Moed Katan 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

When they disagree

concerning a quarantined metzora

during his second quarantine,

for if he declares him impure, the man will suffer, for he will thereby become confirmed, and that impurity is more severe than that of one who is quarantined.

One master,

Rabbi Meir, who said that one examines the lesion to be lenient but not to be stringent,

holds that the matter depends on the kohen,

and he is not impure until the kohen determines that the lesion has spread and declares him impure.

And since the matter depends on the kohen’s will, he may examine him.

And

if he finds him pure,

he

says to him, “

Pure,”

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

And if he finds him impure,

he

remains silent,

and the kohen will not tell him that he is impure, so he will not suffer.

And

if

the master,

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

holds that it is written: “to purify him or to render him impure,”

and we derive from this that the kohen who examines must say whether he is impure or pure. Thus, if he is impure, the kohen will be compelled to cause him distress, and therefore he should not examine him until after the Festival.

The master said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The words of Rabbi Yosei appear to be correct with regard to a confirmed metzora, and the words of Rabbi Meir with regard to one who is quarantined.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught in a beraita to the contrary:

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The words of Rabbi Meir appear to be correct with regard to a confirmed metzora, and the words of Rabbi Yosei with regard to one who is quarantined.

And we answer:

It is a dispute among tannaim

who disagreed

concerning the view of Rabbi.

A confirmed metzora is permitted to be secluded with his wife during the days of his confirmed status; he is merely distanced from his fellows, since he is sent outside the three camps.

But when he is purified from his confirmed status and counts seven days for purification, during those days he is forbidden to his wife, as it is written: “He shall remain outside his tent for seven days.” “His tent” means his wife. But he is permitted to enter the Israelite camp. The tannaim disagree concerning Rabbi’s view: which is preferable for a person?

One master,

who says that the words of Rabbi Meir appear correct, since one examines a confirmed metzora,

holds that companionship with people is preferable for him.

Therefore, one examines him during the days of his confirmed status. Even if he declares him impure, he will not suffer, since he is not imposing a greater stringency upon him than his present state.

Conversely, if he purifies him, he will gladden him. Although he is now forbidden to his wife, companionship with people is preferable for him, since he returns to the camp.

Likewise, the words of Rabbi Yosei appear correct to him: one does not examine him at all when he is quarantined, since there is concern that he will declare him impure and forbid him the company of people when he is sent outside the camps, and he will suffer during the Festival.

And the other master,

who says that the words of Rabbi Meir appear correct because one examines only to be lenient, with regard to one who is quarantined,

holds that companionship with his wife is preferable for him

to companionship with people.

Therefore, his words do not appear correct with regard to a confirmed metzora, because if he purifies him he will not gladden him, since he will become forbidden to his wife.

But with regard to one who is quarantined, if he purifies him, he will gladden him through companionship with people as well. And even if he declares him impure, he will not lose the companionship of his wife, and he will experience no distress.

If so, he examines him both to be lenient and to be stringent.

Likewise, the words of Rabbi Yosei appear correct to him—that one does not examine at all—with regard to a confirmed metzora. For even if he purifies him, he will become forbidden to his wife and will suffer because companionship with his wife is preferable for him.

The Gemara now discusses the statement that a confirmed metzora has companionship with his wife:

Does this mean,

can it be inferred and said from here

that a confirmed metzora

during the days of his confirmed status

is permitted marital relations?

And we conclude:

No;

indeed not!

And

the proof is from what

was taught:

It is written, “

He shall remain

the metzora

outside his tent for seven days”—

the verse teaches

that

the metzora

is forbidden marital relations. .

For

“his tent”

means only his wife,

as it is stated

in another verse, concerning the three days of restriction before the revelation at Sinai: “

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

They were not restricted for three days from sitting in their tents; rather, as it is written: “Do not approach a woman.” [Exodus 19].

From here we learn that a metzora must sit outside his tent—that is, he must be separated from his wife.

The tannaim disagree as to when a confirmed metzora becomes forbidden marital relations:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The verse in the Book of Ezekiel

“For seven days they shall count for him”,

although it refers to the purification of one impure with corpse impurity, since it uses the expression “count,” which is the expression used concerning the purification of a metzora—this verse comes to teach concerning one who became afflicted with tzara’at that only during the seven

days of his counting,

which he counts after recovering and beginning his purification, is he forbidden marital relations,

but not

during

the days of his confirmed status. .

disagrees

and

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,

disagrees , and

says:

This verse indeed speaks of

the seven days of his counting,

but we derive from it by means of a

kal va-chomer

that a metzora is forbidden marital relations also

during the days of his confirmed status. [The statement that a confirmed metzora has companionship with his wife is according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a metzora is permitted marital relations during the days of his confirmed status.]

Behold,

The statement that a confirmed person has companionship with his wife refers to Rabbi Yehuda’s view, according to which a person with tzara'at is permitted marital relations during the days of his confirmed status.

The beraita continues and says:

And Rabbi Ḥiyya said:

Thus

I reasoned before Rabbi:

Behold,

our master, you taught us

that a proof may be brought from Scripture that a metzora is permitted marital relations during the days of his confirmed status.

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 status.

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

It follows that Jotham was conceived during the days of his father Uzziah’s confirmed status.

Rabbi said to him,

Rabbi Ḥiyya: Indeed,

I too said so:

the verse “He shall remain outside his tent” applies only to the days of his counting, whereas during the days of his confirmed status he is indeed permitted to his wife.

And we explain:

With regard to what,

in what matter

do they disagree, the tannaim in the beraita?

the tannaim in the beraita?

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the Merciful One revealed

that a metzora is forbidden marital relations

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

that he is forbidden

during the days of his confirmed status,

since that is when his tzara’at is at its essential stage, whereas the days of his counting are already a stage of his purification.

And the other master,

Rabbi,

holds that only

during

what the verse revealed, namely, that he is forbidden to his wife during the days of his counting,

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

it revealed.

But what it did not

reveal,

concerning the days of his confirmed status—

it did not reveal!

Therefore, he is permitted marital relations during those days.

The Gemara now infers from the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei above—one said that the kohen is not permitted to remain silent and therefore should not examine him, while the other said that if he examines him and finds him impure, he may remain silent:

Is it so?

Does this mean that the

the kohen’s

pronouncement is what determines the matter,

and the lesion does not render him impure until the kohen examines it and says that he is impure?

And we conclude:

No;

indeed not!

And

the proof is from what

was taught concerning the verse

“And on the day that

it appears on him

the lesion”:

There is a day when you

the kohen

examine on it

lesions,

and there is a day when you do not examine .

From here the Sages said:

both

A groom who develops a lesion

of a new kind and must show it to the kohen,

is granted the seven days of the wedding celebration,

during which the kohen does not examine him, lest he declare him impure. These seven days are granted both

to him,

for a lesion on his body,

and

both

to his house,

for lesions affecting the house,

and

both

to his garment,

for lesions affecting his garment.

And

likewise

during the Festival: he is granted,

to anyone who becomes a metzora during the Festival,

the seven days of the Festival,

so that he will not suffer during the Festival—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi says: It is not necessary

to derive that there are days on which the kohen does not examine a groom or one afflicted during the Festival; rather, we know it from lesions affecting houses:

The verse

states

explicitly: “

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

Thus it is explicitly written that the kohen waits before declaring it impure until all the vessels have been removed. And we derive that lesions on a person’s body are analogous to lesions affecting houses.

And

if they wait for him for an optional matter

, as with lesions affecting houses, to clear out

the vessels,

all the more so

do they wait for him

for a mitzva ,

during the joy of the groom and the joy of the Festival .

And we explain:

What difference is there between them?

Abaye said:

There is no practical difference between them; rather, only

the implications of the expositions

are different between them, as each one derives it from a different verse .

And

if

Rava said,

the fact that they disagree regarding from which verse this may be learned also has a practical implication, because

an optional matter is the difference between them.

Rabbi Yehuda, who derives it from “There is a day when you do not see lesions,” applies this only to a mitzva; in the case of bodily lesions, one would not delay for him for an optional matter.

But Rabbi, who derives it from house lesions, would likewise delay for him even in the case of bodily lesions, even for an optional matter.

The Gemara now explains why each one does not derive it from the verse cited by the other.

Rabbi Yehuda

holds:

from there,

from the fact that one delays for an optional matter in the case of house lesions,

we do not derive.

For that case is different,

as it is a novelty.