Introducing the laws of tzaraas, the Torah says “when an adam/man has a lesion on the skin of his flesh...” (Vayikra 13:2) The noun adam refers to a human being who is refined and elevated. How does a person on this level become inflicted with tzaraas? The Alter Rebbe explains that the miraculous illness which appears on the skin calls attention to a subtle trace of negativity which remains in the outermost layers of the person’s soul. Only a person who has refined their inner negativity is struck with tzaraas as a Divine miracle illuminating for them the final frontier of their spiritual work.
The Verse:
The fifteenth chapter of Vayikra deals at length with the laws of ritual impurity resulting from various bodily discharges. There is the law of the zav, an abnormal male discharge, and zavah, an abnormal female discharge outside the expected time of menstruation; and there is the law of the normative seminal discharge and menstruation. Zav itself contains two categories, a twice repeated emission which results in a lesser degree of impurity, and a more severe degree of impurity if the emission appears a third time.
At the end of the chapter, the Torah summarizes the previous laws, but according to Rashi’s reading, also introduces a new category:
“This is the law for one who has a discharge, and one from whom semen issues, through which he becomes unclean” (Vayikra 15:32)
This is the law for one who has a discharge — This refers to a person who sees one discharge. And what is the law governing him? [As the Torah continues:]
and one from whom semen issues — He is like one who has experienced a seminal emission, that he becomes unclean until evening.
“And for a woman who has her menstrual flow, and for one who has a discharge, whether male or female, and a man who cohabits with an unclean woman.”
And for one who has a discharge — [This expression refers to] someone who has seen two discharges and someone who has seen three discharges, whose law is specified above [in the earlier section of this chapter, beginning with verse 3].
Thus, verse 32 introduces the law of a person who had a zav discharge only once, and equates it to a regular seminal emission which simply requires immersion that evening. Verse 33 then reiterates the laws discussed earlier, namely, the two and three appearances of discharge and their variant laws.
The Questions:
- Why does Rashi explain that the Torah is introducing a new law about a single appearance of zav discharge after all the detailed discussion above?
- According to Rashi’s reading, the summation beginning in verse 32 with “This is the law...” is split: the first half introduces a new law, while the second half reiterates the previous laws. Why could Rashi not have explained that verse 32 “and one who has a discharge” refers to a zav who saw two discharges, and the following verse, “and for one who has a discharge” refers to the third discharge?
Explanation of Verse 32:
The phrase, “This is the law...” is used when the Torah wants to enumerate all the laws of a particular subject, beginning with the lenient iteration and moving to the more stringent. Thus, when the Torah then continues, “for one who has a discharge,” as the first example, it cannot be referring to a zav who saw two discharges, because the following phrase, “and one from whom semen issues,” clearly refers to a simple seminal emission, which is the most lenient form of discharge resulting in the lowest level of impurity. It is not possible for the case of two zav discharges to be more lenient, or even equal to, the case of the standard seminal emission. Therefore, Rashi concluded that the verse must be introducing a new case, the single abnormal zav emission, which is equal to a regular seminal emission.
Explanation of Verse 33:
Rashi explains that the following verse, “and for one who has a discharge” refers to someone who has seen two discharges and someone who has seen three discharges, “whose law is specified above.” Why does he assume that this refers to both categories of zav, and not simply to the one who saw two discharges?
By saying “whose law is specified above” Rashi alludes to his earlier interpretation, according to which it is impossible to separate these two categories, and therefore they must be considered to be alluded to as a set in this verse.
In verse 2 and 3 the Torah set out the law of the zav: 2 Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, If any man has a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is unclean. 3 And this shall be [the nature of] his uncleanness due to his discharge: [if] his flesh runs with his discharge, or [if] his flesh is plugged up by his discharge, that is his uncleanness.
Verse 4 then details how the zav imparts impurity to objects and people who he comes into contact with. The question is, why does the Torah divide verse 2 and 3 when they both describe the nature of the discharge? Why not combine them into one verse? This led Rashi to adopt the Midrashic explanation, which really is needed to explain this trouble with these two verses:
“The midrashic explanation, however, is as follows: The first verse (verse 2) counts two appearances of a discharge and calls him unclean, as it says, “a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is unclean.” Then, the second verse (verse 3) counts out three appearances of a discharge and calls him unclean, as it says, “And this shall be [the nature of] his uncleanness due to his discharge: [if] his flesh runs with his discharge, or [if] his flesh is plugged up by his discharge, that is his uncleanness.” Now, how is this so? Two are for uncleanness, and the third requires him to [bring] a sacrifice.”
Thus, the two levels of zav are alluded to in the very introductory verses about the subject, leading Rashi to conclude that when the Torah summarizes the law of the “discharge” in verse 33, both categories of discharge are meant.
Legal Implications:
There are two ways to understand the impurity of someone who experienced two zav discharges: 1) It is its own category of impurity, distinct from one who sees three discharges. 2) It is on the continuum of one who sees three discharges, but it is of lesser stringency because it has not reached the full impurity of three.
The difference between these two conceptions would be in the scenario where a person had two discharges and then an intervening day before he experienced a third discharge. Do we combine the discharges and say the person has contracted the severe impurity of three zav discharges? Or do we say the intervening day restarts the count, and the person only has the impurity of two discharges? If we see the two forms of impurity as two distinct categories, we would say the latter. If we see them as a continuum, we would combine the third discharge to the previous two and consider him a full-fledged zav.
The Toras Kohanim to verse 3 uses the phrase, “a portion of his zav state,” meaning, a person who has two discharges is considered to be a portion of a larger, three-discharge zav status.
Rashi, however, refers to these categories as “one who possesses two discharges, and one who possesses three discharges.” This would imply that he sees each category as distinct from the other, and not as a continuum of impurity, progressing from two discharges to three.
