Megillah

— This argument can be confuted by the case of the woman who is keeping day for day,1 for such a one defiles bed and seat2 but does not count seven days. And thus do not be surprised that this one also, although he defiles bed and seat, should not be obliged to count seven days. Therefore it says, ‘from his issue, and he shall number’, which implies that after part of his issue3 he shall number; this teache2 with regard to one with an issue who has had two observations that he is required to count seven days. R. Papa said to Abaye: Why do we use the one text ‘from his issue’ to include4 one with an issue who has had two observations, and the other text ‘from his issue’ to exclude5 one with an issue who has had two observations? — He replied: If you should assume that the former text6 is for the purpose of excluding, then the text could simply omit the word. And should you say, we could then derive the rule [that he is to count seven days] by a logical deduction, such a deduction could be confuted by the case of the woman who counts day for day. And should you say that this word is required to show that the text refers to one who is cleansed of his issue [only] and not [of his issue and] his leprosy, — in that case the text should say, ‘and when he that hath an issue is cleansed’, and no more. Why do I require, ‘from his issue’? This teaches that one with an issue who has two observations is required to count seven days. MISHNAH. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEPER WHO IS UNDER ORSERVATION7 AND ONE DEFINITELY DECLARED SUCH8 SAVE IN THE MATTER OF LEAVING THE HAIR LOOSE9 AND RENDING THE GARMENTS.10 THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEPER WHO HAS BEEN DECLARED CLEAN8 AFTER BEING UNDER OBSERVATION11 AND ONE WHO HAS BEEN DECLARED CLEAN8 AFTER HAVING BEEN DEFINITELY DECLARED A LEPER SAVE IN THE MATTER OF SHAVING AND [OFFERING] THE BIRDS.12 GEMARA. From this it is to be inferred that in the matter of being sent outside [the camp]13 and uncleanness14 they are on the same footing. Whence is this rule15 derived? — As R. Samuel b. Isaac taught before R. Huna: Then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes and be clean;16 which implies that he shall already have been [in a sense] clean17 from the first, not having been liable to rending the garments and loosening the hair. Said Raba to him. If that is so, then in regard to one with an issue, of whom it is written, and he shall wash his garments and be clean,18 how is it possible to say that he shall have been clean from the start? What it means then is, ‘clean now so far as not to defile earthenware vessels by moving them’,19 so that, even if he observes an issue again, he does not defile them retrospectively. So here, [the meaning is that] the leper is clean now to the extent of not defiling retrospectively by his entrance!20 The fact is, said Raba, that we learn it from here: And the leper in whom the plague is;21 [that means] one whose leprosy is due to the state of his body, excluding this one22 whose leprosy is due to days.23 Said Abaye to him: If that is so, then when it says, All the days wherein the plague is in him he shall be unclean,24 are we to say that one whose leprosy is due to his state of body is required to be sent out of the camp, but one whose leprosy is not due to his state of body is not to be sent out of the camp? And should you reply that that is so, [how can this be] seeing that it states, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEPER UNDER OBSERVATION AND ONE DEFINITELY DECLARED SUCH SAVE IN THE MATTER OR LOOSENING THE HAIR AND RENDING THE GARMENTS, from which it may be inferred that in the matter of being sent out [of the camp] and defiling by entrance they are on the same footing? — [The text might have said simply] ‘the days’, and it says, ‘all the days’, to bring a leper under observation within the rule of sending out [of the camp]. If that is the case, what is the reason that he is not required to shave and offer birds [which is not the case], as it states: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEPER UNDER OBSERVATION AND ONE DEFINITELY DECLARED SUCH SAVE IN THE MATTER OF SHAVING AND OFFERING BIRDS? — Abaye replied: Scripture says: And the priest shall go forth out of the camp, and behold the plague of leprosy is healed in the leper;25 this means, one whose leprosy is such because it requires healing,26 and excludes one whose leprosy is such in virtue not of [requiring] healing but of days [of isolation]. MISHNAH. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOOKS [OF THE SCRIPTURE]27 AND TEFILLIN AND MEZUZAHS28 SAVE THAT THE BOOKS MAY BE WRITTEN IN ANY LANGUAGE29 WHEREAS TEFILLIN AND MEZUZAHS MAY BE WRITTEN ONLY IN ASSYRIAN.30 R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS THAT BOOKS [OF THE SCRIPTURE] ALSO WERE PERMITTED [BY THE SAGES] TO BE WRITTEN ONLY IN GREEK. GEMARA. [From this we infer] that for requiring [the sheets] to be stitched with sinews31 and for defiling the hands32 both are on the same footing. BOOKS MAY BE WRITTEN IN ANY LANGUAGE. The following seems to conflict with this: ‘[A Scriptural scroll containing] a Hebrew text written33 in Aramaic or an Aramaic text written in Hebrew,34 or [either] in Hebraic script,35 does not defile the hands;36 [it does not do so] until it is written in Assyrian script upon a scroll and in ink’! — Raba replied: There is no contradiction; need not count seven clean days but becomes clean after ablution on the evening of the following day. V. Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 577, n. 2. rvyhu might have been used. Whence is this rule (v. p. 45, n. 9) derived? leper at the end of the seven days he is pronounced clean. know actually of two such — the Aramaic translation known as Targum Onkelos, and the Greek translation of Aquilas made under the supervision of R. Eleazar and R. Joshua. script was called ‘Assyrian’, the reason being that it came into common use after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile; v. Sanh. 21b, Sonc. ed. pp. 119ff and notes. coins, and in modified form in Samaritan writing) which was in common use before the Exile. V. Sanh. ibid.