to say,

that because of <b>this</b> Rashi should learn such a distant interpretation

( — to say that this is the <b>plain meaning</b>)

in "זאת תורת הזב ואשר גו׳".

In addition to this: Even if one were to accept that the double language

("והזב את זובו")

is indeed an emphasis according to the plain meaning — however the <b>manner</b> of study

(that the double language alludes to two types)

is only a matter of midrash

— as Rashi says <b>earlier</b>¹⁴

regarding the difference between "two proofs" and "three proofs"

(that which one learns from "the verse counted ..

proofs two ..

proofs three")

that this is

(not "its plain meaning",

but)

"<b>its midrashic interpretation</b>" —

Rashi also needed to emphasize here,

that his commentary is its midrash.

4.

And one can say the explanation in this:

The phrase "this is the law of the zav" is in the manner of "this is the law of the burnt offering, the meal offering etc."

(Meaning all burnt offerings, meal offerings, etc.

— all types)

Rashi teaches that here the Torah includes and intends to specify all types of zav and in order: from the light to the severe.

And based on this it is answered why the Torah places "and the zav his flow to a male" — not where it speaks about zav earlier in the portion,

but with — "and to a female" zav together with zavah,

because they both have the same substance.

Based on this, however, it becomes difficult: here it says earlier "

(Torat)

HaZav",

before "VeAsher Tetze Mimeno etc." — "VeAsher" with the addition of a Vav,

which proves that "HaZav" here is

(also)

a detail within the general category of "Zav" — it must therefore follow that

(there is)

a Zav who is lenient in his law from "VeAsher Tetze etc."!

And since one cannot say that a Zav baal <b>shtei </b>rei'ot should be equal ve'al achat kach ve'kach lenient from VeAsher Tetze etc.²¹,

must

One says that "this is the law of the zav" means "one who has one appearance".

5.

One must however understand what Rashi says — "and the zav, his flow,

one who has two appearances and one who has three appearances, whose laws are explained above":

From the precise wording of Rashi "&lt;b&gt;one who has &lt;/b&gt;two appearances &lt;b&gt;and one who has &lt;/b&gt;three appearances&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

whose law&lt;b&gt; is&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

explained above" it is proven,

that according to Rashi the verse "And the zav, his flow" speaks about &lt;b&gt;two &lt;/b&gt;types of zav&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

— it is not understood: the above explanation

(section d)

is only a necessity that "This is the law of the zav" speaks about "one who has one appearance",

and "And the zav, his flow" — about a zav who is more severe than "And from whom issues etc."

(and "And the menstruating woman in her menstruation"&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;)

; but from where is the necessity

(from the &lt;b&gt;plain meaning &lt;/b&gt;of the verses &lt;b&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;)

that "And the zav, his flow" includes &lt;b&gt;two &lt;/b&gt;types — "one who has two appearances and one who has three appearances"&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;?

At first glance one can answer,

that since Rashi already earlier brought

(at least as "its midrashic interpretation")

that there are two types of zav

(two appearances and three appearances),

he specifies here

(again)

the two types.

But it is not straightforward Rashi's language "that their Torah is explained above" — that their laws,

which means consequently also the differences between them,

is "explained above": one would have needed to say "their Torah is expounded above",

as Rashi himself says "above" — that the difference between two sightings and three sightings is

(not the plain meaning of the verses,

but)

"its midrashic interpretation"?

6.

So the explanation in this is: That which Rashi earlier brings "and its midrashic interpretation",

is this not as in other places,

where according to "its midrashic interpretation" the explanation in the verse is different than according to "its plain meaning" — but in our matter,

also according to "its midrashic interpretation" the explanation in the verse is as according to "its plain meaning"

( — "its midrashic interpretation" goes

(mainly)

on

(adds additionally)

a matter that is hinted in the verse)

And on the other hand,

is the homiletic interpretation

(not only "settles" the plain meaning,

but)

"<b>compelled</b>" according to "its plain meaning"²⁸

— because specifically according to the homiletic interpretation

(see Rashi²⁹

— <b>Aggadah</b> to settle its plain meaning, proof)

the lengthiness is answered

the language of the verse

(which is difficult according to "its plain meaning")

Earlier³⁰

stand two verses: "If a man has a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is unclean.

And this shall be his uncleanness in his discharge: his flesh runs with his discharge, or his flesh stops up from his discharge, it is his uncleanness",

and afterwards

(in the verse after this)

begin the detailed laws of the uncleanness of the zav — "Any bed etc."

It is not understood: why does the Torah interrupt between "And this shall be his uncleanness in his discharge" and the laws of uncleanness

("Any bed etc.")

with the words "his flesh runs etc. or his flesh stops up etc.",

which are

(not laws of the uncleanness of the zav,

but)

two modes of discharge

; "his flesh stops up" — "that comes out thick and blocks the opening of the membrum"³¹]

The words "רר בשרו את זובו או החתים בשרו מזובו" seemingly should have been in the <b>previous</b> verse: "איש כי יהי׳ זב מבשרו,

רר בשרו את זובו או החתים בשרו מזובו,

זובו טמא הוא"

(and afterwards: "וזאת תהי׳ טומאתו כל המשכב גו'")?

To this comes "מדרשו" and answers — "מנה <b>הכתוב הראשון</b>..

<b>וקראו טמא</b>..

<b>הכתוב השני</b>..

<b>וקראו טמא</b>": The Torah thereby hints at two types in a zav,

whose impurity is not equal; and therefore they are in two separate verses

("הכתוב <b>הראשון</b>..

הכתוב <b>השני</b>"³²),

and each

Of them <b>separate</b> — "call him impure"

(Because their impurity is not equal).

What are the two types of zav

(And where is the difference between them hinted in the verse)?

— Says Rashi,

That every "zov" that is mentioned in the verse hints at an additional emission; and consequently — the "first writing" speaks about one who saw emissions <b>two</b>,

And "the second writing" — about one who saw emissions <b>three</b>.

It comes out,

that the plain meaning of Scripture there compels

(that one must expound the superfluous language,

and consequently —)

that there are <b>two</b> types of zav — one with two sightings and one with three sightings.

7.

Since that "its midrash" in this case is one that is <b>compelled</b> from the side of "its plain meaning"

(as above),

it is understood,

that also the difference in <b>law</b> between them

(which Rashi brings)

— "two for impurity and the third obligates him to a sacrifice" — is

(not merely a citation of the language of Chazal³³,

which is not contrary to the plain meaning,

but it is)

<b>compelled</b> in the plain meaning of Scripture.

And the explanation: since "and this shall be his impurity" refers simply to the "he is impure" that is stated in the <b>previous </b>verse

(regarding a baal shtei re'ayot),

one must say,

that the laws of <b>impurity </b>that are stated in the continuation of the portion apply here also to a baal shtei re'ayot³⁴.

One must therefore say,

that the addition of a baal shalosh re'ayot over a baal shtei

The proof is not in the &lt;b&gt;essence&lt;/b&gt; of the matter

(and manner)

of the impurity — "&lt;b&gt;he is impure&lt;/b&gt;" — but in that which "

(two &lt;b&gt;for impurity&lt;/b&gt;)

and the third &lt;b&gt;obligates him to a sacrifice&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;.

— not "obligates him to a sacrifice" which "connection" means — necessity in a new

(side)

thing.

And accordingly, the meaning of what Rashi says at the end of the section "one with two sightings and one with three sightings whose law is &lt;b&gt;explicit&lt;/b&gt; above" — because the aforementioned difference between two sightings and three sightings is also necessary from the aspect of "&lt;b&gt;its plain meaning&lt;/b&gt;"

(as above at length)

; and consequently,

that Rashi wants to indicate which "zav" his law is "explicit above"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

— not like one with one sighting whose law stands only &lt;b&gt;at the end&lt;/b&gt; of the section — he brings both types in zav.

8.

Of the wondrous topics according to the halacha in this Rashi commentary:

The content of Rashi's commentary at the end of the sedra stands in Toras Kohanim on the verse,

but with several changes — as the commentators of Rashi³⁷

address them.

But there is a change of language on which I have not yet found that one addresses — which one can say,

that in this change lies a whole matter,

and a according-to-his-system of Toras Kohanim

(halacha)

or — Rashi's commentary

(its plain meaning)

In the Toras Kohanim the language is: " ..

<b>This one who saw </b>one sighting ..

<b>This one who saw</b>³⁸

two sightings ..

<b>This one who saw </b>three sightings"; and Rashi <b>changes</b>³⁹

and says: "<b>One who has </b>one sighting ..

<b>One who has </b>two sightings <b>and one who has </b>three sightings".

This will be understood by prefacing what is found in the Gemara⁴⁰

two teachings on the distinction between two sightings and three sightings:

A)

The exposition of R' Simai⁴¹

(Which <b>Rashi</b> brings down here⁴²)

: "The Scripture counted two and called him impure, three and called him impure; how so? Two for impurity and three for a sacrifice."

B)

The exposition of the Sages: "His discharge — one, his flesh runs — two, his discharge — three; taught concerning a zav with three sightings that he is liable for a sacrifice.

Or when his flesh is sealed from his discharge, it is impure; part of his discharge is impure; taught concerning a zav with two sightings that he imparts impurity to a bed and a seat."

And it can be said that there is a practical difference between the two studies — in the definition of a zav who had two sightings — which can be learned in two ways⁴³

A)

A zav who had two sightings and a zav who had three sightings are two entirely separate entities.

The impurity of one who had two sightings is <b>not</b> the same impurity as that of

(the two sightings of him)

one who had three sightings,

it is a matter unto itself — the two sightings <b>in and of themselves</b> obligate the impurity of a zav and counting seven clean days.

b)

The impurity of a baal shtei re'ayot is a part of the impurity of a zav baal shalosh re'ayot.

Since he is a part of shalosh re'ayot,

he also receives only a part of the laws of tum'at baal shalosh re'ayot.

"Ish ki yihyeh zav etc." — "Chama telat zimni"

(and does not mention at all the law of baal shtei re'ayot)

: the impurity of baal shtei re'ayot is a part of baal shalosh re'ayot].

9.

One of the nafka minas that one can say in the way of possible halacha l'maaseh⁴⁵

: If there was an interruption

(day)

between the third sighting and the first two sightings,

whether they all join and he receives a status of a ba'al shalosh re'iyot or not

(which this is a

dispute

(according to the opinion of R' Eliezer ben Yehudah⁴⁶)

between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel)

If one would accept,

that tumah of a baal shtei re'iyos is a matter in its own right,

it means that after the two sightings there immediately becomes an obligation

(from its own side)

to count seven clean [days]

(unless one sees immediately a third sighting,

it is iglai milsa that he is a baal &lt;b&gt;shalosh &lt;/b&gt;re'iyos).

And according to this it must come out,

that if there was

an interruption

(a day),

it became clarified that he is not a baal

(shalosh)

re'iyos,

it is iglai milsa that he has

(immediately after the second sighting)

the law of a baal &lt;b&gt;shtei &lt;/b&gt;re'iyos; and if he sees on that day after the interruption a sighting,

this is a new matter,

it is not joined to the previous two sightings&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;.

If, however, the impurity of a baal shtei rei'os is a part in the definition of the impurity of a baal shalosh rei'os,

it must follow,

that even after one day of the seven clean days has passed

(after the two sightings)

(after the two sightings),

the subsequent third sighting joins with the previous two.

Because the counting of seven clean days after two sightings is

(not because the two sightings in themselves obligate this,

but)

because they are a part "and a portion" of <b>three</b> sightings⁴⁸.

Yud.

And this is also the difference between the two aforementioned teachings:

According to the exposition that one learns a zav who had two sightings from the verse "from his flow — <b>part of</b> his flow is impure",

a zav who had two sightings is a "part" of a zav

(complete),

who had three sightings.

However, according to the exposition of Rabbi Simai "the verse counted two etc." — the Torah counts "two" <b>separately</b> and "three" <b>separately</b>,

and in two separate verses — these are two <b>separate categories</b> in a zav⁴⁹.

And based on this, one can also explain the difference between the language of the Torat Kohanim and the language of Rashi at the end of the section:

The Torat Kohanim brings earlier⁵⁰

down the teaching "from his zov — some of his zov"; and therefore he says here the language "&lt;b&gt;this one who saw&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;51</sup>

two appearances ..

three appearances",

The language emphasizes the &lt;b&gt;actual appearances&lt;/b&gt;; they are in the same category,

It is only a difference in &lt;b&gt;quantity&lt;/b&gt; how many appearances there are

(already)

were.

Rashi, who brings the exposition of R' Simai

(as above)

holds,

that these are separate people,

a separate "master of sight"; and therefore he is precise &lt;b&gt;and specifies &lt;/b&gt;in his language&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;

"&lt;b&gt;master of &lt;/b&gt;one sight ..

&lt;b&gt;master of &lt;/b&gt;two sights &lt;b&gt;and master of &lt;/b&gt;three sights"&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

— each one of them is a separate "master" by himself.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Metzora 5725)