Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 49:14

עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהושע התם אלא שאי אפשר בלא צחצוחי זיבה הא לאו הכי לא אלא האי תנא הוא דתנן למעלה מהן

If, however, you maintain that regarding 'touching' there is no need to apply the <i>a fortiori</i> on the ground that [apart from all inferences] <i>zab</i> could surely not be less defiling than an ordinary clean person,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose semen virile causes defilement by touching. ');">²⁵</span> my contention is [that the case may not be so, and] that the <i>a fortiori</i> may [still] be essential. For I could argue: By reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 11. ');">²⁶</span> is stated in Scripture to imply that the law of defilement applies only to those whose uncleanness has been occasioned solely by reason of their discharging semen virile, excluding thus <i>zab</i>, whose uncleanness has been occasioned not [solely] by his discharging semen virile but by another cause altogether.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by the affliction of gonorrhoea. [I may therefore have assumed that the semen virile of a zab causes no defilement, not even by 'touching'.] ');">²⁷</span> May not the <i>a fortiori</i> thus have to serve the purpose of letting us know that <i>zab</i> is not excluded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the a fortiori would still serve a useful purpose regarding defilement by 'touching', why should not the principle of Dayyo be employed to exclude defilement by mere 'carrying'? Hence this Tanna does not resort to Dayya even where the employment thereof would not render the a fortiori ineffective. ');">²⁸</span> — But where in the verse is it stated that the uncleanness must not have [concurrently] resulted also from any other cause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law applicable to semen virile to cause defilement by 'touching' is thus per se common with all kinds of persons. The inference by means of the a fortiori would therefore indeed be rendered useless if Dayyo, excluding as a result defilement by 'carrying', were admitted. ');">²⁹</span> Who is the Tanna whom you may have heard maintain that semen virile of <i>zab</i> causes [of itself] defilement by mere 'carrying'? He could surely be neither R. Eliezer, nor R. Joshua, for it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Naz. 66a. ');">³⁰</span> The semen virile of <i>zab</i> causes defilement by 'touching', but causes no defilement by mere 'carrying'. This is the view of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua, however, maintains that it also causes defilement by mere 'carrying', for it must necessarily contain particles of gonorrhoea.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which defile both by 'touching' and by 'carrying'. ');">³¹</span> Now, the sole reason there of R. Joshua's view is that semen virile cannot possibly be altogether free from particles of gonorrhoea, but taken on its own it would not cause defilement. The Tanna who maintains this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That semen virile of zab defiles by mere 'carrying' even on its own. ');">³²</span> must therefore be he who is responsible for what we have learnt: More severe than the former [causes of defilement]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the three primary Defilements: Dead Reptile, Semen Virile and the Person contaminated by contact with a corpse, all of which do not defile by mere carrying'. v. supra p. 2. ');">³³</span>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 49:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.