Megillah 8b — the Talmud in English

For it is not a law. For a woman who saw blood for one day or two days during the eleven days between one menstruation and the next: the law is that she

observes

one

day

clean

corresponding to the day of the sighting, and immerses immediately—

of her sighting, and immerses immediately—

It proves. For

she

renders a lying-place and a seat impure

on the day that she observes,

but she does not require counting seven days.

And you too, do not be astonished at this:

the man with a discharge who saw two sightings,

who, even though he renders a lying-place and a seat impure, should not require counting seven days;

and if not for the verse, we would not have known that he requires counting seven days.

Therefore,

the verse states: “From his discharge and he shall count.”

For it implies that even though it is only

part of his discharge

—which is only one who had two sightings—

“and he shall count.” It teaches concerning a man with a discharge who had two sightings—

that he requires counting seven days.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is different about this “from his discharge

and he shall count”—

that

we consider it an inclusion and

include in it a man with a discharge who had two sightings

for counting,

and what is different

about the other

this “

and the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, from his discharge”—

“from his discharge” -

that

we consider it a limitation, and

limit by it

above

a man with a discharge who had two sightings

from offerings?

He said to him:

You are compelled to say that here it came to include, for

if you might think

that

this “

from his discharge and he shall count”—

to exclude

one who saw two sightings

is what it came for, let the verse remain silent concerning it,

and we would consequently know that one with two sightings does not require counting—for from where could we derive that he does?

And if you say

that

it follows from the law

as above: if he renders a lying-place and a seat impure, certainly he should require counting?

We rejected this there, and said that

one who observes a day corresponding to a day proves it,

for even though she renders a lying-place and a seat impure, she does not require counting seven days!

If so, from where would it occur to say that a man with a discharge who had two sightings requires counting, so that we need to exclude him from the verse? Rather, you are compelled to say that the opposite is so: from this verse we learn that he requires counting.

And if you say,

but

this

verse, “And when the man with a discharge becomes pure from his discharge,”

is needed

to expound:

“from his discharge”—

and not from

his discharge and

his affliction,

as we expounded above: he begins counting immediately when he stops having his discharge, even though he has not yet ceased from his leprosy; if so, how can we derive from this verse an inclusion for counting?

If so,

if the verse came only for this exposition,

let the verse write

only:

“And when the man with a discharge becomes pure,” and remain silent.

For since it is written “And when the man with a discharge becomes pure,” and not “And when he becomes pure” without specification, it can be learned that purity from his discharge is sufficient, and he need not become pure also from his affliction in order to count.

And this, that the verse added and wrote

“from his discharge”—

why do I need it?

You are compelled to say:

it teaches concerning a man with a discharge who

also

requires counting seven days.

Mishna:

There is no

difference

between the laws of

a

quarantined leper,

whose affliction does not have complete signs of leprosy, and therefore the priest quarantined him for seven days,

and a confirmed leper,

in whom signs of impurity appeared, or whose affliction spread during the days of his quarantine, and he was declared a leper—

except for uncovering

his hair

and tearing

his garments. For it is written concerning a confirmed leper: “His garments shall be torn and his head shall be uncovered.” But a quarantined leper is not obligated in these.

There is no difference between a leper who became

pure

from

a

quarantine and

a leper who became

pure from a declaration, except

for the obligation of

shaving, and

sending

birds, which are stated concerning the leper and are performed only by one who became pure from a declaration, and not by one who became pure from a quarantine.

which are prescribed in the case of a person with a skin disease but are performed only by one who became pure from a confirmed status, not by one who became pure from quarantine.

And our Mishna is speaking only of the day of his purification. After seven days there is another difference: a confirmed leper is obligated in offerings, whereas the quarantined one does not bring them.

Gemara:

Since we learned that the only difference between them is the obligation of uncovering and tearing, it implies:

but concerning

the law of

sending

outside the city wall, which is stated concerning a leper,

and concerning the severity of

impurity

impurity

stated concerning a leper, who renders a lying-place and a seat impure and renders impure through entering a house—

this one and that one are equal.

From where are these words that there is no uncovering and tearing for a quarantined leper? Perhaps the Merciful One revealed it concerning a confirmed leper, and the same law applies to a quarantined leper? As we see that they are equal in their laws with regard to impurity and sending!

that there is no uncovering of the hair and tearing of the garments for a quarantined person with a skin disease? Perhaps the Torah revealed this concerning a confirmed person, and the same applies to a quarantined person, as we see that they have the same laws with regard to impurity and being sent away!

And we explain:

For Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak taught before Rav Huna:

it is written concerning a leper who became pure from his quarantine:

“And the priest shall pronounce him pure; it is a scab, and he shall wash his garments and be pure.”

And since the verse wrote “and be pure” in the past tense, and did not write “and he shall become pure” in the future tense, it implies that

pure

he already is even before immersion—

from uncovering and tearing

of a confirmed leper,

for

the expression “and be pure” implies that he is pure

from the outset.

Rava said to him

to Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak:

But from now,

if “and be pure” implies from the outset,

concerning a man with a discharge, where it is written

also at the end of his purification:

“And he shall wash his garments and be pure”—what purity from the outset is there to say

?

Rather,

there you are compelled to say that this is what the verse means:

pure

he is

now,

after he immersed,

from rendering earthenware impure through movement,

even if he sees again today.

And

even though

the immersion of the man with a discharge is during the day, and if

he sees again

a discharge on that same day, he invalidates his purity and retroactively renders a lying-place and a seat impure, nevertheless he

does not retroactively render impure

an earthenware vessel that he moved between the immersion and the sighting [and we expound the verse concerning movement of an earthenware vessel, because this verse, “and be pure,” is adjacent to the verse “that the man with a discharge touches,” from which we derive the impurity of movement by a man with a discharge, Rashi].

If so,

here too,

with regard to the matter of a quarantined leper, it may be said that this is what the verse means:

pure

he is

now,

after he immersed,

from rendering impure through entering

a house.

For there is a stringency in the impurity of a leper: he renders impure a person and vessels that come with him into a house. And the verse comes to say that even though afterward the leprosy spread, and his purity was nullified, and he retroactively renders a lying-place and a seat impure, he does not render impure

retroactively

through entering.

And since it is possible to expound it this way, from where do we know that a quarantined leper is exempt from uncovering and tearing?

Rather, Rava said: From here

we learn that there is no law of uncovering and tearing for a quarantined leper:

For it is written in the section concerning uncovering and tearing:

“And the leper in whom the affliction is.”

And we expound this “in whom” as: specifically

one whose leprosy depends upon his body,

namely, a confirmed leper, who is impure until his affliction is healed; these laws apply to him.

This one is excluded,

the quarantined leper,

whose leprosy does not depend upon his body—

but upon the days.

For if seven days of his quarantine pass and signs of impurity are not found in him—that is, white hair or spreading—even though the affliction remains as it was, he is pure.

Abaye said to him: But from now,

if you expound “in whom” as meaning that it depends upon his body, -

namely, depends upon his body, in this verse,

“All the days that the affliction is in him he shall be impure;

outside the camp shall his dwelling be,” should we also expound it this way:

one whose leprosy depends upon his body—

he is the one who requires sending, and

one

whose leprosy does not depend upon his body—

does not require sending,

and we shall exempt a quarantined leper from sending?!

And if you say

that this

is indeed so,

that in truth this is the law, that a quarantined leper is not sent,

but it was taught

in our Mishna:

“There is no difference between a quarantined leper and a confirmed leper except uncovering and tearing.”

It implies:

but concerning sending and rendering impure through entering—

this one and that one are equal?

He said to him,

Rava: In truth, “in whom” is a limitation, and we would exclude a quarantined leper from sending by means of it. But since the verse could have written

“the days,”

and the text added and wrote

“all the days,”

we expound:

to include a quarantined leper—

for the

law of

sending.

And we challenge:

If so ,

for what reason were shaving and birds not

included in the quarantined leper?

For it was taught: “There is no difference between one who became pure from a quarantine and one who became pure from a declaration except shaving and birds,”

which are not found in the quarantined leper?!

Abaye said:

because

the verse says: “And the priest shall go outside the camp, and behold, the affliction of leprosy has been healed

and so on; “and he shall take for the one being purified two living birds,” and so on; “and he shall shave all his hair.” And we expound: specifically

one whose leprosy depends upon cures,

namely, a confirmed leper, who becomes pure only after the affliction is healed—there are shaving and birds for him.

This one is excluded,

the quarantined leper,

whose leprosy does not depend upon cures—

but upon the days,

as above.

Mishna:

There is no difference between the law of writing

the

scrolls—

Torah, Prophets, and Writings—

and the writing of

the writing of

phylacteries and mezuzot, except for this difference

for this distinction

the scrolls

may be written in every language,

but

these

phylacteries and mezuzot—

may be written only in Ashurit [the

holy language ].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even concerning scrolls, the Sages did not permit

the Sages

that they be written

in every language [in addition to the holy language],

but

specifically in the language of

Greek

[and the reason is explained in the Gemara].

Gemara:

Since it did not teach a difference between them except with regard to writing in every language, it implies:

but

with regard to the requirement

to sew them

specifically

with sinews

[it is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai concerning phylacteries and mezuzot ],

and with regard

to

rendering the hands impure,

for the Sages decreed concerning sacred scrolls that they render the hands impure [as explained above, page 7a]—

this one and that one are equal [and in tractate Makkot they disputed whether a Torah scroll sewn with flax is valid; and the Mishna teaches us the view that disqualifies it, Rashi].

We learned in our Mishna:

“And scrolls may be written in every language, and so on.”

And we raise a contradiction from the following

beraita: A verse written in the Torah in the language of

Scripture,

namely, in the holy language—

that he wrote it

in the language of

the Translation, but

likewise a verse written in Scripture in the language of

the Translation,

such as “Yegar Sahaduta” [and the books of Daniel and Ezra, which are written in the Aramaic language]—

that he wrote it

in the language of

Scripture, but

likewise if he did not change the language, but wrote it in

Hebrew script,

namely, the script of the people beyond the River [and in tractate Sanhedrin it is called “Libonaah script”]—

it does not render the hands impure, until he writes it

specifically

in Ashurit script

[which is our script], and

on parchment

[parchment],

and in ink.

And not in other things suitable for writing.

We see that scrolls may not be written in every language!?