Megillah 8b — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna A woman who observes a clean day for one day or two days that she experiences a discharge will prove that this is not th…

A woman who observes a clean day for one day or two days that she experiences a discharge will prove that this is not the case. This refers to a woman who experienced one or two days of bleeding not during her menstrual period and is required to wait one day without any further discharge of blood before immersion in a ritual bath. This is significant because she renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure, and nevertheless she does not require a count of seven clean days to become purified. And you too should not then be surprised that this zav, although he renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure, he does not require a count of seven clean days to become purified. Therefore, the verse states: “From his emission, then he shall count,” meaning that even a partial zav is obligated in the mitzva of: Then he shall count. This teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is different about this verse that states: “From his emission,” which is interpreted to include a zav who experienced two emissions in the obligation to count seven clean days; and what is different about that verse that states: “From his emission,” which is interpreted to exclude a zav who experienced two emissions from the obligation to bring an offering? Why is the identical term interpreted once as inclusionary and once as exclusionary? Abaye said to him: If it enters your mind to say that this instance of the term: “From his emission,” comes to exclude a zav who experienced two emissions from the obligation to count seven clean days, let the verse remain silent and omit the term, as there would have been no basis to include a zav who experienced two emissions in that halakha. And if you would say that this can be inferred logically, a woman who observes a day for a day will prove that there is no correlation between ritual impurity transmitted to a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting, and the obligation to count seven clean days. And if you would say that this term: From his emission, is needed to derive a different inclusion, i.e., that he counts seven days when he is clean from his emission and not from his leprosy and therefore it was necessary to write this term, that is not so. As if it were so, then let the verse write: “And when the zav is cleansed” and let the verse remain silent and omit the term, and it would have been clear that even one afflicted with leprosy counts seven clean days once he is cleansed from his emission. Why then do I need the term: From his emission? Rather, it must be understood as an inclusionary term that teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days. The difference between a quarantined leper, i.e., one examined by a priest who found his symptoms to be inconclusive, and who must therefore remain in isolation for a period of up to two weeks waiting to see if conclusive symptoms develop; and a confirmed leper, i.e., one whose symptoms were conclusive and the priest declared him an absolute leper, is only with regard to letting the hair on one’s head grow wild and rending one’s garments. A confirmed leper is obligated to let the hair on his head grow wild and rend his garments; a quarantined leper is not. The difference between a leper purified from quarantine, whose symptoms never became conclusive, and a leper purified from a state of confirmed leprosy is only with regard to shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering, which are obligations incumbent only upon the confirmed leper.

▶ 💬 Guemara The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of expulsion, from all three camps in the encampment of the Israelites …

The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of expulsion, from all three camps in the encampment of the Israelites in the desert and from the walled cities in Eretz Yisrael, and the ritual impurity of a leper: Both this, the quarantined leper, and that, the confirmed leper, are equal. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak taught in a baraita before Rav Huna. It is written with regard to a leper who was purified from quarantine: “The priest shall pronounce him clean: It is but a scab, and he shall wash his clothes and be purified [vetaher]” (Leviticus 13:6). The word vetaher is not in the future tense, which would indicate that from that point he is purified; it is rather in the present tense, indicating that at the outset, even before the priest’s pronouncement, he was pure in the sense that he was exempt from the initial obligation of letting the hair on his head grow wild and rending his garments, as those obligations are incumbent exclusively upon the confirmed leper. Rava said to him: However, if that is so, i.e., that vetaher means that one is somewhat pure at the outset, then with regard to a zav, as it is written: “And he shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be clean [vetaher]” (Leviticus 15:13), there, what sense of: And he shall be clean, at the outset is there in that case? Up until that point, the zav was ritually impure in every sense. Rather, vetaher means that he is now pure from rendering earthenware vessels impure through movement. There is a halakha that a zav renders a vessel impure if he causes it to be moved, even though he did not come into direct contact with it, even if the opening of the vessel is smaller than a fingerbreadth. The verse teaches that once the zav is purified through counting and immersion, he no longer renders vessels impure in that manner. The novelty here is that even if he then experiences another emission, he does not render the vessels impure retroactively. This emission is unrelated to the previous emissions. Therefore, upon experiencing the emission, the zav is not retroactively considered to have been ritually impure the entire time, even after immersion. Rather, since he counted seven clean days and immersed, the legal status of this latest emission is that of a new emission. Here too, with regard to the leper, vetaher means that the quarantined leper is now pure from retroactively rendering the contents of a house impure by his entrance into the house. If someone with inconclusive symptoms of leprosy was quarantined and then declared ritually pure, and subsequently conclusive symptoms of leprosy developed, he is not considered to have been a leper from the time of the original quarantine, in which case the contents of any house he entered from that point would be rendered impure retroactively. Rather, once he was purified, he was absolutely pure. These subsequent conclusive symptoms are unrelated to the previous inconclusive symptoms. Therefore, the proof adduced by Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak is no proof. Rather, Rava said that the halakha that a quarantined leper is exempt from the obligation to let his hair grow and to rend his clothing is derived from here. It is written: “And the leper in whom [bo] the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall grow wild” (Leviticus 13:45), indicating that only one whose leprosy is dependent on the state of his body, in whom the plague is, is obligated to let his hair grow wild and to rend his garments. This excludes that leper whose leprosy is not dependent solely on the state of his body, but rather on the passage of days, as he is obligated to wait seven days. Abaye said to him: However, if that is so, then also with regard to the verse: “All the days during which the plague shall be in him [bo] he shall be impure” (Leviticus 13:46), say one whose leprosy is dependent on the state of his body requires expulsion from the camp, and one whose leprosy is not dependent solely on the state of his body, but rather on the passage of days, does not require expulsion. And if you would say: Indeed that is so, but isn’t it taught in the mishna: The difference between a quarantined leper and a confirmed leper is only with regard to letting the hair on one’s head grow wild and rending one’s garments? And it is inferred that with regard to the matter of expulsion and the capacity of a leper to render impure the contents of a house by entry into the house, both this, the quarantined leper, and that, the confirmed leper, are equal. Rava said to him: There is a different source for the obligation to expel the quarantined leper from the camp. The verse could have stated: The days during which the plague shall be upon him. Instead the verse states: All the days, to include a quarantined leper in the obligation of expulsion from the camp, like a confirmed leper. The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the reason that a quarantined leper is not obligated in shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering as part of his purification process? As it teaches in the mishna: The difference between a leper purified from quarantine, whose symptoms never became conclusive, and a leper purified from a state of confirmed leprosy, is only with regard to shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering. Abaye said that the verse states: “And the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look, and behold, if the plague of leprosy is healed in the leper” (Leviticus 14:3), then the purification process that includes shaving and bringing birds commences. This indicates that these halakhot apply to a confirmed leper whose leprosy is dependent on healing, to exclude that leper whose leprosy is not dependent solely on healing but rather on the passage of days. Even if his symptoms are healed, he is pure only at the conclusion of the seven days of quarantine. MISHNA: The difference between Torah scrolls, and phylacteries and mezuzot, in terms of the manner in which they are written, is only that Torah scrolls are written in any language, whereas phylacteries and mezuzot are written only in Ashurit, i.e., in Hebrew and using the Hebrew script. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to Torah scrolls, the Sages permitted them to be written only in Greek. Torah scrolls written in any other language do not have the sanctity of a Torah scroll. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of stitching the sheets of parchment with sinews, and with regard to rendering the hands of one who touches them impure, both this, Torah scrolls, and that, phylacteries and mezuzot, are equal. The Sages issued a decree rendering the hands of one who touches sacred scrolls impure with second-degree ritual impurity. The mishna stated: Torah scrolls are written in any language. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: A Torah scroll containing a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, or that was written in the ancient Hebrew script and not in Ashurit, renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink. Apparently, contrary to the mishna, a scroll written in a language other than Hebrew is not sacred. Rava said: This is not difficult.

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français La Guemara en déduit qu’en ce qui concerne la question de l’expulsion, des trois camps dans le campement des enfants d’I…

La Guemara en déduit qu’en ce qui concerne la question de l’expulsion, des trois camps dans le campement des enfants d’Israël dans le désert et des villes fortifiées en Eretz Yisrael, et l’impureté rituelle d’un lépreux : Tant celui-ci, le lépreux en quarantaine, que celui-là, le lépreux confirmé, sont égaux. La Guemara demande : D’où ces choses sont-elles dérivées ? La Guemara répond : C’est comme Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak a enseigné dans une baraita devant Rav Huna. Il est écrit à propos d’un lépreux purifié de la quarantaine : « Le sacrificateur le déclarera pur : c’est une dartre, et il lavera ses vêtements, et il sera pur [vetaher] » (Lévitique 13:6). Le mot vetaher n’est pas au futur, ce qui indiquerait qu’à partir de ce moment il est pur ; il est plutôt au présent, indiquant qu’au départ, même avant la déclaration du sacrificateur, il était pur en ce sens qu’il était exempté de l’obligation initiale de laisser les cheveux de sa tête croître en désordre et de déchirer ses vêtements, car ces obligations incombent exclusivement au lépreux confirmé. Rava lui dit : Cependant, si cela est ainsi, c’est-à-dire que vetaher signifie qu’on est quelque peu pur au départ, alors en ce qui concerne un zav, comme il est écrit : « Et il lavera ses vêtements, et baignera sa chair dans une eau vive, et il sera pur [vetaher] » (Lévitique 15:13), là, quel sens de : Et il sera pur, au départ y a-t-il dans ce cas ? Jusqu’à ce point, le zav était rituellement impur en tout sens. Plutôt, vetaher signifie qu’il est maintenant pur de rendre impurs les vases de terre cuite par le mouvement. Il y a une halakha qu’un zav rend un vase impur s’il le fait bouger, même s’il n’est pas entré en contact direct avec lui, même si l’ouverture du vase est plus petite qu’un doigt. Le verset enseigne qu’une fois que le zav est purifié par le comptage et l’immersion, il ne rend plus les vases impurs de cette manière. La nouveauté ici est que même s’il éprouve ensuite une autre émission, il ne rend pas les vases impurs rétroactivement. Cette émission n’est pas liée aux émissions précédentes. Par conséquent, lors de l’émission, le zav n’est pas rétroactivement considéré comme ayant été rituellement impur tout ce temps, même après l’immersion. Plutôt, puisqu’il a compté sept jours purs et s’est immergé, le statut juridique de cette dernière émission est celui d’une nouvelle émission. Ici aussi, en ce qui concerne le lépreux, vetaher signifie que le lépreux en quarantaine est maintenant pur de rendre rétroactivement le contenu d’une maison impur par son entrée dans la maison. Si quelqu’un avec des symptômes non concluants de lèpre a été mis en quarantaine puis déclaré rituellement pur, et que par la suite des symptômes concluants de lèpre se sont développés, il n’est pas considéré comme ayant été lépreux depuis le moment de la quarantaine originale, auquel cas le contenu de toute maison qu’il a entrée depuis ce moment serait rendu impur rétroactivement. Plutôt, une fois qu’il a été purifié, il était absolument pur. Ces symptômes concluants ultérieurs ne sont pas liés aux symptômes non concluants précédents. Par conséquent, la preuve apportée par Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak n’est pas une preuve. Plutôt, Rava dit que la halakha qu’un lépreux en quarantaine est exempté de l’obligation de laisser croître ses cheveux et de déchirer ses vêtements est dérivée d’ici. Il est écrit : « Et le lépreux en qui [bo] est la plaie, ses vêtements seront déchirés, et les cheveux de sa tête croîtront en désordre » (Lévitique 13:45), indiquant que seulement celui dont la lèpre dépend de l’état de son corps, en qui est la plaie, est obligé de laisser croître ses cheveux en désordre et de déchirer ses vêtements. Cela exclut celui-là lépreux dont la lèpre ne dépend pas uniquement de l’état de son corps, mais plutôt du passage des jours, car il est obligé d’attendre sept jours. Abaye lui dit : Cependant, si cela est ainsi, alors aussi en ce qui concerne le verset : « Tous les jours durant lesquels la plaie sera en lui [bo] il sera impur » (Lévitique 13:46), dis celui dont la lèpre dépend de l’état de son corps exige l’expulsion du camp, et celui dont la lèpre ne dépend pas uniquement de l’état de son corps, mais plutôt du passage des jours, n’exige pas l’expulsion. Et si tu voulais dire : En effet cela est ainsi, mais n’est-il pas enseigné dans la mishna : La différence entre un lépreux en quarantaine et un lépreux confirmé est seulement en ce qui concerne laisser les cheveux de sa tête croître en désordre et déchirer ses vêtements ? Et il est déduit qu’en ce qui concerne la question de l’expulsion et la capacité d’un lépreux de rendre impur le contenu d’une maison par l’entrée dans la maison, tant celui-ci, le lépreux en quarantaine, que celui-là, le lépreux confirmé, sont égaux. Rava lui dit : Il y a une source différente pour l’obligation d’expulser le lépreux en quarantaine du camp. Le verset aurait pu dire : Les jours durant lesquels la plaie sera sur lui. Au lieu de cela, le verset dit : Tous les jours, pour inclure un lépreux en quarantaine dans l’obligation d’expulsion du camp, comme un lépreux confirmé. La Guemara demande : Si cela est ainsi, quelle est la raison pour laquelle un lépreux en quarantaine n’est pas obligé dans le rasage des cheveux de tout son corps et l’apport d’oiseaux comme offrande de purification dans le cadre de son processus de purification ? Comme il est enseigné dans la mishna : La différence entre un lépreux purifié de la quarantaine, dont les symptômes ne sont jamais devenus concluants, et un lépreux purifié d’un état de lèpre confirmée, est seulement

📜 Megillah — 8b

📋 Références bibliques — Megillah 8b

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant