Leviticus 15:11

Verse 11. And whomsoever he toucheth] Here we find that the saliva, sitting on the same seat, lying on the same bed, riding on the same saddle, or simple contact, was sufficient to render the person unclean, meaning, possibly, in certain cases, to communicate the disorder; and it is well known that in all these ways the contagion of this disorder may be communicated. Is it not even possible that the effluvia from the body of an infected person may be the means of communicating the disease? Sydenham expressly says that it may be communicated by lactation, handling, the saliva, sweat, and by the breath itself, as well as by those grosser means of which there is no question. But the term unclean, in this and the following cases, is generally understood in a mere legal sense, the rendering a person unfit for sacred ordinances. And as there was a mild kind of gonorrhoea that was brought on by excessive fatigue and the like, it may be that kind only which the law has in view in the above ordinances.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(11) And hath not rinsed his hands in water.—If the patient happens to touch any one with his hands without having first washed his hands, the man who has thus been touched by the unwashen hands of the defiled invalid contracts pollution till sundown of the day on which he has been touched. He has to wash his clothes and immerse his whole body in water before he can partake of the privileges of the sanctuary. This is the only instance where the touch of the hand as imparting defilement is expressly mentioned, and where the washing of the hands alone is ordered in the Mosaic-Law to prevent the communication of pollution. The washing of the hands over the heifer, ordered in Deu_21:6, is of a different kind. It is meant to renounce any share in the guilt of the murder, or rather, to protest their innocence.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11. without having rinsed his hands in water] This is the only case mentioned in the law where a person who is unclean can, by washing his hands, avoid communicating uncleanness to another.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And whomsoever he toucheth that hath the issue,.... Not only he that touched him that had the issue, but whomsoever, and indeed whatsoever he touched, as the Targum of Jonathan, the Septuagint, and Arabic versions, were unclean; See Gill on Lev 15:4,

and hath not rinsed his hands in water; which is to be understood, not of the man that is touched, but of him that toucheth; and is interpreted by the Jewish writers, generally, of bathing the whole body; according to Aben Ezra, the simple sense is, every clean person, whom he that hath an issue touches and hath rinsed his hands, he is indeed unclean, but not his garments; and if his hands are not rinsed his garments are unclean, and this is as he that touches all that is under him; wherefore it follows:

he shall wash his clothes, &c. that is, if a man is touched, as the Targum of Jonathan, and not a thing, as directed and prescribed in the above cases instanced in; all which are designed to instruct men to abstain from conservation with impure persons in doctrine and practice.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Such a one; the person under the disorder, unless he have washed his hands.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

This may be understood, either,

1. Of the person touching, if he that hath an issue toucheth another with unwashen hands. Thus most take it. But why then should it be limited to his hands? for if he had touched him by any other part, as suppose by kissing him, he had defiled him, though his hands had been washed. Or rather,

2. Of the person touched, to whom the washing of his hands is prescribed as an easier way of cleansing himself, if speedily used; but if that was neglected or delayed, a more laborious course was enjoined him. And thus the Syriac interpreter understands it.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

11. Rinsed his hands — It is generally understood that this act refers to the diseased man. The Greek and Latin versions convey this meaning. The Hebrew is doubtful. The Syriac refers the hand rinsing to the person touched, though it is strange that he should be cleansed by washing his hands when some other part was touched.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And hath not rinsed - That is, the person touched, to whom the washing of his hands is prescribed, if speedily done; but if that was neglected, a more labourious course was enjoined.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

This also applied to every one whom the man with an issue might touch, without first rinsing his hands in water.

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

וידיו לא שטף כמים [AND WHOMSOEVER HE THAT HATH THE ISSUE] TOUCHETH AND HE HATH NOT RINSED HIS HANDS IN WATER [… SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN] — "and has not rinsed his hands” means: so long as he (the זב) has not immersed himself to cleanse himself from his uncleanness: even if he has ceased from his issue and has counted seven clean days (v. 13) but still lacks immersion he communicates uncleanness in all forms of defilment peculiar to him. And the reason why Scripture expresses the immersion of the whole body of the זב by the term “rinsing his hands” is to teach you that the hidden parts of the body (בית הסתרים, the inside of the mouth, ear, nose, etc., and the folds between adjoining portions of the body, קמטים) do not require “the coming of water” upon them (i. e. need not become wet when he immerses himself), but only such a limb which is visible, such as the hands (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Chapter 4 5).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

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,” become pure, he must immerse himself completely in water, this being implied in the term shataph (rinsing), as the following verse indicates. And the reason why Scripture uses the term “rinsing,” and why also it speaks here only of the hands having been rinsed, will be explained further on in the text. 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, Verse 4. and rides on, Verse 9. and anything on which he sat, Verse 6. 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 4:5. 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, Verses 16-18. 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

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.