[א] "והיושב על הכלי אשר ישב עליו הזב יטמא" – אין לי אלא בזמן שיושב עליו ונוגע בו. מנין לעשרה מושבות זה על גבי זה, ואפילו על גבי אבן מסמא? ת"ל "והיושב על הכלי אשר ישב עליו הזב יטמא" – מקום שהזב יושב ומטמא ישב הטהור ויטמא. 1) (Vayikra 15:6) ("And one who sits upon the object that the zav sat upon shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.") "and one who sits upon the object that the zav sat upon … shall be unclean.": This tells me only of his sitting upon it and touching it. Whence do I derive the same for ten layers (interposing between him and the couch of the zav beneath them, he sitting on top), even if he is sitting atop a stone? It is, therefore, written "And one who sits upon the object that the zav sat upon … shall become tamei." The (same kind of) place that the zav sits upon and confers tumah (to the couch below), the clean man sits upon and becomes tamei (by the couch of the zav below).
[ב] אין לי אלא בזמן שהוא יושב עליו והזב שם. מנין לעשות ריקם כמלא? ת"ל "כלי" – לעשותו ריקם כמלא. 2) This tells me only of his sitting there while the zav is (sitting) there. Whence do I derive an equivalence between "empty" (the zav's not sitting there) and "full" (the zav's sitting there)? From "the object" (i.e., the object is the criterion, and not "fullness" or "emptiness"), making "empty" equivalent to "full."
[ג] אין לי אלא משכב. מרכב מנין? ודין הוא: אם מצינו שלא חלק הכתוב בין נישא לנושא במשכב, כך לא נחלק בין נישא לנושא למרכב. מה לי לא חלק בין נישא לנושא למשכב – שלא חלק מגעו ממשאו! לא נחלק בין נישא לנושא למרכב שחלק מגעו ממשאו?! ת"ל "כלי" – לרבות את המרכב. 3) This tells me only of the mishkav ([the couch] of the zav, that one who sits upon it becomes tamei to confer tumah upon garments.) Whence do we derive the same for the merkav ([the saddle] of the zav)? It follows by induction, viz.: Just as we find that Scripture did not distinguish between the carrier of and the "carried by" the mishkav (of the zav, so it does not distinguish between the carrier of and the "carried by" the merkav (of the zav). (No, this may be refuted, viz.:) Why did Scripture not distinguish between the carrier of and the "carried by" the mishkav? Because it did not distinguish between touching it and carrying it, (both conferring tumah to impart tumah to garments). Should we then not distinguish between the carrier of and the "carried by" the merkav, where Scripture did distinguish touching from carrying, (the touching not imparting tumah to garments, as opposed to the carrier, who does)! It is, therefore, written "the object," to include the merkav.
[ד] ר' חנינא בן חנינא אומר, אם בדרך שלא ירדה עליו הטומאה, יצאה ממנו, בדרך שירדה עליו הטומאה אינו דין שתצא ממנו?! לאו! מה לי החמיר במרכב הנישא, שהרי החמיר בזב הנישא! נחמיר במרכב הנושא שהרי היקל בזב הנושא?! ת"ל "כלי" – לרבות את המרכב. 4) R. Chananiah b. Chanina says: (We can learn from elsewhere that one lifted on the merkav of a zav requires washing of his clothes. Why is a verse necessary for this?) viz.: If in a way that tumah does not descend upon it ([the merkav], i.e., if a zav lifts the merkav, it does not sustain tumah by reason thereof), tumah goes forth from it (i.e., if one lifts the merkav of a zav, he is tamei), then in a way that tumah does descend upon it (i.e., by sitting upon it), how much more so should tumah go forth from it (to confer tumah upon one sitting on it)! — No! Why are we stringent with a lifted merkav (to confer tumah upon its lifter to impart tumah to clothing?) Because Scripture was stringent with a lifted zav. (i.e., if a zav was lifted on a garment, the garment confers tumah upon a man to impart tumah to clothing.) Shall we then be stringent with a merkav that lifts a man (sitting upon it), when Scripture is lenient (in this regard) in respect to a zav (himself) who is lifted! It must, therefore, be written "the object," to include the merkav.
[ה] "בבשר הזב" – ולא בצואה שעליו, ולא בקולקלוס שעליו, ולא בשירים ולא בנזמים ולא בטבעות אף על פי שאין יוצאים. או יכול שאני מרבה את השער ואת הצפורן? ת"ל "טמא" 5) (Vayikra 15:7) ("And he who touches the flesh of the zav shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.") "the flesh of the zav": and not the dung upon it, and not the hair-knot upon it, and not the clasps, and not the nose rings, and not the finger rings, even though they do not come off. I might think to exclude the hair and the nails; it is, therefore, written "and he shall be unclean."
[ו] "בבשר הזב" – ולא בעצם הפורש ממנו, ולא בבשר הפורש ממנו. קל וחמר לפורש מן הטהור שיהיה טהור. הא מה אני מקיים "או בעצם אדם או בקבר"? זה אבר הפורש מן החי בין פרק לפרק. 6) "the flesh of the zav": and not a detached bone, and not detached flesh. How much more so is (a bone or flesh) detached from one that is tahor, tahor. How, then, am I to understand (Bamidbar 19:16): "or the bone of a man or a grave"? That refers to a limb detached form a living man.
[ז] אם נאמרו בזב למה נאמרו במשכב ואם נאמרו במשכב למה נאמרו בזב? לפי שיש בזב מה שאין במשכב ובמשכב מה שאין בזב. הזב עושה משכב ואין המשכב עושה משכב. חיבורי הזב טהורים וחיבורי המשכב טמאים. הא לפי שיש בזב מה שאין במשכב ובמשכב מה שאין בזב צריך לומר במשכב וצריך לומר בזב. 7) If it is written in respect to zav (that what is detached from him is clean), why need it be written in respect to mishkav? (See Section 2:3); and if it is written in respect to mishkav, why need it be stated in respect to zav?) Because there obtains with zav what does not obtain with mishkav, and with mishkav what does not obtain with zav — Zav makes a mishkav, and mishkav does not make a zav; the attachments of a zav are tahor (viz. Bamidbar 19:5 above) and the attachments of a mishkav are tamei (See Section 3:4) — Because there obtains with zav what does not obtain with mishkav and with mishkav what does not obtain with zav, it must be written both in respect to mishkav and in respect to zav.
[ח] "וכי ירק הזב בטהור" – יכול אפילו רקק ולא נגע בו יהא טמא? ת"ל "בטהור" – עד שיגע בו. אין לי אלא רוקו. כיחו, וניעו, ורירו, ומימי האף שלו מנין? ת"ל "וכי ירוק". 8) ("And if the zav spit upon one who is clean, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.") "And if the zav spit upon one who is clean": I might think even if he spit and it did not touch him he would be tamei; it is, therefore, written "upon one who is clean" — it must touch him. This tells me only of his spittle. Whence do I derive the same for his phlegm, his mucus, his slaver, and his nasal flow? From "And if the zav spit."
[ט] "אשר ירכב עליו הזב יטמא" – יכול אפילו רכב על המשכב ועל המושב? ת"ל מרכב – ולא משכב ולא מושב. 9) (Vayikra 15:9) ("And every saddle upon which a zav rides shall be tamei") "upon which a zav rides shall be tamei": I might think even if he rode on a couch or a chair; it is, therefore, written "saddle" — not a couch and not a chair.
[י] אוציא את אלו ולא אוציא את האוכף? ת"ל "המרכב" – מרכב המיוחד. 10) I would then exclude these, but I would not exclude a pack-saddle; it is, therefore, written "saddle" — his distinct saddle.
[יא] איזהו המרכב המיוחד? זרז האשקלוני, ומדוכה המדית, ועביט של גמל, וטפיטו של סוס. ר' יוסי אומר, טפיטו של סוס טמא מושב מפני שעומדים עליו בקומפון, אבל אוכף של נאקה טהור. 11) Which is a "distinct" saddle? An Ashkelonian saddle, a Median saddle, a camel's sumpter-saddle, and the tafitan of a horse, but the ukaf of a na'akah (a long-necked camel) is tamei by reason of moshav (and not of merkav). R. Yossi says: The tafitan of a horse is also tamei by reason of moshav, because it is used for standing upon in the sport plain.
[יב] אין לי אלא בזמן שהוא רוכב עליו ונוגע בו (ס"א עליו). מנין לעשרה מרכבות זה על גבי זה, אפילו על גבי אבן מסמא? ת"ל "וכל המרכב" "אשר ירכב עליו הזב יטמא" – עד שינשא רובו עליו. 12) This tells me of his lying, sitting and riding upon it, and touching it. Whence do I derive the same for ten saddles, one atop the other, even if he is atop a stone interposing (between himself and the others)? From "every mishkav," and "every object," and "every saddle." "upon which a zav rides shall be tamei": (To be tamei) most of him must be carried by it.