When the verse was necessary, it was to teach that ziva transmits impurity by carrying. The Gemara asks: And yet one may say that ziva transmits impurity to a person and to his garments only by carrying, but as for impurity by contact, although ziva transmits impurity to the person who touches it, it does not transmit impurity to his garments, just as is the halakha with regard to contact with an unslaughtered animal carcass. If one touches a carcass he is rendered impure but his garments remain pure, despite the fact that if one carries a carcass his garments are also rendered impure.

The Gemara answers: This could not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita that Aḥerim say, with regard to the verse: “This is the law of him that has an issue…And of her who experiences the flow of her menstrual impurity, and of one who emits his issue [zovo], in the case of a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:32–33). The verse juxtaposes the impurity of the issue of the zav to the impurity of the zav himself: Just as with regard to him you did not distinguish between impurity transmitted by contact with him and impurity transmitted by carrying him, as in both cases the zav transmits impurity to a person and transmits impurity to his garments, so too, with regard to the issue of the zav the halakha is the same.

The Gemara asks: And now that we have derived the impurity of the discharge of a zav from the verse: “And of one who emits his issue” (Leviticus 15:33), why do I need the verse: “When any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue, it is impure” (Leviticus 15:2)?

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: This verse was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that the case of the scapegoat may prove that the discharge of a zav is not impure, as the scapegoat causes impurity to others and yet the goat itself is pure. Likewise, one might conclude that although the discharge of a zav causes impurity to others, ziva itself is pure. And if one were to dismiss this possibility, due to the verse: “And of one who emits his issue [zovo], in the case of a male or a female” (Leviticus 15:33), one could reply that it does not indicate the impurity of ziva. Rather, it comes to teach the number of emissions by which one becomes impure with the impurity of a zav.

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta clarifies this interpretation of the verse. The term: An issue [zov], would indicate one emission of ziva. Since the verse uses the term “his issue [zovo],” the superfluous addition indicates two emissions of ziva. With regard to these two emissions, the verse states: “In the case of a male,” indicating that the status of a male zav differs from the status of a female zava in that he is not rendered impure if the emission occurred due to an accident, which would render a female impure. But in the case of the third emission of ziva the Merciful One juxtaposed the status of a male zav to that of a female, as the verse states: “Or a female,” indicating that even if the third emission was due to an accident he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering.

Since one would not have derived the impurity of ziva from this verse, the Merciful One wrote: “His issue, it is impure” (Leviticus 15:2). And now that the Merciful One states: “His issue, it is impure,” one may derive from the verse “and of one who emits his issue” not only the number of emissions, but also this interpretation, that there is no difference between the impurity imparted by ziva by contact and by carrying.

§ The mishna teaches: And the mucus and the saliva of a zav transmit impurity when moist but not when dry. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the ritual impurity of the saliva of a zav? The Gemara answers that this is derived as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if one who has an issue spits on the pure person, then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and he is impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:8). One might have thought that the saliva transmits impurity even if the zav merely spat in the direction of a pure person, despite the fact that it did not come into contact with him. Therefore, the verse states: “And if one who has an issue spits on the pure person,” which teaches that unless the saliva comes into contact with the pure person he is not rendered impure.

The baraita continues: I have derived only that his saliva is impure. From where is it derived that his phlegm, his mucus, and his nasal fluids are also impure? The verse states: “And if one who has an issue spits.” The superfluous “and” is an amplification, indicating that these substances also transmit impurity.

The Master said above: One might have thought that the saliva transmits impurity even if the zav merely spat in the direction of a pure person, despite the fact that it did not come into contact with him. The Gemara asks: From where would this be derived? Why would one think that a person becomes impure from saliva that did not come into contact with him, making it necessary for a verse to exclude this possibility?

The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that we should derive a verbal analogy from the term saliva in the verse “and if one who has an issue spits,” and the term saliva stated in connection with a yevama, a widow whose husband died childless and who participates in ḥalitza, as the verse states: “His yevama shall approach him, before the Elders, and remove his shoe from on his foot and spit before him” (Deuteronomy 25:9). Just as there, with regard to ḥalitza, the ritual is valid even though the saliva did not touch her brother-in-law, so too here, with regard to the saliva of a zav, it transmits impurity despite the fact that it did not come into contact with the pure person. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the saliva of a zav transmits impurity only if it comes into contact with the pure person.

The Gemara objects: And yet one may say that this statement, that the saliva of a zav transmits impurity, applies only to transmitting impurity by contact. But with regard to transmitting impurity by carrying it does not transmit impurity, just as is the halakha with regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, which transmits impurity by contact but not by carrying. Reish Lakish said that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if one who has an issue spits on the pure person.” The term “on the pure person” is interpreted to mean that in any case where something of the saliva is in the hand of the pure person I deemed him impure for you, even if he did not come into direct contact with the saliva but merely carried it.

The Gemara objects: But one may say that although the saliva of a zav transmits impurity both by carrying and by contact, nevertheless there is the following difference between them: By carrying the saliva of a zav, it transmits impurity to a person and to his garments, but by contact, although it transmits impurity to the person who touches it, it does not transmit impurity to his garments, just as is the halakha with regard to contact with an unslaughtered animal carcass.

Reish Lakish said, and so too the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that the verse states: “And if one who has an issue spits on the pure person.” The term “on the pure person” teaches that a case of purity, i.e., that which I deemed pure for you in a different case, I have deemed impure for you here. And which case is this? This is referring to contact with an animal carcass, which renders only the one touching it impure, but not his garments, whereas the saliva of a zav renders them both impure.

The Gemara objects: But one can say that the case deemed pure elsewhere but deemed impure here is that of carrying the carcass of a creeping animal. Perhaps the verse is teaching that whereas a creeping animal does not transmit impurity by carrying, the saliva of a zav does transmit impurity by carrying. By contrast, contact with the saliva of a zav renders only the one touching it impure, but not his garments, as is the halakha with regard to an animal carcass. The Gemara responds: If that is so, let the verse write: If one who has an issue spits on the person. What is the reason the verse states specifically: “On the pure person”? Conclude two conclusions from it, both that the saliva of a zav transmits impurity by carrying and that contact with the saliva renders impure both the person and his garments.

§ The aforementioned baraita teaches: And the nasal fluids of a zav also transmit impurity. The Gemara asks: What are these nasal fluids? Rav says: This is referring to fluids that are emitted via the mouth of a person. They are impure because it is impossible for the nasal fluids to flow through the mouth without containing traces of saliva, which are impure. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The baraita is referring even to fluids that are emitted via the nose. Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that nasal fluids are categorized as a flow of bodily fluids, and the Merciful One included it among the impure bodily fluids of a zav, by the amplification: “And if one who has an issue spits.”

The Gemara asks: But according to Rav, who maintains that nasal fluids are impure because they contain traces of saliva, this is difficult: Let the mishna also count among the impure bodily fluids of the zav the tears of his eye, as Rav said: He who desires to blind his eye should have a gentile paint [likhḥol] his eye, as the gentile is apt to add a substance that causes blindness. And Levi said: He who desires to die should have a gentile paint his eye, as the gentile is apt to add poison to the paint.

The Gemara continues: And Rav Ḥiyya bar Gurya said: What is the reasoning of Rav, that he did not say like Levi: He who desires to die should have a gentile paint his eye? Rav did not say this because he maintains one can prevent the poisonous substances from killing him, since he can suck the poisonous substances into his mouth by inhaling and emit them via the mouth. This indicates that the fluids of the eye can also be emitted through the mouth, and if so, the tears of a zav should likewise transmit impurity. The Gemara answers: And Rav would say that although the poison [dezihara] placed in one’s eye can exit the body via the mouth, the tears themselves do not exit the body through the mouth.

The Gemara states: With regard to the above dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan, come and hear a baraita: There are nine types of fluids of the zav. The sweat, the foul secretion from an infected wound, and the excrement are pure from any form of impurity. The tears that emerge from his eye, the blood from his wound, and the milk of a woman who is a zava all transmit the ritual impurity of liquids, i.e., they render food and liquids impure, as other impure liquids do, in a situation where there is at least a quarter-log of the fluid. But his ziva, his saliva, and his urine all transmit a severe form of ritual impurity. The Gemara comments: The baraita lists many substances, and yet it does not teach that nasal fluids are impure.

Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, the tanna of the baraita does not teach that nasal fluids are impure, as he could not teach it categorically, since sometimes the nasal fluid comes via the mouth, and is impure, and sometimes it comes via the nose, and is not impure. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, let the tanna teach that nasal fluids are impure.

The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, does this tanna teach that his phlegm and his mucus are impure? Rather, he taught that saliva is impure, and this includes the impurity of all substances that are derived from its amplification, e.g., his phlegm and his mucus. Here too, with regard to nasal fluids, the tanna taught the halakha of his saliva, and this includes all substances that are derived from its amplification, including nasal fluids.

The baraita teaches that in the case of a zav or zava, the tears of their eyes and the blood from their wounds, as well as the milk of a zava, all transmit the ritual impurity of liquids. The Gemara cites the source for these cases of impurity: The tears of his eye are classified as a liquid, as it is written: “You have fed them with the bread of tears, and given them tears to drink in great measure” (Psalms 80:6). And the blood from his wound is classified as a liquid, as it is written: “And he shall drink the blood of the slain” (Numbers 23:24). Although the verse is referring to the blood of a dead person, and not to the blood of a wound, what difference does it make to me if one killed all of him, and what difference does it make to me if one killed part of him, i.e., wounded him? With regard to the milk of a woman, it too is classified as a liquid, as it is written: “And she opened the bottle of milk, and gave him to drink” (Judges 4:19).

The baraita teaches that the urine of a zav transmits a severe form of ritual impurity, as do his ziva and his saliva. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the urine of a zav is impure? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “When any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue, it is impure. And this shall be his impurity” (Leviticus 15:2–3). The term “and this” comes to include his urine with regard to a severe form of ritual impurity. The baraita asks: And could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? If saliva, which comes from a place of purity, i.e., one’s mouth, whose secretions are not usually impure, is nevertheless impure, then with regard to his urine, which comes