(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Megilah 8

MEGILAH 6-10 sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.



(a) The only two differences between someone who is a Mudar Hana'ah and someone who is Mudar only regarding food, are that the latter is permitted to enter the Madir's property, and that he may borrow from him vessels that are not used for food. Even the latter are forbidden however, if they are vessels that are normally hired (because whatever gains the user a Perutah, allows him to buy food with his gains).

(b) The author of our Mishnah who permits the latter to enter the Madir's property must be Rebbi Eliezer - who forbids a Mudar Hana'ah even such benefit that people tend to forego.

(c) The Chachamim would permit a Mudar Hana'ah to enter the Madir's property, since most people are not fussy about such trivial benefits.

(a) The only difference between a Neder and a Nedavah is that one is responsible for the former but not for the latter.
1. A Neder (in this context) - is when one says 'Harei Alai' ('I am obligated to bring a Korban') following which, he designates a specific animal to fulfill his promise.
2. A Nedavah - is when he designates a specific animal as a Korban by declaring 'Harei Zu Hekdesh' ('This animal is Hekdesh').
(b) When the Tana says that one is not responsible for a Nedavah - he means that, should it die or get lost or stolen, he is not responsible to re-place it.

(c) Rebbi Shimon learns this distinction from the Pasuk "ve'Nirtzah Lo Lechaper *Alav*" - implying that he has taken the responsibility on his shoulders.

(a) The distinction between a Zav who sees twice and one who sees three times is that the latter must bring a Korban. Their Din is the same however - regarding Tum'as Mishkav u'Moshav (lying on something that is made to lie on and sitting on something that is made to sit on - which renders them an Av ha'Tum'ah), and the need to count seven clean days.

(b) Rebbi Sima'i learns from the fact that the Torah calls a Zav who had *two* sightings Tamei as well as one who had *three* - that after two sightings, a Zav becomes Tamei (with all the Chumros of a Zav); but that he only becomes obligated to bring a Korban after the third sighting.

(c) It would be illogical to say that the Torah mentions 'two' for Tum'ah (and not a Korban), and 'three' for a Korban (but not Tum'ah) - because, having become Tamei after the *second* sighting, how can the Tum'ah go away after the *third*?

(a) The Gemara suggests that maybe two is for a Korban only, and three comes to *add* Tum'ah. We refute this suggestion from the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Chiper Alav ha'Kohen *mi'Zovo*" however - because the Pasuk suggests that only in *some* cases does a Zav bring a Korban, and not in *all*.

(b) We cannot learn from the Pasuk that someone who sees twice brings a Korban, but not someone who sees three times - because, like we said before, having become Chayav to bring a Korban after seeing twice, how can he then become Patur because he saw again?

(c) The Torah needs to write "mi'Zovo", in spite of Rebbi Sima'i (that the Torah calls both a Zav who had *two* sightings Tamei and one who had *three*), to dispense with the Kashya in a. But now that we have "mi'Zovo", we still need Rebbi Sima'i - because without his Derashah, we would not know how many times a Zav needs to see to become first Tamei, and then to bring a Korban.

(a) Now that we Darshen the prefix 'Mi', we (initially) learn from the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Chi Yit'har Ish *mi*'Zovo" - "mi'Zovo" 've'Lo mi'Zovo u'mi'Nega'o', meaning that a man who is both a Zav and a Metzora may Tovel after his seven clean days, to become Tahor from the Tum'os of Zav (Mishkav u'Moshav and from being Metamei earthenware vessels by moving them indirectly) the moment he becomes Tahor from his Tzara'as and Tovels (without having to wait another seven days after becoming Tahor from his Tzara'as).

(b) The Tevilah is not effective immediately in any way.

(c) And we learn from the continuation of the Pasuk "*mi*'Zovo ve'Safar" - to say that even a partial Zav (one who saw only twice) must also count seven clean days.

(d) We cannot learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the fact that he renders Tamei through Mishkav and Moshav - because we have a precedent to the contrary in a woman who saw once or twice during the eleven days between Nidah and Nidah, who also renders Tamei through Mishkav and Moshav, yet she does not require seven clean days.




(a) We just learned that "*mi*'Zovo ve'Safar" comes to *in*clude a Zav who saw twice in the Din of seven clean days. Even though in the previous Derashah ("ve'Chi Yit'har ha'Zav *mi*'Zovo"), we learned to *ex*clude ("mi'Zovo" 've'Lo mi'Zovo u'mi'Nega'o') - this is not possible here; because to exclude a Zav who saw twice from the Din of seven clean days, does not require a Pasuk (seeing as, even the 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mishkav and Moshav - which might have included him, is ineffective, in face of the Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, as we just explained).

(b) In fact, now that we need the word "mi'Zovo" for the *latter* Derashah, we can no longer use it for the former. We learn the Din of "mi'Zovo" 've'Lo mi'Zovo u'mi'Nega'o', not from "mi'Zovo", but from "ve'Chi Yit'har *ha'Zav* mi'Zovo", which is also superfluous (since the Torah could have written "ve'Chi Yit'har mi'Zovo".

(a) The two differences between ...
1. ... a Metzora Musgar and a Metzora Muchlat - are P'ri'ah and P'rimah (the prohibition of cutting the hair and tearing one's clothes for a close relative, respectively), which pertain to the latter but not to the former.
2. ... a Metzora who becomes Tahor after being a Musgar and one who became Tahor after being a Muchlat - Tiglachas ve'Tziparim (shaving off all the hair and bringing a Korban consisting of two birds respectively), which pertain to the latter but not to the former.
(b) A Metzora Musgar and a Metzora Muchlat the same - as regards being sent out of the camp (any walled town), and the stringent laws of Tum'ah that pertain to a Metzora.

(c) Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Huna that a Metzora Musgar is subject to P'ri'ah and P'rimah from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'Chibes Begadav *ve'Taher*" - implying that there is something from which he was already Tahor before (since the Torah did not write "ve'Yit'har").

(d) Rava asks on this Derashah from the same Pasuk which appears in Metzora with regard to a Zav - because if "ve'Taher" implies what we just said it does, how will we explain it by a Zav (from what can he possibly be Tahor retroactively)?

(a) We learn from "ve'Chibes Begadav *ve'Taher*" (by Zav) - that, from the moment he Tovels on the seventh day, he does not render Tamei earthenware vessels which he moved indirectly from that moment until he sees again (even though, if he does have another sighting on the same day, he negates the seven clean days retroactively in every other regard but this one).

(b) Correspondingly, we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Chibes Begadav *ve'Taher*" (by a Metzora Musgar) - that once he has Toveled, he will not render Tamei any vessels that are in the house that he enters between the Tevilah and the spreading of the Tzara'as (even though, if the Tzora'as does subsequently spread, it renders him Tamei retroactively).

(c) Rava ultimately learns that a Metzora Musgar is not subject to P'ri'ah u'P'rimah from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'ha'Tzaru'a Asher *Bo* ha'Nega" - implying that P'ri'ah u'P'rimah are confined to a Metzora Muchlat, whose Tzara'as depends upon his personal situation (as long as it is there, he is a Metzora; as long as it is not, he is not), but not to a Musgar, whose Tzara'as depends upon time.

(d) Nevertheless, a Metzora Musgar is sent out of the camp, despite the fact that the Torah specifically writes "Kol Yemei Asher ha'Nega *Bo* Yitma" - because, on the other hand, the Torah writes "Kol" to include him (as to why the Torah needs to write both "Bo" and "Kol", see S'fas Emes).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Yatza el mi'Chutz la'Machanah ve'Hinei *Nirpa* Nega ha'Tzara'as min ha'Tzaru'a" - that it is only a Metzora Muchlat (whose Tzara'as depends upon whether he is cured or not) who has to shave off all his hair and bring two birds, but not a Musgar (whose Tzara'as depends upon time).

(b) These the only two differences between the Taharah of a Metzora Muchlat and that of a Musgar - on the day that he becomes cured. On the eighth day, a Muchlat also has to bring an Asham and a Log of oil (which a Musgar does not), but our Sugya is not concerned with this.

(a) According to the Tana Kama, the only difference between the writing of Sefarim (Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim) and that of Tefilin and Mezuzos - is that Sefarim may be written in any language, whereas Tefilin and Mezuzos must be written in Lashon ha'Kodesh.

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that also Sefarim may only be written in Greek (ancient Greek).

(c) Sefarim and Tefilin and Mezuzos are the same - with regard to stitching them together with sinews and to rendering the hands Tamei.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,