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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 19, 2022 | 讬状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘

This month鈥檚 shiurim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren.

  • 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.

Moed Katan 7

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Rochelle Sobel, in loving memory of her husband, Dr. Solomon (Sol) Sobel, Shalom ben HaRav Dov v鈥機haya, on the occasion of his fourth Yahrzeit. 鈥淪ol was a lifelong learner who loved studying Daf Yomi, medicine, and anything else that interested his children and grandchildren. We miss you every day. Your wisdom, your kindness, and your gentle guidance. Yehi Zichro Baruch.”

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Miriam Adler in honor of Rabbanit Michelle and Hadran.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for a refuah shleima for Rachel Ophira bar Nechama Leah Esther, Emma鈥檚 daughter. 鈥淓mma, your daughter, Rachel, is in our thoughts and prayers and we dedicate today’s learning to her full and speedy recovery. With lots of love from your Hadran Zoom family.鈥

Pictures

What is considered a typical way of trapping a mole or mouse and what is atypical? In what situations can one trap it in a usual manner? Why? In what way can one fix a broken wall on chol hamoed? Rav Chisda said that a wall of a garden has to be fixed in an unusual manner but a wall of a courtyard can be fixed in a usual manner as there is a concern for a loss as robbers can get in. A source is brought to first prove that Rav Chisda is correct; however, it is rejected. A different version brings the source to challenge Rav Chisda but a response to the challenge is brought. In the end, our Mishna provides support for Rav Chisda. Can a kohen check a person who has a leprous mark on chol hamoed? Rabbi Meir says one can check in order to be lenient but if the determination is that the person is a leper, the kohen does not say anything. Rabbi Yosi says that the kohen can鈥檛 choose to either be lenient or silent, but one must say either yes or no, and therefore doesn鈥檛 permit a kohen to look at all at a potentially leprous mark on chol hamoed. In which stage of leprosy do they agree and in which stage do they disagree? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held like Rabbi Meir in a particular stage and like Rabbi Yosi in a different one but two different versions are brought as to which stage he held like which opinion. What is the logic behind each option? Is a leper who is determined definitively to be leper permitted to be with their spouse? The premise of the Mishna is that until a kohen pronounces the person a leper, the person is not a leper. From there is this derived? Two different verses are brought. What is the practical difference between them?

注讚 讻诪讛 注讚 驻专住讛

Up to what distance are the ant holes considered to be adjacent such that a river is required in order to separate between them? Up to a parasang [parsa].

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讚讛 讛讗讬诇谉 讻讚专讻讜 讜诪砖讚讛 讛诇讘谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讻讚专讻讜 讞讜驻专 讙讜诪讗 讜转讜诇讛 讘讛 诪爪讜讚讛 讻讬爪讚 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讜 谞讜注抓 砖驻讜讚 讜诪讻讛 讘拽讜专讚讜诐 讜诪专讚讛 讛讗讚诪讛 诪转讞转讬讛

搂 We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: In an orchard one may trap moles and mice in his usual manner, but in a field of grain, he may trap them only in a way that is not his usual manner. The Sages taught the following baraita: How does one trap in his usual manner? He digs a hole in the ground and hangs a trap in it. How does one trap in a way that is not his usual manner? He inserts a spit into the ground where the rodents are suspected of hiding, strikes it with a spade, and removes the earth from beneath it until he finds and kills the rodents.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讗诪专讜 诪砖讚讛 诇讘谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讜 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讚讛 诇讘谉 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇注讬专 讗讘诇 讘砖讚讛 诇讘谉 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇砖讚讛 讛讗讬诇谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讚专讻讜 砖诪讗 讬爪讗讜 诪砖讚讛 讛诇讘谉 讜讬讞专讬讘讜 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: When they said that one may trap moles and mice in a field of grain on the intermediate days of a Festival only in a way that is not his usual manner, they spoke only with regard to a field of grain that is adjacent to the city, where the damage is limited to that field and is not extensive. But in a field of grain that is adjacent to an orchard, one may trap even in his usual manner, lest the moles and mice leave the field of grain and destroy the trees in the adjacent orchard, causing great damage.

讜诪拽专讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专爪讛 讘诪讜注讚 讻讬爪讚 诪拽专讬谉 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗

搂 It is taught in the mishna: And one may seal a breach in the wall of his garden on the intermediate days of a Festival. The Gemara asks: How does one seal such a breach? Rav Yosef said: With palm branches [hutza] and the branches of a bay tree [dafna], which do not create a significant partition, but simply a temporary barrier.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 爪专 讘爪专讜专 讜讗讬谞讜 讟讞 讘讟讬讟 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讻讜转诇 讛讙讬谞讛 讗讘诇 讻讜转诇 讛讞爪专 讘讜谞讛 讻讚专讻讜

It was taught in a baraita: One fills in the breach with stone, but he does not plasterthe stones with clay. Rav 岣sda said: They taught that he may seal a breach but not build a wall in his usual manner only with regard to the wall of a garden, as no significant loss will be suffered if he delays building until after the Festival. However, with regard to the wall of a courtyard, which prevents the entry of strangers who are likely to steal from him, he may build a wall in his usual manner even on the intermediate days of a Festival.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讻讜转诇 讛讙讜讞讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住讜转专 讜讘讜谞讛 讻讚专讻讜 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement: With regard to a wall that is leaning [go岣h] toward the public domain and is likely to fall, one may demolish and rebuild it in his usual manner on the intermediate days of a Festival, due to the danger that it poses to passersby. The Gemara rejects this opinion: There, the reason is as the baraita explicitly teaches, i.e., it is due to the danger that the wall poses to passersby, and not due to the protection that it affords the courtyard.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转讗 砖诪注 讻讜转诇 讛讙讜讞讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住讜转专 讜讘讜谞讛 讻讚专讻讜 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 诇讗 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗

And some say that this baraita was cited not to support Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion but in order to refute it, as follows: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to a wall that is leaning toward the public domain and is likely to fall, one may demolish and rebuild it in his usual manner, due to the danger that it poses to passersby. The Gemara explains: The baraita indicates that if the need to build the wall is due to the danger that it poses, yes, he is permitted to rebuild the wall, but if the reason is not due to the danger, no, he is not permitted to do so. Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who says that one may build the wall of his courtyard in his usual manner, even if no danger is present?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛转诐 住讜转专 讜讘讜谞讛 讛讻讗 讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 住讜转专

The Gemara answers: Rav 岣sda could have said to you: There, in the case where the existing wall poses a danger, he is even permitted to demolish the wall and build it from scratch. Here, in the case of an ordinary wall enclosing a courtyard, he is permitted to build the breached wall in the usual manner, but not to demolish it.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讬住转讜专 讜诇讗 诇讬讘谞讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讬诪谞注 讜诇讗 住讜转专

The Gemara asks: There too, in the case of the leaning wall, let us say that he is permitted to demolish it and thereby remove the danger, but not to rebuild it until after the Festival. The Gemara answers: If so, he might refrain even from demolishing it, as demolishing the wall would leave his courtyard unprotected. Therefore, to eliminate the danger posed by the leaning wall, he is permitted not only to demolish it, but to rebuild it as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讘讜谞讛 讻讚专讻讜

Rav Ashi said: The wording of the mishna is also precise and indicates that it is referring to the wall of a garden, as understood by Rav 岣sda, as it teaches: During the Sabbatical Year one may even build in his usual manner.

讚讛讬讻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讞爪专 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讙讬谞讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻诪讗谉 讚注讘讬讚 谞讟讬专讜转讗 诇驻讬专讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara clarifies: Where is the wall to which the mishna refers? If we say that the mishna is referring to the wall of a courtyard, need it be said that it may be built during the Sabbatical Year? Only agricultural labors are prohibited during the Sabbatical Year, but construction is permitted. Rather, is it not referring to the wall of a garden, and it was necessary to state that this wall may be built during the Sabbatical Year to indicate that even though he appears as one who is building a protection for his produce, he isnevertheless permitted to do so. This proves that the mishna鈥檚 discussion pertains to building the wall of a garden. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that Rav 岣sda鈥檚 interpretation is indeed the correct understanding of the mishna.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 讘转讞讬诇讛 诇讛拽诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专

MISHNA: When symptoms of leprosy appear, they must be examined by a priest, who determines whether or not the symptoms qualify as leprosy. Rabbi Meir says: A priest may initially examine an individual showing symptoms of leprosy on the intermediate days of a Festival in order to be lenient, i.e., he may pronounce the individual to be free of leprosy, but not in order to be stringent; he may not pronounce the individual to be impure. The individual does not become ritually impure until the priest pronounces him to have leprosy, and therefore the priest may remain silent and thereby prevent causing the afflicted individual distress during the Festival. And the Rabbis say: The priest may not examine the symptoms in order to be lenient or in order to be stringent.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 诇讛拽诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 砖讗诐 讗转讛 谞讝拽拽 诇讜 诇讛拽诇 谞讝拽拽 诇讜 讗祝 诇讛讞诪讬专

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: A priest may examine an individual showing symptoms of leprosy on the intermediate days of a Festival in order to be lenient, but not in order to be stringent. Rabbi Yosei says: The priest may not examine the symptoms to be lenient or to be stringent. The reasoning behind Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion is that if you attend to the individual with the symptoms of leprosy to be lenient, you must attend to him even to be stringent. If the priest sees that the symptom is in fact leprosy, he must declare the affected person ritually impure rather than remain silent. Consequently, in order to avoid declaring that he has leprosy on the Festival, the priest should not examine him at all.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪讜住讙专 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讜讞诇讟

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Meir appears to be correct with regard to the case of a quarantined leper. In this case, the priest may reexamine him at the end of the week even on the intermediate days of a Festival, because if he declares the individual to be pure, he will cause him to rejoice, and if he declares that the individual must be quarantined for another week, his situation is no worse than it was previously. On the other hand, the statement of Rabbi Yosei appears to be correct with regard to the case of a confirmed leper, one who has already been declared conclusively impure by a priest. The Gemara (7b) will explain the reason for this statement.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讟讛讜专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讘讛住讙专 专讗砖讜谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬

Rava said: With regard to an individual with symptoms of leprosy who is still ritually pure, i.e., who has not yet been examined by a priest, everyone agrees that the priest does not examine him, as his status can only worsen due to the examination. With regard to a suspected leper who is in his first week of quarantine, everyone agrees that the priest examines him, as the priest may declare him pure if his symptoms have subsided, and even if his symptoms remained as they were, he will simply be quarantined for another week. When they disagree

讘讛住讙专 砖谞讬 诪专 住讘专 讘讻讛谉 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬 讟诪讗 砖转讬拽 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讟讛专讜 讗讜 诇讟诪讗讜 讻转讬讘

it is with regard to a suspected leper who is already in his second week of quarantine. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that the matter depends upon the discretion of the priest; if he is found ritually pure, the priest declares him pure, and if he is found ritually impure, the priest can remain silent. As long as the priest does not declare the affected individual ritually impure, he does not become impure. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that since it is written: 鈥淭his is the law of the plague of leprosy鈥to pronounce it pure or to pronounce it impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:59), the priest is not permitted to be silent; just as he is obligated to declare him pure when that is the case, so too, he is bound to declare him impure when his symptoms indicate impurity.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讜讞诇讟 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪讜住讙专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the baraita. The Master said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yosei appears correct with regard to a confirmed leper, and the statement of Rabbi Meir appears correct with regard to a quarantined leper. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn鈥檛 the opposite taught in a different baraita, namely, that Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement appears correct with regard to the case of a quarantined leper, while Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement appears correct with regard to the case of a confirmed leper?

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪专 住讘专 爪讜讜转讗 讚注诇诪讗 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. One Sage, the author of the latter baraita, holds that the company of the world at large is preferable to the leper. Consequently, the priest may examine a confirmed leper during the Festival because the priest will either decide that the leper鈥檚 symptoms are still present, in which case the leper鈥檚 situation will be no worse than before, or the priest will declare that his symptoms have subsided, in which case the leper may reenter the community, which will bring him joy.

讜诪专 住讘专 爪讜讜转讗 讚讗砖转讜 注讚讬驻讗 诇讬讛

And one Sage, the author of the baraita (7a), holds that the company of his wife is preferable to the leper. Consequently, the priest may not examine a confirmed leper on the Festival, because if he declares that his symptoms have subsided, the leper will begin his seven day purification process, during which time he is prohibited from engaging in conjugal relations with his wife. Due to the distress that this causes him, it is preferable that the priest not examine him at all during the Festival.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪讜讞诇讟 诪讜转专 讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讬砖讘 诪讞讜抓 诇讗讛诇讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 砖讬讛讗 讗住讜专 讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讛诇讜 讗诇讗 讗砖转讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇讱 讗诪讜专 诇讛诐 砖讜讘讜 诇讻诐 诇讗讛诇讬讻诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬住驻专讜 诇讜 讬诪讬 住驻讬专讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a confirmed leper is permitted to engage in conjugal relations with his wife? The Gemara answers: Yes, and so too it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a leper who is counting his seven days, it is written: 鈥淏ut he shall remain outside his tent seven days鈥 (Leviticus 14:8). This verse teaches that the leper is prohibited from engaging in conjugal relations, as the words his tent refer only to his wife, as it is stated: 鈥淕o, say to them: Return again to your tents鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:27). Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd after he is cleansed, they shall count for him seven days鈥 (Ezekiel 44:26), indicating that he is prohibited from having conjugal relations during the days of his counting, but not during the days of his confirmed leprosy.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讘注讛 讬诪讬 住驻讬专讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Since the verse indicates that the prohibition to engage in conjugal relations applies during the seven days of his counting before becoming ritually pure, it follows based on an a fortiori inference that the prohibition should also apply during the days of his confirmed leprosy, when his impurity is more severe.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚谞转讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 诇讬诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讬讜转诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇注讜讝讬讛讜 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讗祝 讗谞讬 讻讱 讗诪专转讬

And Rabbi 岣yya said: I deliberated this matter before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said: Have you not taught us, our teacher, that King Jotham was only born to Uzziah, the king of Judah, during the days of his confirmed leprosy? This would indicate that a confirmed leper is permitted to engage in conjugal relations. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I too said this; I am also of the opinion that a confirmed leper is permitted to engage in conjugal relations, in contrast to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛住讘专 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬诪讬 住驻讬专讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉讘讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讗讬 讚讙诇讬 讙诇讬讜诪讗讬 讚诇讗 讙诇讬 诇讗 讙诇讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: The Merciful One revealed the prohibition of conjugal relations with one鈥檚 wife during the days of his counting; and all the more so the prohibition applies during his days of confirmed leprosy, when his ritual impurity is more severe. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, maintains: That which the verse revealed, it revealed, but that which it did not reveal, it did not reveal; the prohibition is not interpreted in a way that adds an extra stringency beyond what is stated explicitly in the Torah.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘讻讛谉 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讘讬讜诐 讛专讗讜转 讘讜 讬砖 讬讜诐 砖讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讘讜 讜讬砖 讬讜诐 砖讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讘讜

搂 The Gemara returns to the original dispute with regard to the priest鈥檚 examination of the symptoms of leprosy. Is this to say that the matter depends upon the discretion of the priest, i.e., the priest can decide whether to declare the affected person ritually pure or impure or whether to examine the leprous symptoms or not? The Gemara answers: Yes, and so too it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淏ut on the day it appears in him鈥 (Leviticus 13:14), from which it may be inferred that there is a day when you examine the symptoms found in him and there is a day when you do not examine those symptoms.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讞转谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 谞讙注 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖讘注讛 讬诪讬 讛诪砖转讛 诇讜 讜诇讘讬转讜 讜诇讻住讜转讜 讜讻谉 讘专讙诇 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛专讙诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

From here they stated: With regard to a bridegroom upon whom leprous symptoms came into being, we give him the seven days of the wedding feast before the examination that determines ritual purity or impurity. This ruling applies whether the leprous symptoms appeared upon him, upon his house, or upon his clothing. Similarly, if the symptoms of leprosy appeared upon an individual during a pilgrimage Festival, we give him the seven days of the Festival in order to avoid causing him distress during that time; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜爪讜讛 讛讻讛谉 讜驻谞讜 讗转 讛讘讬转 讗诐 诪诪转讬谞讬诐 诇讜 诇讚讘专 讛专砖讜转 讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The ruling is correct, but there is no need to prove it from this verse, as a much simpler proof can be brought from a different source. It says: 鈥淭hen the priest shall command that they empty the house before the priest goes into it to see the plague, so that all that is in the house be not made unclean鈥 (Leviticus 14:36). If we delay the priest鈥檚 examination of the house in order to give the owner time to remove his utensils and prevent them from contracting ritual impurity, which is merely an optional matter, all the more so should we delay his examination for a matter of mitzva, e.g., so as not to detract from the bridegroom鈥檚 joy or from the joy of a Festival.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪注讜转 讚讜专砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讘专 讛专砖讜转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them, whether the source of the halakha is one verse or another? Abaye said: There is no practical difference between the opinions; rather, the interpretation of the meaning of the verses is the difference between them, as each has a different interpretation of the verse from which the other derived this halakha. And Rava said: There is in fact a practical difference between them with regard to whether or not one delays the examination of leprous symptoms found on an individual鈥檚 body for an optional matter. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one delays the examination only for the sake of a mitzva, while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that one may delay it even for the sake of an optional matter.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛转诐 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why is it not permitted to delay the priest鈥檚 examination of leprous symptoms on an individual鈥檚 body for an optional matter, just as with regard to leprous symptoms on one鈥檚 house? The Gemara answers: We do not learn a halakhic principle from there because the halakha of leprosy of houses is itself a novelty, a unique biblical law from which one cannot extrapolate to other cases.

This month鈥檚 shiurim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen.

And by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren.

  • 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

Moed Katan: 7-13 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about how the priests checked and diagnosed Tzaraat and if they were allowed to do...
talking talmud_square

Moed Katan 7: The Mezora on Chol Hamoed

We finally leave agricultural law and now discuss tzaraat. Can a Kohen examine tzaraat on Chol Hamoed and why is...
6

Introduction to Moed Katan

Watch the video introduction or listen to the podcast below.  

Moed Katan 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Moed Katan 7

注讚 讻诪讛 注讚 驻专住讛

Up to what distance are the ant holes considered to be adjacent such that a river is required in order to separate between them? Up to a parasang [parsa].

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讚讛 讛讗讬诇谉 讻讚专讻讜 讜诪砖讚讛 讛诇讘谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讻讚专讻讜 讞讜驻专 讙讜诪讗 讜转讜诇讛 讘讛 诪爪讜讚讛 讻讬爪讚 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讜 谞讜注抓 砖驻讜讚 讜诪讻讛 讘拽讜专讚讜诐 讜诪专讚讛 讛讗讚诪讛 诪转讞转讬讛

搂 We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: In an orchard one may trap moles and mice in his usual manner, but in a field of grain, he may trap them only in a way that is not his usual manner. The Sages taught the following baraita: How does one trap in his usual manner? He digs a hole in the ground and hangs a trap in it. How does one trap in a way that is not his usual manner? He inserts a spit into the ground where the rodents are suspected of hiding, strikes it with a spade, and removes the earth from beneath it until he finds and kills the rodents.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讗诪专讜 诪砖讚讛 诇讘谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讜 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讚讛 诇讘谉 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇注讬专 讗讘诇 讘砖讚讛 诇讘谉 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇砖讚讛 讛讗讬诇谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讚专讻讜 砖诪讗 讬爪讗讜 诪砖讚讛 讛诇讘谉 讜讬讞专讬讘讜 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: When they said that one may trap moles and mice in a field of grain on the intermediate days of a Festival only in a way that is not his usual manner, they spoke only with regard to a field of grain that is adjacent to the city, where the damage is limited to that field and is not extensive. But in a field of grain that is adjacent to an orchard, one may trap even in his usual manner, lest the moles and mice leave the field of grain and destroy the trees in the adjacent orchard, causing great damage.

讜诪拽专讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专爪讛 讘诪讜注讚 讻讬爪讚 诪拽专讬谉 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讛讜爪讗 讜讚驻谞讗

搂 It is taught in the mishna: And one may seal a breach in the wall of his garden on the intermediate days of a Festival. The Gemara asks: How does one seal such a breach? Rav Yosef said: With palm branches [hutza] and the branches of a bay tree [dafna], which do not create a significant partition, but simply a temporary barrier.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 爪专 讘爪专讜专 讜讗讬谞讜 讟讞 讘讟讬讟 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讻讜转诇 讛讙讬谞讛 讗讘诇 讻讜转诇 讛讞爪专 讘讜谞讛 讻讚专讻讜

It was taught in a baraita: One fills in the breach with stone, but he does not plasterthe stones with clay. Rav 岣sda said: They taught that he may seal a breach but not build a wall in his usual manner only with regard to the wall of a garden, as no significant loss will be suffered if he delays building until after the Festival. However, with regard to the wall of a courtyard, which prevents the entry of strangers who are likely to steal from him, he may build a wall in his usual manner even on the intermediate days of a Festival.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讻讜转诇 讛讙讜讞讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住讜转专 讜讘讜谞讛 讻讚专讻讜 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement: With regard to a wall that is leaning [go岣h] toward the public domain and is likely to fall, one may demolish and rebuild it in his usual manner on the intermediate days of a Festival, due to the danger that it poses to passersby. The Gemara rejects this opinion: There, the reason is as the baraita explicitly teaches, i.e., it is due to the danger that the wall poses to passersby, and not due to the protection that it affords the courtyard.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 转讗 砖诪注 讻讜转诇 讛讙讜讞讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住讜转专 讜讘讜谞讛 讻讚专讻讜 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 诇讗 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗

And some say that this baraita was cited not to support Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion but in order to refute it, as follows: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to a wall that is leaning toward the public domain and is likely to fall, one may demolish and rebuild it in his usual manner, due to the danger that it poses to passersby. The Gemara explains: The baraita indicates that if the need to build the wall is due to the danger that it poses, yes, he is permitted to rebuild the wall, but if the reason is not due to the danger, no, he is not permitted to do so. Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav 岣sda, who says that one may build the wall of his courtyard in his usual manner, even if no danger is present?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛转诐 住讜转专 讜讘讜谞讛 讛讻讗 讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 住讜转专

The Gemara answers: Rav 岣sda could have said to you: There, in the case where the existing wall poses a danger, he is even permitted to demolish the wall and build it from scratch. Here, in the case of an ordinary wall enclosing a courtyard, he is permitted to build the breached wall in the usual manner, but not to demolish it.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讬住转讜专 讜诇讗 诇讬讘谞讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讬诪谞注 讜诇讗 住讜转专

The Gemara asks: There too, in the case of the leaning wall, let us say that he is permitted to demolish it and thereby remove the danger, but not to rebuild it until after the Festival. The Gemara answers: If so, he might refrain even from demolishing it, as demolishing the wall would leave his courtyard unprotected. Therefore, to eliminate the danger posed by the leaning wall, he is permitted not only to demolish it, but to rebuild it as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讘讜谞讛 讻讚专讻讜

Rav Ashi said: The wording of the mishna is also precise and indicates that it is referring to the wall of a garden, as understood by Rav 岣sda, as it teaches: During the Sabbatical Year one may even build in his usual manner.

讚讛讬讻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讞爪专 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讙讬谞讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻诪讗谉 讚注讘讬讚 谞讟讬专讜转讗 诇驻讬专讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara clarifies: Where is the wall to which the mishna refers? If we say that the mishna is referring to the wall of a courtyard, need it be said that it may be built during the Sabbatical Year? Only agricultural labors are prohibited during the Sabbatical Year, but construction is permitted. Rather, is it not referring to the wall of a garden, and it was necessary to state that this wall may be built during the Sabbatical Year to indicate that even though he appears as one who is building a protection for his produce, he isnevertheless permitted to do so. This proves that the mishna鈥檚 discussion pertains to building the wall of a garden. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that Rav 岣sda鈥檚 interpretation is indeed the correct understanding of the mishna.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 讘转讞讬诇讛 诇讛拽诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专

MISHNA: When symptoms of leprosy appear, they must be examined by a priest, who determines whether or not the symptoms qualify as leprosy. Rabbi Meir says: A priest may initially examine an individual showing symptoms of leprosy on the intermediate days of a Festival in order to be lenient, i.e., he may pronounce the individual to be free of leprosy, but not in order to be stringent; he may not pronounce the individual to be impure. The individual does not become ritually impure until the priest pronounces him to have leprosy, and therefore the priest may remain silent and thereby prevent causing the afflicted individual distress during the Festival. And the Rabbis say: The priest may not examine the symptoms in order to be lenient or in order to be stringent.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 诇讛拽诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 砖讗诐 讗转讛 谞讝拽拽 诇讜 诇讛拽诇 谞讝拽拽 诇讜 讗祝 诇讛讞诪讬专

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: A priest may examine an individual showing symptoms of leprosy on the intermediate days of a Festival in order to be lenient, but not in order to be stringent. Rabbi Yosei says: The priest may not examine the symptoms to be lenient or to be stringent. The reasoning behind Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion is that if you attend to the individual with the symptoms of leprosy to be lenient, you must attend to him even to be stringent. If the priest sees that the symptom is in fact leprosy, he must declare the affected person ritually impure rather than remain silent. Consequently, in order to avoid declaring that he has leprosy on the Festival, the priest should not examine him at all.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪讜住讙专 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讜讞诇讟

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Meir appears to be correct with regard to the case of a quarantined leper. In this case, the priest may reexamine him at the end of the week even on the intermediate days of a Festival, because if he declares the individual to be pure, he will cause him to rejoice, and if he declares that the individual must be quarantined for another week, his situation is no worse than it was previously. On the other hand, the statement of Rabbi Yosei appears to be correct with regard to the case of a confirmed leper, one who has already been declared conclusively impure by a priest. The Gemara (7b) will explain the reason for this statement.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讟讛讜专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讘讛住讙专 专讗砖讜谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬

Rava said: With regard to an individual with symptoms of leprosy who is still ritually pure, i.e., who has not yet been examined by a priest, everyone agrees that the priest does not examine him, as his status can only worsen due to the examination. With regard to a suspected leper who is in his first week of quarantine, everyone agrees that the priest examines him, as the priest may declare him pure if his symptoms have subsided, and even if his symptoms remained as they were, he will simply be quarantined for another week. When they disagree

讘讛住讙专 砖谞讬 诪专 住讘专 讘讻讛谉 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬 讟诪讗 砖转讬拽 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讟讛专讜 讗讜 诇讟诪讗讜 讻转讬讘

it is with regard to a suspected leper who is already in his second week of quarantine. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that the matter depends upon the discretion of the priest; if he is found ritually pure, the priest declares him pure, and if he is found ritually impure, the priest can remain silent. As long as the priest does not declare the affected individual ritually impure, he does not become impure. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that since it is written: 鈥淭his is the law of the plague of leprosy鈥to pronounce it pure or to pronounce it impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:59), the priest is not permitted to be silent; just as he is obligated to declare him pure when that is the case, so too, he is bound to declare him impure when his symptoms indicate impurity.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讜讞诇讟 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪讜住讙专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the baraita. The Master said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yosei appears correct with regard to a confirmed leper, and the statement of Rabbi Meir appears correct with regard to a quarantined leper. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn鈥檛 the opposite taught in a different baraita, namely, that Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement appears correct with regard to the case of a quarantined leper, while Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement appears correct with regard to the case of a confirmed leper?

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪专 住讘专 爪讜讜转讗 讚注诇诪讗 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. One Sage, the author of the latter baraita, holds that the company of the world at large is preferable to the leper. Consequently, the priest may examine a confirmed leper during the Festival because the priest will either decide that the leper鈥檚 symptoms are still present, in which case the leper鈥檚 situation will be no worse than before, or the priest will declare that his symptoms have subsided, in which case the leper may reenter the community, which will bring him joy.

讜诪专 住讘专 爪讜讜转讗 讚讗砖转讜 注讚讬驻讗 诇讬讛

And one Sage, the author of the baraita (7a), holds that the company of his wife is preferable to the leper. Consequently, the priest may not examine a confirmed leper on the Festival, because if he declares that his symptoms have subsided, the leper will begin his seven day purification process, during which time he is prohibited from engaging in conjugal relations with his wife. Due to the distress that this causes him, it is preferable that the priest not examine him at all during the Festival.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪讜讞诇讟 诪讜转专 讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讬砖讘 诪讞讜抓 诇讗讛诇讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 砖讬讛讗 讗住讜专 讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讛诇讜 讗诇讗 讗砖转讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇讱 讗诪讜专 诇讛诐 砖讜讘讜 诇讻诐 诇讗讛诇讬讻诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬住驻专讜 诇讜 讬诪讬 住驻讬专讜 讜诇讗 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a confirmed leper is permitted to engage in conjugal relations with his wife? The Gemara answers: Yes, and so too it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a leper who is counting his seven days, it is written: 鈥淏ut he shall remain outside his tent seven days鈥 (Leviticus 14:8). This verse teaches that the leper is prohibited from engaging in conjugal relations, as the words his tent refer only to his wife, as it is stated: 鈥淕o, say to them: Return again to your tents鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:27). Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd after he is cleansed, they shall count for him seven days鈥 (Ezekiel 44:26), indicating that he is prohibited from having conjugal relations during the days of his counting, but not during the days of his confirmed leprosy.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讘注讛 讬诪讬 住驻讬专讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Since the verse indicates that the prohibition to engage in conjugal relations applies during the seven days of his counting before becoming ritually pure, it follows based on an a fortiori inference that the prohibition should also apply during the days of his confirmed leprosy, when his impurity is more severe.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚谞转讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 诇讬诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讬讜转诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇注讜讝讬讛讜 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讗祝 讗谞讬 讻讱 讗诪专转讬

And Rabbi 岣yya said: I deliberated this matter before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said: Have you not taught us, our teacher, that King Jotham was only born to Uzziah, the king of Judah, during the days of his confirmed leprosy? This would indicate that a confirmed leper is permitted to engage in conjugal relations. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I too said this; I am also of the opinion that a confirmed leper is permitted to engage in conjugal relations, in contrast to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛住讘专 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬诪讬 住驻讬专讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉讘讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讗讬 讚讙诇讬 讙诇讬讜诪讗讬 讚诇讗 讙诇讬 诇讗 讙诇讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: The Merciful One revealed the prohibition of conjugal relations with one鈥檚 wife during the days of his counting; and all the more so the prohibition applies during his days of confirmed leprosy, when his ritual impurity is more severe. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, maintains: That which the verse revealed, it revealed, but that which it did not reveal, it did not reveal; the prohibition is not interpreted in a way that adds an extra stringency beyond what is stated explicitly in the Torah.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘讻讛谉 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讘讬讜诐 讛专讗讜转 讘讜 讬砖 讬讜诐 砖讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讘讜 讜讬砖 讬讜诐 砖讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讘讜

搂 The Gemara returns to the original dispute with regard to the priest鈥檚 examination of the symptoms of leprosy. Is this to say that the matter depends upon the discretion of the priest, i.e., the priest can decide whether to declare the affected person ritually pure or impure or whether to examine the leprous symptoms or not? The Gemara answers: Yes, and so too it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淏ut on the day it appears in him鈥 (Leviticus 13:14), from which it may be inferred that there is a day when you examine the symptoms found in him and there is a day when you do not examine those symptoms.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讞转谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讜 谞讙注 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖讘注讛 讬诪讬 讛诪砖转讛 诇讜 讜诇讘讬转讜 讜诇讻住讜转讜 讜讻谉 讘专讙诇 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛专讙诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

From here they stated: With regard to a bridegroom upon whom leprous symptoms came into being, we give him the seven days of the wedding feast before the examination that determines ritual purity or impurity. This ruling applies whether the leprous symptoms appeared upon him, upon his house, or upon his clothing. Similarly, if the symptoms of leprosy appeared upon an individual during a pilgrimage Festival, we give him the seven days of the Festival in order to avoid causing him distress during that time; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜爪讜讛 讛讻讛谉 讜驻谞讜 讗转 讛讘讬转 讗诐 诪诪转讬谞讬诐 诇讜 诇讚讘专 讛专砖讜转 讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The ruling is correct, but there is no need to prove it from this verse, as a much simpler proof can be brought from a different source. It says: 鈥淭hen the priest shall command that they empty the house before the priest goes into it to see the plague, so that all that is in the house be not made unclean鈥 (Leviticus 14:36). If we delay the priest鈥檚 examination of the house in order to give the owner time to remove his utensils and prevent them from contracting ritual impurity, which is merely an optional matter, all the more so should we delay his examination for a matter of mitzva, e.g., so as not to detract from the bridegroom鈥檚 joy or from the joy of a Festival.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪注讜转 讚讜专砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讘专 讛专砖讜转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them, whether the source of the halakha is one verse or another? Abaye said: There is no practical difference between the opinions; rather, the interpretation of the meaning of the verses is the difference between them, as each has a different interpretation of the verse from which the other derived this halakha. And Rava said: There is in fact a practical difference between them with regard to whether or not one delays the examination of leprous symptoms found on an individual鈥檚 body for an optional matter. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one delays the examination only for the sake of a mitzva, while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that one may delay it even for the sake of an optional matter.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛转诐 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why is it not permitted to delay the priest鈥檚 examination of leprous symptoms on an individual鈥檚 body for an optional matter, just as with regard to leprous symptoms on one鈥檚 house? The Gemara answers: We do not learn a halakhic principle from there because the halakha of leprosy of houses is itself a novelty, a unique biblical law from which one cannot extrapolate to other cases.

Scroll To Top