Moed Katan 7b — the Talmud in English

For they disagree

regarding a quarantined metzora

during the second quarantine,

for if he declares him impure, he will become distressed, for he will thereby become definitely afflicted, and this impurity is more severe than that of one who is quarantined.

The master

Rabbi Meir, who said: one examines [the affliction] to be lenient and not to be stringent,

held: the matter depends on the koen,

and he is not impure until the koen establishes that the affliction has spread and declares him impure.

And since the matter depends on the koen's will, he may examine him.

And

if pure

he finds him,

he says to him: "

Pure,"

and he will gladden him during the festival with his purification.

And if impure

he finds him,

the koen is silent

and does not tell him that he is impure, and he will not become distressed.

And

if

the master,

Rabbi Yosei, who said: one does not examine even to be lenient,

held: “to purify him or to declare him impure” is written,

and we derive from it that the koen who examines is obligated to say whether he is impure or pure, and he will be forced to distress him if he is impure; therefore, he does not examine him until after the festival.

The master said: Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Yosei appear [correct] concerning one who is definitely afflicted, and the words of Rabbi Meir concerning one who is quarantined. And we raise a difficulty: but it was taught oppositely: Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Meir appear [correct] concerning one who is definitely afflicted, and the words of Rabbi Yosei concerning one who is quarantined.

And we answer: the dispute

is a dispute among tannaim

who disagreed

according to Rabbi.

One who is definitely afflicted is permitted to be alone with his wife during the days of his confirmed affliction, but he is distanced from his companions, since he is sent outside the three camps.

But when he becomes purified from his confirmed affliction and counts seven days for purification, during these days he is forbidden to his wife, as it is written: “And he shall dwell outside his tent seven days.” “His tent”—this is his wife. But he is permitted to enter the camp of Israel. And the tannaim disagree according to Rabbi's method: what is better for a person?

The master,

who said that the words of Rabbi Meir appear [correct], that one examines one who is definitely afflicted,

held: companionship with the world is better for him.

And therefore he examines him during the days of his confirmed affliction. For even if he declares him impure, he will not become distressed, since he does not make his situation more stringent than its present state.

On the other hand, if he purifies him, he will gladden him. And although he is now forbidden to his wife, companionship with the world is better for him, since he returns to the camp.

And likewise, the words of Rabbi Yosei appear [correct] to him, that he does not examine him at all, concerning one who is quarantined, because in his case we are concerned that he will declare him impure and forbid him from the companionship of people, when he will be sent outside the camps, and he will become distressed during the festival.

And the master,

who said that the words of Rabbi Meir appear [correct], that one examines only to be lenient, concerning one who is quarantined,

held: his wife's companionship is better for him

than companionship with the world.

And therefore his words do not appear [correct] concerning one who is definitely afflicted, for if he purifies him he will not gladden him, since he will become forbidden to his wife. But concerning one who is quarantined, if he purifies him he will gladden him also through companionship with the world. And even if he declares him impure, he will not lose his wife's companionship, and he will have no distress. And if so, he examines him both to be lenient and to be stringent. And likewise, the words of Rabbi Yosei appear [correct] to him, that one does not examine at all, concerning one who is definitely afflicted. For even if he purifies him, he will become forbidden to his wife, and he is distressed by this, since his wife's companionship is better for him.

holds that companionship with his wife is better for him

than companionship with other people.

And the Gemara now discusses that which we say: one who is definitely afflicted has his wife's companionship:

Does this mean,

is it possible to prove and say from here

that one who is definitely afflicted,

during the days of his confirmed affliction,

is permitted in marital relations?

And we conclude:

No,

indeed!

And the

proof is from

that which was taught:

it is written: “

And he shall dwell

outside his tent

seven days”—

the verse teaches

that

the leper

shall be forbidden in marital relations. .

For

that the

person with tzara'at

is prohibited marital relations.

“his tent”

is only his wife.

As it is stated

in another verse concerning the three days of separation before the Revelation at Mount Sinai: “

Go, say to them: Return to your tents.”

And they were not restricted for three days from sitting in a tent, but rather as it is written: “Do not approach a woman.” [Exodus 19].

And from here we learned that a leper must sit outside his tent, meaning that he must be separated from his wife.

And tannaim disagree as to when one who is definitely afflicted becomes forbidden in marital relations:

Rabbi Judah says:

the verse in the Book of Ezekiel,

“Seven days shall they count for him,”

although it is stated concerning the purification of one impure from the dead, since it uses the expression “counting,” which is the expression stated concerning the purification of a leper—the verse comes to teach concerning one who became a leper that only during the seven

“days of his counting,”

during which he counts after he has healed and comes to become pure, is he forbidden in marital relations,

and not

during the

days of his confirmed affliction. .

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah

disagrees

and

says: The verse indeed speaks of

the seven days of his counting, but we learn from it by

kal va-chomer

to forbid a leper in marital relations also

during the days of his confirmed affliction. [And that which we say that one who is definitely afflicted has his wife's companionship means according to Rabbi Judah, for according to him a leper is permitted in marital relations during the days of his confirmed affliction.]

And the beraita continues and says:

And Rabbi Hiyya said:

This is what

I argued before Rabbi:

Behold,

our teacher, you have taught us

that one should bring proof from Scripture that a leper is permitted in marital relations during the days of his confirmed affliction.

For

Jotham,

the son of Uzziah,

would not have been

born

to Uzziah except

because his wife conceived from him

during the days of his confirmed affliction.

For Uzziah, king of Judah, became a leper twenty-five years before his death. After his death his son Jotham reigned, and Jotham was twenty-five years old when he reigned.

And it follows that Jotham's conception occurred during the days of his father Uzziah's confirmed affliction.

He said to him,

Rabbi to Rabbi Hiyya: Indeed,

I too said so,

for the verse “And he shall dwell outside his tent” applies only to the days of his counting, and during the days of his confirmed affliction he is indeed permitted to his wife.

And we explain:

In what,

in what

do they disagree,

the tannaim in the beraita?

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah held: The Merciful One revealed

that a leper is forbidden in marital relations

during the days of his counting, and all the more so

that he is forbidden

during the days of his confirmed affliction.

Since at that time his leprosy is at its essence, whereas the days of his counting are already a stage toward his purification.

And the master,

Rabbi,

held that only

that which the verse revealed—

that is, that he is forbidden to his wife during the days of his counting—

it revealed.

And that which it did not

reveal concerning the days of his confirmed affliction—

it did not reveal!

And therefore he is permitted in marital relations during them.

what the verse revealed

—namely, that he is prohibited to his wife during the days of his counting—

it revealed.

And what it did not

And the Gemara now infers from the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei above: one said that a koen is not permitted to remain silent, and therefore he does not examine him; and one said that if he examines him and finds him impure, he may remain silent:

Is it

to say that the matter depends on the koen's

declaration,

and the affliction does not make him impure until the koen examines him and says that he is impure? And we conclude: No, indeed! And the proof is from

that which was taught concerning the verse, “And on the day when an affliction appears in him.”

There is a day when you,

the koen,

examine afflictions on it,

and

there is a day when you do not examine on it. .

From here they said

the Sages:

And the

proof is from what

was taught

concerning the verse, “And on the day when

the affliction appears on him

A groom in whom a new affliction has appeared

and who needs to show it to the koen,

is given seven days of the wedding feast,

during which the koen does not examine him, lest he declare him impure. And these seven days are given to him, both

to him,

for the affliction on his body,

and

both

to his house, for afflictions of houses in his house, and both to his garment, for afflictions of garments in his garment. And likewise concerning the festival:

they give him,

to anyone who becomes a leper during the festival,

the seven days of the festival,

so that he will not become distressed during the festival,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi says: It is not necessary

to learn that there are days on which one does not examine a groom and during the festival; rather, we know them from afflictions of houses:

Behold, it

the verse

says: “

And the koen shall command, and they shall clear out the house.”

For it is explicitly written that the koen waits before declaring it impure until they clear out the utensils. And we derive [the law concerning] afflictions of the body [by comparison] to afflictions of houses.

And

if

they wait for him for a matter of permission,

as with afflictions of houses, for the clearing out of

the utensils,

all the more so

they wait for him

for a matter of mitzva, ,

during the joy of the groom and the joy of the festival.

to learn that there are days when the affliction of a groom or an affliction during the Festival is not examined; we know this from afflictions of houses:

The verse

itself

says: “

And the priest shall command, and they shall clear the house.”

This explicitly states that the priest waits before declaring the house impure until the vessels have been removed. We derive that afflictions on a person’s body are treated like afflictions of houses.

And

if they wait for him in a matter involving an optional concern,

, as in the case of afflictions of houses, to remove

the vessels,

all the more so

do they wait for him

in a matter involving a mitzva, ,

at the time of a groom’s joy and the joy of the Festival.

And we explain:

What is the difference between them?

Abaye said:

There is no practical difference between them, but only

“the meaning of the interpretations”

exists between them, for each one derives from a different verse .

And

whereas

Rava said,

the fact that they differ as to from where it is possible to learn this also has a practical difference, for

an optional matter is between them.

Rabbi Judah, who derives it from “there is a day on which you do not see afflictions,” means only for a mitzva matter; and in the case of bodily afflictions, they will not wait for him for an optional matter.

But Rabbi, who derives it from house afflictions, also in the case of bodily afflictions they will wait for him even for an optional matter.

The Gemara now explains why each one does not derive from the verse of the other.

Rabbi Judah

holds:

from there,

from the fact that one waits for an optional matter in the case of house afflictions,

we do not derive.

For there it is different,

because it is a novelty.