💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ramban%20on%20Leviticus%20… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:29:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Ramban on Leviticus 15:11

Home

Torah

11 ‎[1] AND WHOMSOEVER ‘HAZAV’ (HE THAT HATH THE ISSUE) TOUCHETH, WITHOUT HAVING RINSED HIS HANDS IN WATER, HE SHALL WASH HIS CLOTHES, AND BATHE HIMSELF IN WATER, AND BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN. Scripture calls the immersion [of the whole body of the impure object] “rinsing in water,” as is indicated by the verse here stating, *and every vessel of wood* [touched by a *zav*] *shall be ‘rinsed’ in water* [which means completely “immersed” in water], and similarly it calls the immersion of an [impure] garment “washing,” thus saying, *then it shall be ‘washed’ the second time, and shall be clean*. The reason for these expressions is that it is necessary that there should be nothing interposing during the immersion [between the water and the utensil or the person], but he is to rinse his whole body in the water, even as the verse states, *it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water*, similar to the expression, *‘nachal shoteiph’* (*an overflowing stream*). And the meaning of the verse [here which specifies the hands] is because touching is done with the hands; therefore the verse states that when the *zav* touches anyone with his hands, and he has not “rinsed” them yet [i.e., “immersed” them, as explained above] by “rinsing” his whole body in water, that other person is impure. This is as if the verse had said, “and whomsoever he that hath the issue toucheth with his hands, and he hath not yet bathed himself in water on the day of his purification, he shall wash his clothes, [and be impure until the even].” Scripture had to use the term “rinsing,” in order to teach that the “bathing” it mentioned in the verse, *and he shall bathe his flesh in running water*, should be by means of rinsing and rubbing, so as to remove anything interposing [between the water and his body], as I have explained. It would not have been correct for Scripture to say that “whomsoever he that has an issue touches, after having rinsed his hands in water, will *not* be rendered impure,” [from which we would deduce that if he has not rinsed his hands in water, he shall be impure, thus indicating that his impurity is conveyed through his fingers], for He has already said, that whoever *toucheth the flesh of him that hath the issue*, meaning any part of the *zav*, is impure, the same law applying to objects that he lies on and rides on, and anything on which he sat, until he is purified of his issue, *and he shall bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean*. Rather, Scripture [in using the term “rinsing”] alludes to his purification by means of complete immersion, as I have explained. And our Rabbis have said that Scripture expresses the immersion of the [whole] body of the *zav* by the term “rinsing of hands,” in order to teach you that the hidden parts of the body [such as the inside of the mouth, etc.] do not require “the coming of water” upon them, but only limbs which are visible, such as the hands.

The reason for the impurity of a man that suffers a flux is because it is a serious illness, and one of the contagious diseases. Therefore he requires an offering when healed in order to give thanks to G-d Who healed him and purified him [which is accomplished through the bird brought as a burnt-offering], and [in addition] he needs a sin-offering to effect atonement for his sin, so that it should not cause him any more sickness.

The reason for the impurity of semen, even though it is the nature of procreation, is analogous to the impurity of the dead, since the womb can be malfunctioning; thus the man does not know if his seed will be destroyed or a child will be born of it. When I will mention the reason for the impurity of the dead, with the help of Him Who takes life and gives life, the reason for the impurity of semen will be explained to you. I will also mention certain main principles when discussing the law of the menstruant.

Now Scripture was lenient in the case of a woman having an issue in her regular period, by not requiring her to bring an offering [as the *zavah*, the woman who sees blood outside her regular period, must do], because it is natural for her [to see blood at her period], and she is not healed of any sickness; rather, it declared her impure for seven days whether she saw [blood] for only one day or on all seven days. However, women do not by nature experience [the menstrual flow] for more than seven days, except when they have an extra flow on account of sickness. Thus when *a woman has an issue of her blood many days out of the time* known to her, or if she adds to the time of those seven [menstrual] days, and has an issue of her blood for many more days, it is a form of sickness comparable to the flux of a man, and Scripture required her to bring an offering when she is healed, just as the *zav* has to bring.

Now Scripture has not mentioned immersion in the case of the woman. This is because after stating the law of the man that suffers a flux and his impurity, and then mentioning at the end, *and he shall bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean*, it then went back and stated with reference to a woman, *and if a woman have an issue*, meaning just like a man that suffers a flux, *her issue in her flesh be blood*, not the white fluid as in a man; it then mentioned the impurity of the menstruant and the *zavah*, followed by the statement concerning the *zavah, and if she be cleansed of her issue*, just as the *zav* is purified of his flux, *then she shall number to herself seven days*, just as the *zav* counts, *and after that she shall be clean*, [meaning] in the same way as the purity of the *zav* is effected [i.e., through immersion].

By way of the simple meaning of Scripture, a *zavah* would thus be required to have immersion *in running water* just like a *zav* [since the verse implies that her purity is attained in the same way as that of a *zav*], but the Sages have been lenient with regard to the impurity of a *zavah*, stating that she can become purified in the same way as all others who are purified of their impurity, namely, in the waters of a ritual pool [which do not have to be *running* water]. The reason [for their being lenient in the case of the impurity of a *zavah*] is because it was not necessary for Scripture to mention at all the expression, *and after that she shall be clean*, since the woman is included in the law of the man, and the verses were only necessary to mention the difference between a *zav* and *zavah*, that her flux must be of blood [and not white], and to distinguish between a flux in her regular period and outside the regular period. Therefore the Rabbis were of the opinion that [in the above phrase, *and after that she shall be clean*] Scripture intended to include an additional form of purification for her, saying, *and after that she shall be clean* like all those mentioned in the Torah, who are purified even without running water.

Acharei Moth

Version Info

Version: Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976

Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108945/NLI

License: CC-BY

Jewish Texts