Arakhin 3a — the Talmud in English

To include women!

who are obligated in the reading of the Megilla and are fit to read it and to exempt the males from their obligation!

And in accordance with Rabbi Joshua ben Levi.

For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in the reading of the Megilla

because

they too were involved in that

miracle

of the salvation from the decree “to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate.” [And Rashbam in Pesachim 108 added that the principal miracle was through them, namely, Esther].

Everyone is obligated in zimmun —

what does this include?

To include women and slaves.

For they have permission to join for zimmun.

For it was taught in a beraita: Women make zimmun for themselves, and slaves make zimmun for themselves,

three women and three slaves. [But a woman and a slave do not join with men, because men possess something that women and slaves do not: women do not say “the covenant” and slaves do not say “for You have given an inheritance to our fathers”].

And concerning that which was taught in a beraita:

Everyone joins for zimmun —

what does this include?

To include a minor who knows for Whom one recites the blessing,

who joins to complete the three required for zimmun.

For Rav Naḥman said: A minor who knows for Whom one recites the blessing —

one makes zimmun with him. [But as a matter of halakha, we rule in accordance with the Jerusalem Talmud that one makes zimmun only with one who has produced two pubic hairs. Tosafot.]

Everyone conveys impurity through ziva —

what does this include?

And we answer:

To include a child one day old

for the impurity of ziva.

For it was taught in a beraita:

That which is written in the verse:

“A man

if there will be a discharge from his flesh,”

what does the repetition

“a man, a man”

teach?

To include

a child

one day old, who conveys impurity through ziva. These are the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: It is not necessary

to learn this from this verse; rather, it should be learned from another source. For

it says:

“This is the law of one who has a discharge” —

“and of one who has his discharge, whether male or female.”

And they expound:

“Whether male” —

anyone who is male, whether a minor or an adult. “Or female” —

anyone who is female, whether a minor or an adult.

If so, what does “a man, a man”

teach, being repeated twice?

The Torah spoke in the language of human beings,

whose practice is to repeat an expression.

And furthermore, we consider this: That which is written:

“Everyone conveys impurity through contact with one who is impure through a corpse,”

to become a primary source of impurity through contact with a corpse —

what does this include?

And we answer:

To include a minor

who becomes impure if he touches a corpse. For

it might enter your mind to say

that since it is written:

“A man who becomes impure and does not purify himself”—a man, yes, but not a minor,

he becomes impure;

it teaches us

that he too becomes impure. And this is learned from the verse: “And he shall take hyssop and sprinkle upon the tent

and upon the persons who were there,”

which also implies the person of a minor: he too becomes impure and requires the purification stated there.

And again we ask:

But “a man,”

which is written concerning impurity from a corpse,

to exclude what?

And we answer:

To exclude a minor from karet

if he enters the Temple while impure, which is what the verse discusses, as it is written: “And that person shall be cut off from among the congregation, for he has made the Sanctuary of the Lord impure.” And we would have said that a minor too should be liable to karet, just as he was included with regard to impurity; and for this the exclusion “a man” comes to teach us that a minor does not receive the punishment of karet, because he is not subject to punishments.

And furthermore, we consider this: That which we learned in the Mishna:

“Everyone conveys impurity through negaim” —

what does this include?

And we answer:

To include a minor,

to say that the laws of negaim apply to him. For

it might enter your mind to say: “A leprous man” is written

in the section of negaim;

a man, yes, but not a minor,

whose nega is not a nega;

it teaches us

that it is considered a nega and conveys impurity.

And we ask:

But say that this is indeed so,

and let us exclude from “a man” that a minor does not convey impurity through negaim?

And we answer: The minor is explicitly included from the verse

“When a person has on the skin of his flesh” —

in any event!

For a minor too is included within “person.”

And furthermore we ask:

But then why do I need “a man”?

And what does it come to exclude?

And we answer: It comes for that which was taught in a beraita:

“A man”—I have only a man; a woman

who conveys impurity through negaim,

from where?

When it says

in the following verse

“And the leprous man

who has the nega,” which implies another leprous person in addition to the leprous person mentioned in the first verse,

there are two here,

both a man and a woman.

If so, what does the Torah teach

by saying

“a leprous man”

in the first verse?

With regard to what is below,

what is stated below, later in the section, is necessary: “His garments shall be rent and his head shall be unkempt”; and “man” comes to exclude —

a man lets his hair grow wild and rends his garments, but a woman does not let her hair grow wild and does not rend her garments.

For this is disgraceful for her. [Tosafot.]

That which is written,

“everyone” [all the priests]

see the negaim,

to declare them impure or pure through saying “impure” or “pure” [for impurity and purity are only from the mouth of a priest, Torat Kohanim]. For we learned in the Mishna:

“Everyone is fit to see the negaim” —

what does this include?

And we answer:

To include

a priest

who is not expert in them and in their names,

the names of the negaim. For he too is fit to declare impurity and purity. And a Torah scholar who is an Israelite goes with him

and tells him, “Say: impure,” or “pure,” and he says it, because the priest’s utterance is required. And he asks: How is he fit for this?

But the Master said:

A priest who

is not expert in them and in their names does not see the negaim!

And this implies that even on the instruction of the Torah scholar who goes with him, he cannot declare impurity or purity?!

And we answer:

Ravina said: This is not difficult.

This, that he is fit,

is speaking of a priest

who

is instructed and understands,

and although he does not know on his own, it is sufficient that they teach him and he then understands.

And that

which the Master said, that he does not see, is speaking of a priest

who is instructed but

nevertheless

does not understand.

Everyone is fit to sanctify living water by mixing it with the ashes of the cow for the purification of one impure through a corpse

—

what does this include?

And we answer:

According to Rabbi Judah, to include a minor

who sanctifies.

And according to the Rabbis, to include a woman

who sanctifies.

For we learned in the Mishna: Everyone is fit to sanctify

the water of purification

except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor!

And according to the Sages, a woman too is fit, and this is why “everyone” comes.

Rabbi Judah declares a minor fit,

and to include him it says “everyone,”

and disqualifies a woman and an androgynos.

And concerning that which we learned in the Mishna:

“Everyone is fit to sprinkle”

the water of purification upon the impure —

what does this include? To include an uncircumcised man

whose brothers died because of circumcision, who is fit.

And in accordance with Rabbi Elazar.

For Rabbi Elazar said: An uncircumcised man who sprinkled —

his sprinkling is fit [and although his status is that of one impure with regard to eating teruma and sacrificial food, with regard to sprinkling he is fit, and this is learned in Yevamot 72a from one who immersed that day].

It is stated twice in the first chapter of Ḥullin:

“

Everyone slaughters” —

what does this include?

One “everyone”

to include a Samaritan

whose slaughtering is valid, because he holds that they are genuine converts; and slaughtering is also a mitzva in which the Samaritans were careful, and therefore they are trustworthy.

whose slaughter is valid, because this view holds that Samaritans are genuine converts, and slaughter is also a mitzva that the Samaritans carefully observe; therefore, they are trusted concerning it.

And one “everyone”

to include an Israelite who is an apostate

with regard to one matter, who is not thereby considered an apostate with regard to the entire Torah; therefore, his slaughtering is valid.

And concerning that which we learned in the Mishna:

“Everyone may be brought up,”

a person can compel all the members of his household to ascend

to the Land of Israel —

what does this include?

what does this come to include?