Megillah 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

That is not a valid logical inference. For when a woman sees blood for one or two days during the eleven days between one niddah period and the next, the law is that

she observes

one

day

clean

corresponding to the day

of her sighting, and immerses immediately—

it proves otherwise. For

she

renders bedding and seating impure

on the day that she observes,

but she is not required to count seven days.

And you too should not find this surprising:

a zav who saw two sightings,

for even though he renders bedding and seating impure, he should not be required to count seven days;

and if not for the verse, we would indeed not know that he is required to count seven days.

Therefore,

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

This indicates that even if

only part of his discharge

—that is, if he had only two sightings—

“and he shall count.” This teaches concerning a zav with two sightings

that he is required to count seven days.

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

and he shall count”—

that

we consider it an inclusive term and

include a zav with two sightings

in the obligation to count,

and what is different

about

this phrase, “and the koen shall make atonement for him before the Lord,

from his discharge,”

“from his discharge” -

that

we consider it an excluding term and

exclude

above

a zav with two sightings

from an offering?

He said to him:

You are forced to say that this phrase serves to include, for

if it enters your mind

that

this phrase, “from his discharge and he shall count,”

phrase, “from his discharge, and he shall count,” came

came to exclude

one who saw two sightings,

the verse should simply have remained silent concerning it.

And we would then know on our own that one with two sightings is not required to count, for from where could we derive that he is required to count?

And if you would say

that it

could be derived by logical inference,

as above: If he renders bedding and seating impure, surely he should be required to count seven days—

we rejected this reasoning there, and said that

a woman who observes one day corresponding to one day proves otherwise,

for even though she renders bedding and seating impure, she is not required to count seven days!

If so, from where would it occur to us to say that a zav with two sightings requires counting, such that we would need to exclude him from the verse? Rather, you are forced to say the opposite: From this verse we learn that he requires counting.

And if you would say,

but

this

verse, “When the zav becomes pure from his discharge,”

is needed

to expound

“from his discharge”—

but not from

his discharge and

his leprosy,

as we expounded above: He begins counting as soon as his discharge ceases, even if his leprosy has not yet ceased; if so, how can we derive from this verse the inclusion of the obligation to count?

If so,

if the verse came only for this exposition,

the verse should have written

only:

“When the zav becomes pure,” and remained silent.

For since it says “when the zav becomes pure,” rather than simply “when he becomes pure,” we could derive that purification from his discharge is sufficient, and that he need not also become pure from his leprosy in order to count.

And this additional phrase that the verse wrote,

“from his discharge”—

why do I need it?

You are therefore forced to say that

it teaches concerning a zav with two sightings that

he too

is required to count seven days.

Mishna:

There is no

distinction

between

the laws of

a quarantined metzora,

whose lesion does not have definite signs of leprosy, and whom the koen therefore quarantined for seven days,

and a confirmed metzora,

in whom signs of impurity appeared, or whose lesion spread during the days of his quarantine, and who was declared a metzora—except for

loosening

the hair of his head

and rending

his garments . For concerning a confirmed metzora it is written: “His garments shall be rent and his head shall be loosened.” A quarantined metzora, however, is not obligated in these practices.

There is no difference between

a metzora who became

pure from

a

quarantine and

a metzora who became

pure from a confirmed status, except

for the obligation of

shaving and

sending away

birds,

which are prescribed concerning a metzora only when he becomes pure from a confirmed status, and not when he becomes pure from a quarantine .

The Mishna is dealing only with the day of his purification. After seven days there is another distinction: A confirmed metzora is obligated to bring offerings, whereas a quarantined metzora does not bring them.

Gemara:

Since we learned that the only difference between them is the obligation of loosening the hair and rending the garments, it follows that

with regard to

the law of

sending away

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

and with regard to the severity of

impurity

imparted

by a metzora, who renders bedding and seating impure and renders a person impure upon entering a house—

the two are alike.

From where are these matters

that there is no loosening of the hair and rending of garments for a quarantined metzora? Perhaps the Merciful One revealed this concerning a confirmed metzora, and the same law applies to a quarantined metzora, as we see that they are alike in their laws with regard to impurity and sending away!

And we explain:

For Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak taught before Rav Huna:

Concerning a metzora who became pure from his quarantine, it is written:

“And the koen shall pronounce him pure; it is a scab. And he shall wash his garments and become pure.”

Since the verse writes “and become pure” in the past tense, rather than “and he shall become pure” in the future tense, this indicates that

he is pure

already, even before immersion,

from the loosening of the hair and rending of the garments

of a confirmed metzora,

for

the expression “and become pure” indicates that he is pure

from the outset.

Rava said

to Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak:

But if that is so,

if “and become pure” indicates that he was pure from the outset,

concerning a zav, for it is written

there too, at the conclusion of his purification,

“And he shall wash his garments and become pure,” what can “become pure from the outset” mean

there?

Rather,

there, the verse must necessarily mean as follows:

He is pure

from

now,

after he immersed,

from rendering an earthenware vessel impure through shifting it,

even if he sees discharge again that day.

And

even though

the zav’s immersion takes place during the day, and if he

again sees

discharge that same day, this nullifies his purification and renders bedding and seating impure retroactively, nevertheless he

does not render impure retroactively

an earthenware vessel that he shifted between immersion and the sighting [and we expound the verse as referring to the shifting of an earthenware vessel because this verse, “and become pure,” immediately follows the verse “that which the zav touches,” from which we derive the impurity of a zav through shifting, Rashi].

If so,

here too,

with regard to a quarantined metzora, it may be said that the verse means as follows:

He is pure

from

now,

after he immersed,

from rendering impure through entering

a house.

For there is an added severity in the impurity of a metzora: He renders impure people and vessels that enter the house with him. The verse comes to teach that even if the leprosy subsequently spreads, nullifying his purification and rendering him retroactively impure with the impurity of bedding and seating, he does not render impure

retroactively

through entering the house!

And since the verse can be expounded in this manner, from where do we know that a quarantined metzora is exempt from loosening the hair and rending the garments?

Rather, Rava said: From here

we derive that there is no law of loosening the hair and rending the garments for a quarantined metzora:

For it is written concerning the laws of loosening the hair and rending the garments:

“And the leper in whom the lesion is.”

And we expound the word “in whom” to mean specifically

one whose leprosy depends on his body,

that is, a confirmed metzora, who remains impure, and these laws apply to him, until his lesion heals.

This one is excluded,

the quarantined metzora,

whose leprosy does not depend on his body—

but on the days.

For if the seven days of his quarantine pass and no signs of impurity are found in him—that is, white hair or spreading of the lesion—even though the lesion itself remains, he is pure.

Abaye said to him: But if that is so,

if you expound the word “in whom” to mean that the impurity depends on his body, -

that is, that it depends on his body, from this verse,

“All the days that the lesion is in him he shall be impure, etc.,

outside the camp shall his dwelling be,” should we likewise expound it as follows:

one whose leprosy depends on his body

is the one who must be sent away, and

one

whose leprosy does not depend on his body

does not have to be sent away,

and we should exempt a quarantined metzora from being sent away?!

And if you would say

that

indeed so,

that this is truly the law, and a quarantined metzora is not sent away,

but it was taught

in our Mishna:

“There is no difference between a quarantined metzora and a confirmed metzora except for loosening the hair and rending the garments.”

It follows that

with regard to sending away and rendering impure through entering a house

the two are alike?

He said to him,

Rava: In truth, “in whom” is an excluding term, and we would exclude a quarantined metzora from being sent away on its basis. However, since the verse could have written

“the days,”

and instead the verse added a word and wrote

“all the days,”

we expound it:

to include a quarantined metzora

in

the law of

being sent away.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so ,

why are shaving and birds not

included for a quarantined metzora?

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

which do not apply to a quarantined metzora?!

Abaye said:

because

the verse says: “And the koen shall go outside the camp, and the lesion of leprosy is healed

etc., and he shall take for the one who is to be purified two live birds, etc., and he shall shave all his hair.” And we expound: Specifically

one whose leprosy depends on remedies,

that is, a confirmed metzora, who becomes pure only after the lesion heals—that is the one for whom shaving and birds apply.

This one is excluded,

the quarantined metzora,

whose leprosy does not depend on remedies—

but on the days,

as stated above.

Mishna:

There is no difference between

the law governing the writing of

Scriptures—

Torah, Prophets, and Writings—

and

the writing of

tefillin and mezuzot, except

for this distinction

the Scriptures

may be written in any language ,

whereas

these

tefillin and mezuzot

may be written only in Ashurit

[the holy tongue ].

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

the Sages

that they be written

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

but

specifically in the language of

Greek

[and the reason is explained in the Gemara].

Gemara:

Since the Mishna teaches no distinction between them except with regard to writing in every language, it follows that

with regard

to the requirement that they be

sewn

specifically

with sinews

[this is a halakha given to Moses from Sinai concerning tefillin and mezuzot ],

and

with regard to

rendering the hands impure,

for the Sages decreed that sacred books render the hands impure [as explained above, 7a]—

the two are alike [the tractate Makkot disputes whether a Torah scroll sewn with linen is valid, and the Mishna teaches us the opinion that disqualifies it, Rashi].

We learned in our Mishna:

“And the Scriptures may be written in any language, etc.”

And we pose a contradiction

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

Scripture,

that is, in the holy tongue,

that he wrote

in the language of

translation, and

likewise a verse written in Scripture in the language of

translation,

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

that he wrote

in the language of

Scripture, and

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

Hebrew script,

that is, the script of the people beyond the river [called “Libona’a script” in tractate Sanhedrin]—

it does not render the hands impure. Until he writes it

specifically

in Ashurit script

[which is our script],

on parchment

[parchment],

and with ink.

Not with other substances suitable for writing.

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