Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 20, 2021 | 讟状讝 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Megillah 8

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Yehudit Cohen in loving memory of Yitzchak Eitan ben Yehudit Shulamit.聽

The only difference between the one who vows not to benefit from another and one who vows not to benefit from one’s food is walking within the other’s territory and borrowing vessels that are not used for food preparation. Is walking through someone else’s property considered a benefit, even if it doesn’t bother the owner? The difference between vows of a neder and vows of a nedava and alms is in the matter of responsibility – if an animal is dead, stolen, or lost – does the one who made the vow need to bring another animal. A neder is when one says “I accept upon myself” and a nedava is when one says, “This animal will be brought.” The differences between a zav who sees two discharges and a zav who sees three discharges are in the matter of bringing a sacrifice, but for other things – level of impurity and counting seven clean ones – both are the same. How does one learn these laws from the verses on the Torah in Vayikra Chapter 15? The only difference between a quarantined leper (metzora musgar) who was determined not to be a leper and an absolute leper (metzora muchlat, who was determined to have leprosy) is that the musgar does not have to let his hair grow long or tear his clothes. As for the process of purification, only the muchlat needs to shave all his hair and bring the birds. From where in the verses are there laws derived?

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讜讚专 诪诪谞讜 诪讗讻诇 讗诇讗 讚专讬住转 讛专讙诇 讜讻诇讬诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖

MISHNA: The difference between one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow and one for whom benefit from another鈥檚 food is forbidden by vow is only with regard to stepping foot on his property, and with regard to borrowing utensils from him that one does not use in the preparation of food, but for other purposes; as those two benefits are prohibited to the former, but permitted to the latter.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讬诐 砖注讜砖讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of utensils that one uses in preparation of food, both this, one who vowed that any benefit is forbidden, and that, one who vowed that benefit from food is forbidden, are equal. It is prohibited for both to derive benefit from utensils used in the preparation of food.

讚专讬住转 讛专讙诇 讛讗 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讜讬转讜专 讗住讜专 讘诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛

The mishna stated that for one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow, stepping foot on the latter鈥檚 property is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What benefit is that? Aren鈥檛 people not particular about other people treading on their property? Rava said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Overlooking is prohibited in the case of one for whom benefit is forbidden by vow. For one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow, benefit is forbidden even in matters with regard to which one is typically not particular and overlooks others鈥 use of his property, e.g., stepping foot on it.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 诇谞讚讘讜转 讗诇讗 砖讛谞讚专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉

MISHNA: The difference between animals consecrated to the Temple as vow offerings and animals consecrated as gift offerings is only that in the case of vow offerings, if they died or were lost before being sacrificed on the altar, one is obligated in the responsibility to replace them, and in the case of gift offerings, if they died or were lost, one is not obligated in the responsibility to replace them.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 讘诇 转讗讞专 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of the prohibition: Do not be slack to pay one鈥檚 pledges, both this, a vow offering, and that, a gift offering, are equal. If one delayed bringing either a vow offering or a gift offering, he violates the prohibition.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讬 讝讛讜 谞讚专 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讚讘讛 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 注讜诇讛 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 诇谞讚讘讜转 谞讚专讬诐 诪转讜 讗讜 谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 讗讘讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 谞讚讘讜转 诪转讜 讗讜 谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 讗讘讚讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉

We learned in a mishna there: Which is the case of a vow offering? It is one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering. Which is the case of a gift offering? It is one who says: This animal is a burnt-offering. And what is the difference between a vow offering and a gift offering? With regard to vow offerings, if the animals died or were stolen or were lost, the one who vowed is obligated in the responsibility to replace them, as he undertook to bring a burnt-offering and he is not absolved of his obligation until he brings the offering. With regard to gift offerings, however, if the animals died or were stolen or were lost, the one who vowed is not obligated in the responsibility to replace them.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜谞专爪讛 诇讜 诇讻驻专 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗转 砖注诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讜讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 注诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to a burnt-offering, that the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him鈥 (Leviticus 1:4). Rabbi Shimon says: That which is incumbent upon him, i.e., which he accepted as a personal obligation, he bears responsibility to replace it if it died or was stolen; however, that which is not incumbent upon him, i.e., that which he did not accept as a personal obligation but which he designated as an offering, he does not bear responsibility to replace it.

诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 讻诪讗谉 讚讟注讬谉 讗讻转驻讬讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: From where may that conclusion be inferred from the verse? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said: Since he said it is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering, he is considered as one who bears it upon his shoulders. The expression: Upon me, indicates an assumption of responsibility to bring an offering.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讝讘 讛专讜讗讛 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 诇专讜讗讛 砖诇砖 讗诇讗 拽专讘谉

MISHNA: The difference between a zav who experiences two emissions of a pus-like discharge from his penis and one who experiences three emissions is only that the zav who experienced three emissions is obligated to bring an offering after he recovers, in order to complete his purification process.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of transmitting ritual impurity to a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting, and similarly with regard to the counting of seven days clean of emissions so that he may immerse in a ritual bath as part of the purification process, both this, i.e., one who experienced two emissions, and that, one who experienced three emissions, are equal.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 砖转讬诐 讜拽专讗讜 讟诪讗 砖诇砖 讜拽专讗讜 讟诪讗 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 砖转讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜砖诇砖 诇拽专讘谉

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: The verse enumerated two emissions: 鈥淲hen any man has an emission out of his flesh, due to his emission he is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2), and it called the zav impure. Another verse enumerated three emissions: 鈥淎nd this shall be his impurity in his emission: Whether his flesh runs with his emission, or his flesh be stopped from his emission, it is his impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:3), and it too called him impure. How so? If he is impure after two emissions, for what purpose does the Torah mention three? It is to teach: Two emissions to establish impurity and three to render him liable to bring an offering.

讜讗讬诪专 砖转讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 诇拽专讘谉 砖诇砖 诇拽专讘谉 讜诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专转 注讚 砖诇讗 专讗讛 砖诇砖 专讗讛 砖转讬诐

The Gemara raises an alternative. And say instead: Two emissions to establish impurity but not to render him liable to bring an offering; three emissions to render him liable to bring an offering, but not to establish impurity. The Gemara rejects this: That is impossible, as you can say that until he experienced three emissions, he already experienced two, and therefore he is impure in the case of three emissions as well.

讜讗讬诪专 砖转讬诐 诇拽专讘谉 讜诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇砖 讗祝 诇讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讜 讛讻讛谉 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 诪讝讜讘讜 诪拽爪转 讝讘讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讜诪拽爪转 讝讘讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 专讗讛 砖诇砖 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗

The Gemara raises a different alternative. And say instead: Two emissions to render him liable to bring an offering, but not to establish impurity; three emissions to establish impurity as well. The Gemara answers that this suggestion cannot enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord from his emission鈥 (Leviticus 15:15). The preposition 鈥渇rom鈥 that precedes the words 鈥渉is emissions鈥 indicates that some with the status of a zav bring an offering and some with the status of a zav do not bring an offering. How so? If he experienced three emissions, he brings an offering; if he experienced two emissions, he does not bring an offering.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 专讗讛 砖转讬诐 诪讘讬讗 专讗讛 砖诇砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诪专转 注讚 砖诇讗 专讗讛 砖诇砖 专讗讛 砖转讬诐

The baraita suggests: Or perhaps, it means nothing other than that if one experienced two emissions, he brings an offering; if he experienced three emissions, he does not bring an offering. The Gemara rejects this: That is impossible, as you can say that until he experienced three emissions, he already experienced two, and therefore he is obligated to bring an offering in the case of three emissions as well.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诪讝讜讘讜 讚讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 拽讜砖讬讬谉 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讝讜讘讜 讜讗讬 诪讝讜讘讜 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讻诪讛 专讗讬讜转 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬

The Gemara comments: It was necessary to cite the proof of Rabbi Simai based on the number of mentions of the word emissions in the two verses, and it was necessary to cite the proof from the words: From his emission. As if the difference between two and three emissions was derived from the statement of Rabbi Simai, I would have said in accordance with our question: Perhaps one who experiences two emissions brings an offering, and one who experiences three emissions is impure and brings an offering. Therefore, it teaches us: From his emission. And if the difference between two and three emissions was derived from the term: From his emission, I would not have known how many emissions render him liable to bring an offering, only that some with the status of a zav are not required to bring an offering. Therefore, it teaches us the proof cited by Rabbi Simai.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 诪讝讜讘讜 诇讚专砖讗 讜讻讬 讬讟讛专 讛讝讘 诪讝讜讘讜 诪讗讬 讚专砖转 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: And now that you said that the term: From his emission, is exclusionary and comes for derivation, what do you derive from the verse: 鈥淎nd when the zav is cleansed from his emission鈥 (Leviticus 15:13)?

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讻讬 讬讟讛专 讛讝讘 诇讻砖讬驻住讜拽 诪讝讜讘讜 [诪讝讜讘讜] 讜诇讗 诪讝讜讘讜 讜谞讙注讜 诪讝讜讘讜 讜住驻专 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 砖讟注讜谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛

The Gemara answers: That verse is needed to derive that which was taught in a baraita. It is written: 鈥淎nd when the zav is cleansed from his emission, then he shall count to himself seven days for his purification鈥 (Leviticus 15:13), when his emissions cease. The baraita infers from the term: From his emission, that he needs to be cleansed only from his emission, but not from his emission and his leprosy. If one was both a zav and also had leprosy, he need not wait until he is asymptomatic of his leprosy before counting seven clean days. Rather, he counts seven clean days, and after the leprosy symptoms cease, he immerses for both impurities. 鈥淔rom his emission, then he shall count鈥: This teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days.

讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诐 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇讗 讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛

The baraita continues: But in order to derive that halakha, the verse is unnecessary, as isn鈥檛 it only logical? If a zav who experienced two emissions renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure and all strictures of a zav apply to him, wouldn鈥檛 he require a count of seven clean days to become purified?

砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 转讜讻讬讞 砖诪讟诪讗讛 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛

A woman who observes a clean day for one day or two days that she experiences a discharge will prove that this is not the case. This refers to a woman who experienced one or two days of bleeding not during her menstrual period and is required to wait one day without any further discharge of blood before immersion in a ritual bath. This is significant because she renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure, and nevertheless she does not require a count of seven clean days to become purified.

讜讗祝 讗转讛 讗诇 转转诪讛 注诇 讝讛 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇讗 讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讝讜讘讜 讜住驻专 诪拽爪转 讝讜讘讜 讜住驻专 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 砖讟注讜谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛

And you too should not then be surprised that this zav, although he renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure, he does not require a count of seven clean days to become purified. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔rom his emission, then he shall count,鈥 meaning that even a partial zav is obligated in the mitzva of: Then he shall count. This teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讗讬 诪讝讜讘讜 讚诪专讘讬 讘讬讛 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讗讬 诪讝讜讘讜 讚诪诪注讟 讘讬讛 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is different about this verse that states: 鈥From his emission,鈥 which is interpreted to include a zav who experienced two emissions in the obligation to count seven clean days; and what is different about that verse that states: 鈥From his emission,鈥 which is interpreted to exclude a zav who experienced two emissions from the obligation to bring an offering? Why is the identical term interpreted once as inclusionary and once as exclusionary?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇讬砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗转讬讗 诪讚讬谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 转讜讻讬讞

Abaye said to him: If it enters your mind to say that this instance of the term: 鈥淔rom his emission,鈥 comes to exclude a zav who experienced two emissions from the obligation to count seven clean days, let the verse remain silent and omit the term, as there would have been no basis to include a zav who experienced two emissions in that halakha. And if you would say that this can be inferred logically, a woman who observes a day for a day will prove that there is no correlation between ritual impurity transmitted to a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting, and the obligation to count seven clean days.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪讝讜讘讜 讜诇讗 诪谞讙注讜 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讜讻讬 讬讟讛专 讛讝讘 讜诇讬砖转讜拽 诪讝讜讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 砖讟注讜谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛

And if you would say that this term: From his emission, is needed to derive a different inclusion, i.e., that he counts seven days when he is clean from his emission and not from his leprosy and therefore it was necessary to write this term, that is not so. As if it were so, then let the verse write: 鈥淎nd when the zav is cleansed鈥 and let the verse remain silent and omit the term, and it would have been clear that even one afflicted with leprosy counts seven clean days once he is cleansed from his emission. Why then do I need the term: From his emission? Rather, it must be understood as an inclusionary term that teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 诪爪讜专注 诪讜住讙专 诇诪爪讜专注 诪讜讞诇讟 讗诇讗 驻专讬注讛 讜驻专讬诪讛

MISHNA: The difference between a quarantined leper, i.e., one examined by a priest who found his symptoms to be inconclusive, and who must therefore remain in isolation for a period of up to two weeks waiting to see if conclusive symptoms develop; and a confirmed leper, i.e., one whose symptoms were conclusive and the priest declared him an absolute leper, is only with regard to letting the hair on one鈥檚 head grow wild and rending one鈥檚 garments. A confirmed leper is obligated to let the hair on his head grow wild and rend his garments; a quarantined leper is not.

讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专 诪转讜讱 讛住讙专 诇讟讛讜专 诪转讜讱 讛讞诇讟 讗诇讗 转讙诇讞转 讜爪驻专讬诐

The difference between a leper purified from quarantine, whose symptoms never became conclusive, and a leper purified from a state of confirmed leprosy is only with regard to shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering, which are obligations incumbent only upon the confirmed leper.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讬诇讜讞 [讜讟讜诪讗讛] 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of expulsion, from all three camps in the encampment of the Israelites in the desert and from the walled cities in Eretz Yisrael, and the ritual impurity of a leper: Both this, the quarantined leper, and that, the confirmed leper, are equal.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讟讛专讜 讛讻讛谉 诪住驻讞转 讛讬讗 讜讻讘住 讘讙讚讬讜 讜讟讛专 讟讛讜专 诪驻专讬注讛 讜驻专讬诪讛 讚诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k taught in a baraita before Rav Huna. It is written with regard to a leper who was purified from quarantine: 鈥淭he priest shall pronounce him clean: It is but a scab, and he shall wash his clothes and be purified [vetaher]鈥 (Leviticus 13:6). The word vetaher is not in the future tense, which would indicate that from that point he is purified; it is rather in the present tense, indicating that at the outset, even before the priest鈥檚 pronouncement, he was pure in the sense that he was exempt from the initial obligation of letting the hair on his head grow wild and rending his garments, as those obligations are incumbent exclusively upon the confirmed leper.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 讝讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讘住 讘讙讚讬讜 讜讟讛专 讛转诐 诪讗讬 讜讟讛专 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬讻讗

Rava said to him: However, if that is so, i.e., that vetaher means that one is somewhat pure at the outset, then with regard to a zav, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be clean [vetaher]鈥 (Leviticus 15:13), there, what sense of: And he shall be clean, at the outset is there in that case? Up until that point, the zav was ritually impure in every sense.

讗诇讗 讟讛讜专 讛砖转讗 诪诇讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讞专住 讘讛讬住讟 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讚专 讞讝讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注

Rather, vetaher means that he is now pure from rendering earthenware vessels impure through movement. There is a halakha that a zav renders a vessel impure if he causes it to be moved, even though he did not come into direct contact with it, even if the opening of the vessel is smaller than a fingerbreadth. The verse teaches that once the zav is purified through counting and immersion, he no longer renders vessels impure in that manner. The novelty here is that even if he then experiences another emission, he does not render the vessels impure retroactively. This emission is unrelated to the previous emissions. Therefore, upon experiencing the emission, the zav is not retroactively considered to have been ritually impure the entire time, even after immersion. Rather, since he counted seven clean days and immersed, the legal status of this latest emission is that of a new emission.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讟讛讜专 [讛砖转讗 诪诇讟诪讗 讘讘讬讗讛 诇诪驻专注]

Here too, with regard to the leper, vetaher means that the quarantined leper is now pure from retroactively rendering the contents of a house impure by his entrance into the house. If someone with inconclusive symptoms of leprosy was quarantined and then declared ritually pure, and subsequently conclusive symptoms of leprosy developed, he is not considered to have been a leper from the time of the original quarantine, in which case the contents of any house he entered from that point would be rendered impure retroactively. Rather, once he was purified, he was absolutely pure. These subsequent conclusive symptoms are unrelated to the previous inconclusive symptoms. Therefore, the proof adduced by Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k is no proof.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讛爪专讜注 讗砖专 讘讜 讛谞讙注 诪讬 砖爪专注转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专注转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讬诐

Rather, Rava said that the halakha that a quarantined leper is exempt from the obligation to let his hair grow and to rend his clothing is derived from here. It is written: 鈥淎nd the leper in whom [bo] the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall grow wild鈥 (Leviticus 13:45), indicating that only one whose leprosy is dependent on the state of his body, in whom the plague is, is obligated to let his hair grow wild and to rend his garments. This excludes that leper whose leprosy is not dependent solely on the state of his body, but rather on the passage of days, as he is obligated to wait seven days.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻诇 讬诪讬 讗砖专 讛谞讙注 讘讜 讬讟诪讗 诪讬 砖爪专注转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讛讜讗 讚讟注讜谉 砖讬诇讜讞 讜砖讗讬谉 爪专注转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 砖讬诇讜讞

Abaye said to him: However, if that is so, then also with regard to the verse: 鈥淎ll the days during which the plague shall be in him [bo] he shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:46), say one whose leprosy is dependent on the state of his body requires expulsion from the camp, and one whose leprosy is not dependent solely on the state of his body, but rather on the passage of days, does not require expulsion.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 诪爪讜专注 诪讜住讙专 诇诪爪讜专注 诪讜讞诇讟 讗诇讗 驻专讬注讛 讜驻专讬诪讛 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讬诇讜讞 讜诇讟诪讜讬讬 讘讘讬讗讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

And if you would say: Indeed that is so, but isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna: The difference between a quarantined leper and a confirmed leper is only with regard to letting the hair on one鈥檚 head grow wild and rending one鈥檚 garments? And it is inferred that with regard to the matter of expulsion and the capacity of a leper to render impure the contents of a house by entry into the house, both this, the quarantined leper, and that, the confirmed leper, are equal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬诪讬 讻诇 讬诪讬 诇专讘讜转 诪爪讜专注 诪讜住讙专 诇砖讬诇讜讞

Rava said to him: There is a different source for the obligation to expel the quarantined leper from the camp. The verse could have stated: The days during which the plague shall be upon him. Instead the verse states: All the days, to include a quarantined leper in the obligation of expulsion from the camp, like a confirmed leper.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转讙诇讞转 讜爪驻专讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专 诪转讜讱 讛住讙专 诇讟讛讜专 诪转讜讱 讛讞诇讟 讗诇讗 转讙诇讞转 讜爪驻专讬诐

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the reason that a quarantined leper is not obligated in shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering as part of his purification process? As it teaches in the mishna: The difference between a leper purified from quarantine, whose symptoms never became conclusive, and a leper purified from a state of confirmed leprosy, is only with regard to shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗 讛讻讛谉 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讜讛谞讛 谞专驻讗 谞讙注 讛爪专注转 诪讬 砖爪专注转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘专驻讜讗讜转 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专注转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘专驻讜讗讜转 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讬诐

Abaye said that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look, and behold, if the plague of leprosy is healed in the leper鈥 (Leviticus 14:3), then the purification process that includes shaving and bringing birds commences. This indicates that these halakhot apply to a confirmed leper whose leprosy is dependent on healing, to exclude that leper whose leprosy is not dependent solely on healing but rather on the passage of days. Even if his symptoms are healed, he is pure only at the conclusion of the seven days of quarantine.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 住驻专讬诐 诇转驻诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 讗诇讗 砖讛住驻专讬诐 谞讻转讘讬谉 讘讻诇 诇砖讜谉 讜转驻诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 讗讬谞谉 谞讻转讘讜转 讗诇讗 讗砖讜专讬转

MISHNA: The difference between Torah scrolls, and phylacteries and mezuzot, in terms of the manner in which they are written, is only that Torah scrolls are written in any language, whereas phylacteries and mezuzot are written only in Ashurit, i.e., in Hebrew and using the Hebrew script.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘住驻专讬诐 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 砖讬讻转讘讜 讗诇讗 讬讜讜谞讬转

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to Torah scrolls, the Sages permitted them to be written only in Greek. Torah scrolls written in any other language do not have the sanctity of a Torah scroll.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇转讜驻专谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讜诇讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of stitching the sheets of parchment with sinews, and with regard to rendering the hands of one who touches them impure, both this, Torah scrolls, and that, phylacteries and mezuzot, are equal. The Sages issued a decree rendering the hands of one who touches sacred scrolls impure with second-degree ritual impurity.

讜住驻专讬诐 谞讻转讘讬谉 讘讻诇 诇砖讜谉 讜讻讜壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪拽专讗 砖讻转讘讜 转专讙讜诐 讜转专讙讜诐 砖讻转讘讜 诪拽专讗 讜讻转讘 注讘专讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 注讚 砖讬讻转讘谞讜 讘讻转讘 讗砖讜专讬转 注诇 讛住驻专 讜讘讚讬讜

The mishna stated: Torah scrolls are written in any language. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: A Torah scroll containing a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, or that was written in the ancient Hebrew script and not in Ashurit, renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink. Apparently, contrary to the mishna, a scroll written in a language other than Hebrew is not sacred.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rava said: This is not difficult.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Megillah: 2-9 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

The holiday of Purim is celebrated on the 14th of Adar. Walled cities from the time of Joshua celebrate it...
talking talmud_square

Megillah 8: The “Only” Distinction(s)

5 mishnayot, comparing and contrasting and delineating... For a variety of unexpected topics, including oaths, bodily fluids, and scribal requirements...
alon shvut women

Megillah 8

Megillah, Daf 8, Teacher: Tamara Spitz https://youtu.be/X_-TCtkOa74
Megilla with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson

Introduction to Megillah

Watch the video introduction or listen to the podcast below. https://youtu.be/fwTrNOQA0To Podcast: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/hadran/IntroMegilla.mp3

Megillah 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Megillah 8

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讜讚专 诪诪谞讜 诪讗讻诇 讗诇讗 讚专讬住转 讛专讙诇 讜讻诇讬诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖

MISHNA: The difference between one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow and one for whom benefit from another鈥檚 food is forbidden by vow is only with regard to stepping foot on his property, and with regard to borrowing utensils from him that one does not use in the preparation of food, but for other purposes; as those two benefits are prohibited to the former, but permitted to the latter.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讬诐 砖注讜砖讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of utensils that one uses in preparation of food, both this, one who vowed that any benefit is forbidden, and that, one who vowed that benefit from food is forbidden, are equal. It is prohibited for both to derive benefit from utensils used in the preparation of food.

讚专讬住转 讛专讙诇 讛讗 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讜讬转讜专 讗住讜专 讘诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛

The mishna stated that for one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow, stepping foot on the latter鈥檚 property is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What benefit is that? Aren鈥檛 people not particular about other people treading on their property? Rava said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Overlooking is prohibited in the case of one for whom benefit is forbidden by vow. For one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow, benefit is forbidden even in matters with regard to which one is typically not particular and overlooks others鈥 use of his property, e.g., stepping foot on it.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 诇谞讚讘讜转 讗诇讗 砖讛谞讚专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉

MISHNA: The difference between animals consecrated to the Temple as vow offerings and animals consecrated as gift offerings is only that in the case of vow offerings, if they died or were lost before being sacrificed on the altar, one is obligated in the responsibility to replace them, and in the case of gift offerings, if they died or were lost, one is not obligated in the responsibility to replace them.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 讘诇 转讗讞专 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of the prohibition: Do not be slack to pay one鈥檚 pledges, both this, a vow offering, and that, a gift offering, are equal. If one delayed bringing either a vow offering or a gift offering, he violates the prohibition.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讬 讝讛讜 谞讚专 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讚讘讛 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 注讜诇讛 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 诇谞讚讘讜转 谞讚专讬诐 诪转讜 讗讜 谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 讗讘讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 谞讚讘讜转 诪转讜 讗讜 谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 讗讘讚讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉

We learned in a mishna there: Which is the case of a vow offering? It is one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering. Which is the case of a gift offering? It is one who says: This animal is a burnt-offering. And what is the difference between a vow offering and a gift offering? With regard to vow offerings, if the animals died or were stolen or were lost, the one who vowed is obligated in the responsibility to replace them, as he undertook to bring a burnt-offering and he is not absolved of his obligation until he brings the offering. With regard to gift offerings, however, if the animals died or were stolen or were lost, the one who vowed is not obligated in the responsibility to replace them.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜谞专爪讛 诇讜 诇讻驻专 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗转 砖注诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讜讗转 砖讗讬谞讜 注诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to a burnt-offering, that the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him鈥 (Leviticus 1:4). Rabbi Shimon says: That which is incumbent upon him, i.e., which he accepted as a personal obligation, he bears responsibility to replace it if it died or was stolen; however, that which is not incumbent upon him, i.e., that which he did not accept as a personal obligation but which he designated as an offering, he does not bear responsibility to replace it.

诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 讻诪讗谉 讚讟注讬谉 讗讻转驻讬讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: From where may that conclusion be inferred from the verse? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said: Since he said it is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering, he is considered as one who bears it upon his shoulders. The expression: Upon me, indicates an assumption of responsibility to bring an offering.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讝讘 讛专讜讗讛 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 诇专讜讗讛 砖诇砖 讗诇讗 拽专讘谉

MISHNA: The difference between a zav who experiences two emissions of a pus-like discharge from his penis and one who experiences three emissions is only that the zav who experienced three emissions is obligated to bring an offering after he recovers, in order to complete his purification process.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of transmitting ritual impurity to a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting, and similarly with regard to the counting of seven days clean of emissions so that he may immerse in a ritual bath as part of the purification process, both this, i.e., one who experienced two emissions, and that, one who experienced three emissions, are equal.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 砖转讬诐 讜拽专讗讜 讟诪讗 砖诇砖 讜拽专讗讜 讟诪讗 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 砖转讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜砖诇砖 诇拽专讘谉

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: The verse enumerated two emissions: 鈥淲hen any man has an emission out of his flesh, due to his emission he is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2), and it called the zav impure. Another verse enumerated three emissions: 鈥淎nd this shall be his impurity in his emission: Whether his flesh runs with his emission, or his flesh be stopped from his emission, it is his impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:3), and it too called him impure. How so? If he is impure after two emissions, for what purpose does the Torah mention three? It is to teach: Two emissions to establish impurity and three to render him liable to bring an offering.

讜讗讬诪专 砖转讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讗 诇拽专讘谉 砖诇砖 诇拽专讘谉 讜诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专转 注讚 砖诇讗 专讗讛 砖诇砖 专讗讛 砖转讬诐

The Gemara raises an alternative. And say instead: Two emissions to establish impurity but not to render him liable to bring an offering; three emissions to render him liable to bring an offering, but not to establish impurity. The Gemara rejects this: That is impossible, as you can say that until he experienced three emissions, he already experienced two, and therefore he is impure in the case of three emissions as well.

讜讗讬诪专 砖转讬诐 诇拽专讘谉 讜诇讗 诇讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇砖 讗祝 诇讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻驻专 注诇讬讜 讛讻讛谉 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 诪讝讜讘讜 诪拽爪转 讝讘讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讜诪拽爪转 讝讘讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 专讗讛 砖诇砖 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗

The Gemara raises a different alternative. And say instead: Two emissions to render him liable to bring an offering, but not to establish impurity; three emissions to establish impurity as well. The Gemara answers that this suggestion cannot enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord from his emission鈥 (Leviticus 15:15). The preposition 鈥渇rom鈥 that precedes the words 鈥渉is emissions鈥 indicates that some with the status of a zav bring an offering and some with the status of a zav do not bring an offering. How so? If he experienced three emissions, he brings an offering; if he experienced two emissions, he does not bring an offering.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 专讗讛 砖转讬诐 诪讘讬讗 专讗讛 砖诇砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诪专转 注讚 砖诇讗 专讗讛 砖诇砖 专讗讛 砖转讬诐

The baraita suggests: Or perhaps, it means nothing other than that if one experienced two emissions, he brings an offering; if he experienced three emissions, he does not bring an offering. The Gemara rejects this: That is impossible, as you can say that until he experienced three emissions, he already experienced two, and therefore he is obligated to bring an offering in the case of three emissions as well.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诪讝讜讘讜 讚讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 拽讜砖讬讬谉 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讝讜讘讜 讜讗讬 诪讝讜讘讜 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讻诪讛 专讗讬讜转 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬

The Gemara comments: It was necessary to cite the proof of Rabbi Simai based on the number of mentions of the word emissions in the two verses, and it was necessary to cite the proof from the words: From his emission. As if the difference between two and three emissions was derived from the statement of Rabbi Simai, I would have said in accordance with our question: Perhaps one who experiences two emissions brings an offering, and one who experiences three emissions is impure and brings an offering. Therefore, it teaches us: From his emission. And if the difference between two and three emissions was derived from the term: From his emission, I would not have known how many emissions render him liable to bring an offering, only that some with the status of a zav are not required to bring an offering. Therefore, it teaches us the proof cited by Rabbi Simai.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 诪讝讜讘讜 诇讚专砖讗 讜讻讬 讬讟讛专 讛讝讘 诪讝讜讘讜 诪讗讬 讚专砖转 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: And now that you said that the term: From his emission, is exclusionary and comes for derivation, what do you derive from the verse: 鈥淎nd when the zav is cleansed from his emission鈥 (Leviticus 15:13)?

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讻讬 讬讟讛专 讛讝讘 诇讻砖讬驻住讜拽 诪讝讜讘讜 [诪讝讜讘讜] 讜诇讗 诪讝讜讘讜 讜谞讙注讜 诪讝讜讘讜 讜住驻专 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 砖讟注讜谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛

The Gemara answers: That verse is needed to derive that which was taught in a baraita. It is written: 鈥淎nd when the zav is cleansed from his emission, then he shall count to himself seven days for his purification鈥 (Leviticus 15:13), when his emissions cease. The baraita infers from the term: From his emission, that he needs to be cleansed only from his emission, but not from his emission and his leprosy. If one was both a zav and also had leprosy, he need not wait until he is asymptomatic of his leprosy before counting seven clean days. Rather, he counts seven clean days, and after the leprosy symptoms cease, he immerses for both impurities. 鈥淔rom his emission, then he shall count鈥: This teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days.

讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诐 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇讗 讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛

The baraita continues: But in order to derive that halakha, the verse is unnecessary, as isn鈥檛 it only logical? If a zav who experienced two emissions renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure and all strictures of a zav apply to him, wouldn鈥檛 he require a count of seven clean days to become purified?

砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 转讜讻讬讞 砖诪讟诪讗讛 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛

A woman who observes a clean day for one day or two days that she experiences a discharge will prove that this is not the case. This refers to a woman who experienced one or two days of bleeding not during her menstrual period and is required to wait one day without any further discharge of blood before immersion in a ritual bath. This is significant because she renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure, and nevertheless she does not require a count of seven clean days to become purified.

讜讗祝 讗转讛 讗诇 转转诪讛 注诇 讝讛 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 诇讗 讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讝讜讘讜 讜住驻专 诪拽爪转 讝讜讘讜 讜住驻专 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 砖讟注讜谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛

And you too should not then be surprised that this zav, although he renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure, he does not require a count of seven clean days to become purified. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔rom his emission, then he shall count,鈥 meaning that even a partial zav is obligated in the mitzva of: Then he shall count. This teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讗讬 诪讝讜讘讜 讚诪专讘讬 讘讬讛 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讗讬 诪讝讜讘讜 讚诪诪注讟 讘讬讛 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is different about this verse that states: 鈥From his emission,鈥 which is interpreted to include a zav who experienced two emissions in the obligation to count seven clean days; and what is different about that verse that states: 鈥From his emission,鈥 which is interpreted to exclude a zav who experienced two emissions from the obligation to bring an offering? Why is the identical term interpreted once as inclusionary and once as exclusionary?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇讬砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗转讬讗 诪讚讬谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讜诐 讻谞讙讚 讬讜诐 转讜讻讬讞

Abaye said to him: If it enters your mind to say that this instance of the term: 鈥淔rom his emission,鈥 comes to exclude a zav who experienced two emissions from the obligation to count seven clean days, let the verse remain silent and omit the term, as there would have been no basis to include a zav who experienced two emissions in that halakha. And if you would say that this can be inferred logically, a woman who observes a day for a day will prove that there is no correlation between ritual impurity transmitted to a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting, and the obligation to count seven clean days.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪讝讜讘讜 讜诇讗 诪谞讙注讜 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讜讻讬 讬讟讛专 讛讝讘 讜诇讬砖转讜拽 诪讝讜讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 砖讟注讜谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛

And if you would say that this term: From his emission, is needed to derive a different inclusion, i.e., that he counts seven days when he is clean from his emission and not from his leprosy and therefore it was necessary to write this term, that is not so. As if it were so, then let the verse write: 鈥淎nd when the zav is cleansed鈥 and let the verse remain silent and omit the term, and it would have been clear that even one afflicted with leprosy counts seven clean days once he is cleansed from his emission. Why then do I need the term: From his emission? Rather, it must be understood as an inclusionary term that teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 诪爪讜专注 诪讜住讙专 诇诪爪讜专注 诪讜讞诇讟 讗诇讗 驻专讬注讛 讜驻专讬诪讛

MISHNA: The difference between a quarantined leper, i.e., one examined by a priest who found his symptoms to be inconclusive, and who must therefore remain in isolation for a period of up to two weeks waiting to see if conclusive symptoms develop; and a confirmed leper, i.e., one whose symptoms were conclusive and the priest declared him an absolute leper, is only with regard to letting the hair on one鈥檚 head grow wild and rending one鈥檚 garments. A confirmed leper is obligated to let the hair on his head grow wild and rend his garments; a quarantined leper is not.

讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专 诪转讜讱 讛住讙专 诇讟讛讜专 诪转讜讱 讛讞诇讟 讗诇讗 转讙诇讞转 讜爪驻专讬诐

The difference between a leper purified from quarantine, whose symptoms never became conclusive, and a leper purified from a state of confirmed leprosy is only with regard to shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering, which are obligations incumbent only upon the confirmed leper.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讬诇讜讞 [讜讟讜诪讗讛] 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of expulsion, from all three camps in the encampment of the Israelites in the desert and from the walled cities in Eretz Yisrael, and the ritual impurity of a leper: Both this, the quarantined leper, and that, the confirmed leper, are equal.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讟讛专讜 讛讻讛谉 诪住驻讞转 讛讬讗 讜讻讘住 讘讙讚讬讜 讜讟讛专 讟讛讜专 诪驻专讬注讛 讜驻专讬诪讛 讚诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k taught in a baraita before Rav Huna. It is written with regard to a leper who was purified from quarantine: 鈥淭he priest shall pronounce him clean: It is but a scab, and he shall wash his clothes and be purified [vetaher]鈥 (Leviticus 13:6). The word vetaher is not in the future tense, which would indicate that from that point he is purified; it is rather in the present tense, indicating that at the outset, even before the priest鈥檚 pronouncement, he was pure in the sense that he was exempt from the initial obligation of letting the hair on his head grow wild and rending his garments, as those obligations are incumbent exclusively upon the confirmed leper.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 讝讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讘住 讘讙讚讬讜 讜讟讛专 讛转诐 诪讗讬 讜讟讛专 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬讻讗

Rava said to him: However, if that is so, i.e., that vetaher means that one is somewhat pure at the outset, then with regard to a zav, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be clean [vetaher]鈥 (Leviticus 15:13), there, what sense of: And he shall be clean, at the outset is there in that case? Up until that point, the zav was ritually impure in every sense.

讗诇讗 讟讛讜专 讛砖转讗 诪诇讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讞专住 讘讛讬住讟 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讚专 讞讝讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇诪驻专注

Rather, vetaher means that he is now pure from rendering earthenware vessels impure through movement. There is a halakha that a zav renders a vessel impure if he causes it to be moved, even though he did not come into direct contact with it, even if the opening of the vessel is smaller than a fingerbreadth. The verse teaches that once the zav is purified through counting and immersion, he no longer renders vessels impure in that manner. The novelty here is that even if he then experiences another emission, he does not render the vessels impure retroactively. This emission is unrelated to the previous emissions. Therefore, upon experiencing the emission, the zav is not retroactively considered to have been ritually impure the entire time, even after immersion. Rather, since he counted seven clean days and immersed, the legal status of this latest emission is that of a new emission.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讟讛讜专 [讛砖转讗 诪诇讟诪讗 讘讘讬讗讛 诇诪驻专注]

Here too, with regard to the leper, vetaher means that the quarantined leper is now pure from retroactively rendering the contents of a house impure by his entrance into the house. If someone with inconclusive symptoms of leprosy was quarantined and then declared ritually pure, and subsequently conclusive symptoms of leprosy developed, he is not considered to have been a leper from the time of the original quarantine, in which case the contents of any house he entered from that point would be rendered impure retroactively. Rather, once he was purified, he was absolutely pure. These subsequent conclusive symptoms are unrelated to the previous inconclusive symptoms. Therefore, the proof adduced by Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k is no proof.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讛爪专讜注 讗砖专 讘讜 讛谞讙注 诪讬 砖爪专注转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专注转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讬诐

Rather, Rava said that the halakha that a quarantined leper is exempt from the obligation to let his hair grow and to rend his clothing is derived from here. It is written: 鈥淎nd the leper in whom [bo] the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall grow wild鈥 (Leviticus 13:45), indicating that only one whose leprosy is dependent on the state of his body, in whom the plague is, is obligated to let his hair grow wild and to rend his garments. This excludes that leper whose leprosy is not dependent solely on the state of his body, but rather on the passage of days, as he is obligated to wait seven days.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻诇 讬诪讬 讗砖专 讛谞讙注 讘讜 讬讟诪讗 诪讬 砖爪专注转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讛讜讗 讚讟注讜谉 砖讬诇讜讞 讜砖讗讬谉 爪专注转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 砖讬诇讜讞

Abaye said to him: However, if that is so, then also with regard to the verse: 鈥淎ll the days during which the plague shall be in him [bo] he shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:46), say one whose leprosy is dependent on the state of his body requires expulsion from the camp, and one whose leprosy is not dependent solely on the state of his body, but rather on the passage of days, does not require expulsion.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 诪爪讜专注 诪讜住讙专 诇诪爪讜专注 诪讜讞诇讟 讗诇讗 驻专讬注讛 讜驻专讬诪讛 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讬诇讜讞 讜诇讟诪讜讬讬 讘讘讬讗讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

And if you would say: Indeed that is so, but isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna: The difference between a quarantined leper and a confirmed leper is only with regard to letting the hair on one鈥檚 head grow wild and rending one鈥檚 garments? And it is inferred that with regard to the matter of expulsion and the capacity of a leper to render impure the contents of a house by entry into the house, both this, the quarantined leper, and that, the confirmed leper, are equal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬诪讬 讻诇 讬诪讬 诇专讘讜转 诪爪讜专注 诪讜住讙专 诇砖讬诇讜讞

Rava said to him: There is a different source for the obligation to expel the quarantined leper from the camp. The verse could have stated: The days during which the plague shall be upon him. Instead the verse states: All the days, to include a quarantined leper in the obligation of expulsion from the camp, like a confirmed leper.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转讙诇讞转 讜爪驻专讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讟讛讜专 诪转讜讱 讛住讙专 诇讟讛讜专 诪转讜讱 讛讞诇讟 讗诇讗 转讙诇讞转 讜爪驻专讬诐

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the reason that a quarantined leper is not obligated in shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering as part of his purification process? As it teaches in the mishna: The difference between a leper purified from quarantine, whose symptoms never became conclusive, and a leper purified from a state of confirmed leprosy, is only with regard to shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗 讛讻讛谉 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讜讛谞讛 谞专驻讗 谞讙注 讛爪专注转 诪讬 砖爪专注转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘专驻讜讗讜转 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专注转讜 转诇讜讬讛 讘专驻讜讗讜转 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讬诐

Abaye said that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look, and behold, if the plague of leprosy is healed in the leper鈥 (Leviticus 14:3), then the purification process that includes shaving and bringing birds commences. This indicates that these halakhot apply to a confirmed leper whose leprosy is dependent on healing, to exclude that leper whose leprosy is not dependent solely on healing but rather on the passage of days. Even if his symptoms are healed, he is pure only at the conclusion of the seven days of quarantine.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 住驻专讬诐 诇转驻诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 讗诇讗 砖讛住驻专讬诐 谞讻转讘讬谉 讘讻诇 诇砖讜谉 讜转驻诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 讗讬谞谉 谞讻转讘讜转 讗诇讗 讗砖讜专讬转

MISHNA: The difference between Torah scrolls, and phylacteries and mezuzot, in terms of the manner in which they are written, is only that Torah scrolls are written in any language, whereas phylacteries and mezuzot are written only in Ashurit, i.e., in Hebrew and using the Hebrew script.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘住驻专讬诐 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 砖讬讻转讘讜 讗诇讗 讬讜讜谞讬转

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to Torah scrolls, the Sages permitted them to be written only in Greek. Torah scrolls written in any other language do not have the sanctity of a Torah scroll.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇转讜驻专谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讜诇讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of stitching the sheets of parchment with sinews, and with regard to rendering the hands of one who touches them impure, both this, Torah scrolls, and that, phylacteries and mezuzot, are equal. The Sages issued a decree rendering the hands of one who touches sacred scrolls impure with second-degree ritual impurity.

讜住驻专讬诐 谞讻转讘讬谉 讘讻诇 诇砖讜谉 讜讻讜壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪拽专讗 砖讻转讘讜 转专讙讜诐 讜转专讙讜诐 砖讻转讘讜 诪拽专讗 讜讻转讘 注讘专讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 注讚 砖讬讻转讘谞讜 讘讻转讘 讗砖讜专讬转 注诇 讛住驻专 讜讘讚讬讜

The mishna stated: Torah scrolls are written in any language. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: A Torah scroll containing a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, or that was written in the ancient Hebrew script and not in Ashurit, renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink. Apparently, contrary to the mishna, a scroll written in a language other than Hebrew is not sacred.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rava said: This is not difficult.

Scroll To Top