Zavim 2:1 - 2:2

הכל מטמאין בזיבה (all are susceptible to uncleanness through flux) – everyone, including a baby who is one day old who becomes defiled through flux/gonorrhea.

אף הגרים – as it is written in the portion of the person with a flux (Leviticus 15:2 - which Bartenura reproduces only in the singular): "דברו אל בני ישראל"/”Speak to the Israelite people.” I don’t have other than the “children of Israel” (i.e., born Jews), from where [do I learn] to include converts and slaves? The inference teaches us (Leviticus 15:2 – the Bartenura writes the verse with the fuller spelling): "ואמרתם אליהם איש"/”And say to them: When a man,” to include the converts and the slaves. From where do I learn to include the minors? The inference teaches (Leviticus 15:2): "איש איש"/”When any man.”

ומיטמאין בדם כאשה – that a woman does not defile with the white matter but rather with the red matter/substance, for blood is written for her, which is red [in color] (as opposed to white gonorrhea substance for a man).

ובלובן כאיש – for it is written (Leviticus 15:2): "זובו טמא הוא")/”discharge issuing from his member, he is impure.”) "זובו"/his discharge”, regarding a man. And it is like the dough of barley.

וטומאתן בספק – if they saw white matter, lest they are of a woman, and the white matter is pure in her. But if they saw red matter,, perhaps it is of a man and the red matter is pure regarding him. But if he saw red matter and white matter together, their uncleanness is certain whichever side you take, and they burn the heave-offering over them. But do not require of them coming to the Sanctuary, for concerning sending forth they are unclean; it is written (Numbers 5:3): “Remove male and female alike; [put them outside the camp so that they do not defile the camp of those in whose midst I dwell],” a definite male and a definite female, but not someone whose sexual organs are concealed and a hermaphrodite.

בשבעה דרכים בודקין את הזב – because he (i.e., the man with flux/gonorrhea) does not defile because of unavoidable interference/accident, as it is written (Leviticus 15:2): “[when any man] has a discharge from his member, but not because of unavoidable accident/interference.

עד שלא נזקק לטומאה (before he is confirmed as to flux) – that is when he sees a second sighting [of flux] that through it he becomes a Zav (i.e., a person afflicted with flux/gonorrhea) to defile through lying and sitting and to require him to count seven clean [days]. But a first sighting/appearance defiles through unavoidable accident ritual impurity until nightfall, like the law of the person with a seminal emission (see Deuteronomy 23:11-12), but it combines with the second [sighting] and even it was an unavoidable accident.

במאכל – if he consume a large meal or at things that bring him to gonorrhea, and even a little bit, as for example, fatty meat, milk and cheese, eggs, and aged wine, and pounded beans and a kind of kress or pepperwort.

ובמשתה – increase/excess of drinking.

במשא – a heavy thing that he carried.

במראה – he saw a woman, even without meditation [on her].

ובהרהור – even though he did not see [her]. It one of these seven things happened to him before he saw the second sighting/appearance, he is not become a Zav because of that sighting, but the drop does not defile in carrying like the rest of the drops of his flux.

אין אחריות זבין עליכם (the responsibility for Zavim is not yours) – and if there won’t ever be any Zavim, what are you concerned/worried about? Have you not accepted responsibility of the Zavim upon yourselves? But the Halakha is not according to either Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Akiba.

משנזקק – for ritual defilement, after he saw a second sighting that was not an unavoidable accident. For from here onwards he makes [defilement] through sitting and lying.

אין בודקין אותו – even though he saw a third appearance/sighting [of flux] by unavoidable accident, he became a Zav for a sacrifice. And similarly, if he saw a sighting of effusion during the seven clean days that he is counting, it made void everything , and even it that sighting was by unavoidable accident.

ספיקו ושכבת זרעו טמאין – his doubt is because of his effusion of semen. As for example, if he saw effusion of semen initially, and a drop of a flux that comes afterwards does not defile, for the person who sees an emission does not defile with gonorrhea during the time of twenty-four astronomical hours. But before he is confirmed for defilement, the emission purifies the gonorrhea, because it was an unavoidable accident. But after he was confirmed for defilement, the emission does not purify the gonorrhea, and we don’t suspend/leave it in doubt that because of the emission the gonorrhea comes.

שרגלים לדבר – that this sighting is not because of an unavoidable accident, for he has already become a Zav.

ראה ראיה ראשונה בודקין אותו – that is specifically for [the requirement to being] a sacrifice. For if it was because of an unavoidable accident that he saw it, it does not combine with the third [sighting] for a [requirement to bring a] sacrifice, but it combines with the second [sighting] for defilement. For if the second sighting was not by unavoidable accident, even though the first [sighting] was by unavoidable accident, it makes sitting and lying [something that defiles] and requires seven clean [days] and going into living waters, as just as it is written (Leviticus 15:2]: “[a discharge issuing] from his member” and not because of his unavoidable accident, with the second [sighting] it is written, but the first [sighting] is compared by close analogy to effusion of semen, as it is written (Leviticus 15:32): “Such is the ritual concerning him who has a discharge: concerning him who has an emission of semen/שכבת זרע [and becomes impure thereby], just as the effusion/emission of semen defines through unavoidable accident, so does the first sighting of flux/gonorrhea defiles through unavoidable accident.

בשלישי אין בודקין אותו – neither for ritual defilement nor for a sacrifice.

רבי אליעזר אומר כו' – But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer (see Tractate Niddah 35a for the rationale of the dispute).