Study Niddah folio 35A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
there is no need for the verse to teach this. After all, if this drop of ziva causes impurity for others, i.e., if the person emitting the drop imparts impurity through carrying, is it not all the more so that the drop itself imparts impurity through carrying? Rather, it is obvious that the verse
Rava concludes: And as the verse mentions the word “issue” twice, it is evident that it is referring to a second sighting of ziva. From the fact that a verse was necessary to include a second sighting of ziva of a metzora, teaching that his ziva imparts impurity through carrying, conclude from it th
Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said to Rava: From where do you know that the verse is referring to a zav who is also a metzora? Actually, perhaps I will say to you that the verse is referring to the ziva of one who is just a zav. And as for that a fortiori inference that you said: If this drop of ziva caus
With regard to the dilemma raised by Rav Yosef about the first sighting of ziva of a metzora, Abaye said: What is the reason he raises such a dilemma? But it was he who said that when the verse states: “This is the law of the zav” (Leviticus 15:32), it thereby teaches that the halakhot of a zav appl
And as this verse discusses a full-fledged zav, and the word “issue” is mentioned twice, God compares a metzora to a full-fledged zav: Just as a full-fledged zav imparts impurity through carrying, so too, the first sighting of ziva of a metzora imparts impurity through carrying.