Moed Katan

in the case of one under a second [observational] detention: one Master [R. Meir] considers that it is left to [the discretion of] the priest, so that if the patient is [found] ‘clean’ he declares him ‘clean’, and if he is [found] ‘unclean’ he holds his peace; while the other Master [R.Jose] considers that, [since] it is written: [This is the law of the plague and leprosy. . .], to pronounce it clean or unclean,1 [the priest has no choice].2 The Master said: Said Rabbi, R. Jose's statement seems appropriately applied to the case of a decided leper3 and R. Meir's to one under [observational] detention.4 But the reverse5 is taught [elsewhere]? — Both versions are [variant] tannaitic interpretations of Rabbi's observation. One [authority]6 is of the opinion that the patient prefers the company of the world at large7 [during the Festival], while the other [authority]8 holds that he prefers to retain his wife's company.9 Is that to say that [according to Rabbi]10 a confirmed leper may have the use of the [conjugal] bed? — [Yes], it is taught: But he shall dwell outside his tent seven days,11 [that is] he shall be12 precluded from the use of the [conjugal] bed; for ‘tent’ means nothing but [living with] his wife, as it is said: Go, say unto them, return ye unto your tents.13 R. Judah says:14 [It is written,] [And after he is cleansed] they shall reckon for him seven days,15 [which implies that he is precluded only] while counting his seven days [‘after he is cleansed] but not while he is a confirmed leper’. R. Jose b. Judah says: ‘[I take it to mean he is precluded] while counting seven days [and] all the more so while he is a confirmed leper’. ‘And’ ‘said R. Hiyya: ‘I argued on this point before Rabbi’. Our Master! [said I], You taught that [King] Jotham could not have been born unto Uzziahu16 save during the time that he was a confirmed leper,17 [to which] Rabbi replied, ‘and I said so too’.18 Wherein do they differ? — R. Jose b. Judah argues that as the All Merciful has plainly indicated19 that a convalescent leper [‘shall dwell outside his tent’]20 while counting his seven days [of preliminary ritual purification] it is all the more [to be expected that he be apart from his wife] while being in the state of a confirmed leper; and the [other] Master [Rabbi] argues that what has been plainly indicated is [to be kept as] indicated and what has not been indicated is not [to be assumed as] indicated.21 [Reverting to Raba's explanation above], do you mean to say that [the postponement of an unfavourable pronouncement or of the time of inspection]22 is [solely] dependent on the discretion of the priest?23 — Yea, indeed, as it is taught [in the following]: And on a day when [raw flesh] shall be seen in him [he shall be unclean; and the priest shall lood on the raw flesh and pronounce him unclean],24 which means that there is a day when you do see it in him as well as a day when you do not see it in him. Hence said they [the Sages] that if a groom developed symptoms of leprosy they grant him [delay of inspection to the end of] the seven days of the [marriage] feast,25 whether it be his person, or his house26 or his garment27 [that is affected]; and likewise [if the symptoms developed] during a festival they grant him [the patient] all28 the seven days of the festival: thus R. Judah. Rabbi says: There is no need [to resort to this text] as it says: And the priest shall command that they empty the house29 [before the priest goes in to see the plague that all that is in the house be not made unclean].30 Now if [the inspection is] here delayed for his convenience, which is just an optional [matter],31 may it not all the more be deferred for his [due observance of a] religious obligation?32 What is the [actual] issue between them? — Said Abaye: Merely the different expository results obtained by each from his text. And Rab said, it is the delay of inspection in an optional [matter]33 that is the issue between them, R. Judah [holding] that from the [other] text [cited above by Rabbi]34 we cannot learn [this],35 as it is an anomaly,36 case under second detention. he loses nothing. If he is found cured, he can at once get back to the town by beginning his first ritual cleansing; and although he has thereupon to part from his wife for seven days, he does not mind it as he prefers to get back to his friends in town’. And R. Jose, thinking of the case of a second detention, says: ‘No inspection! For if you find him a leper you must confirm him as such and send him into complete isolation, right away from everybody (save from his wife)’. must at once begin counting seven days of his ceremonial cleansing (referred to infra) and live apart from his wife. Leave him alone, therefore, just now; he prefers his wife's company to getting back to the town’. And R. Meir, thinking of a case of second observation, says: ‘Examine him to ease his plight. If you find him "clean" (cured) he is happy with the favourable decision; if "unclean", (make no pronouncement just yet, or) even if you declare him a confirmed leper and he had to be strictly isolated, he will not be much worse off, as he still retains his wife's company’. that he may come (back) into the camp, but he shall dwell . . ., Lev. XIV, 8. Ex. XIX, 14-15 and Bez. 5b. 1866, p. 61 and Yalk. ¤ 561. XIX, II, 12ff, 19 — it is taken exegetically, as having also a bearing on the leper's ceremonial cleansing. Cf. p. 35, n. 11e. the use of the conjugal bed. detention. Tabernacles is longer than seven days. XVI, 11, 14-15. deductions.