Resources for Megillah 8

Rabbi Yitzchok Gutterman

1. The גמרא brings a מחלוקת רבי אליעזר ורבנן whether we allow ויתור by a מודר הנאה. There is a מחלוקת ראשונים ואחרונים regarding why ויתור should be מותר according to the חכמים? After all, if one promised not to benefit at all from his friend, why should it matter if that friend isn’t careful with others deriving that benefit? See the טורי אבן here who brings the ר"ן in נדרים ל"ג: ד"ה אפילו who explains that such benefit simply doesn’t have a דין of הנאה at all. The טורי אבן understands the ר"ן to mean that it isn’t considered הנאה in all of הלכה, and accordingly asks why isn’t one allowed to sit in the shade of an אשרה tree? The טורי אבן also brings the רשב"ם in ב"ב דף נ"ז: ד"ה אסורים ליכנס who explains that since people aren’t usually מקפּיד, it’s as if the owner was מפקיר that זכות. Therefore, when the מודר הנאה derives benefit, he did not receive it from the מדיר. The טורי אבן himself suggests that נדרים follows לשון בני אדם and people never meant to forbid these types of הנאות.

2. Our משנה speaks about a מצורע מוסגר. There is a מחלוקת ראשונים regarding what the word “מוסגר” means in the פּסוקים and our משנה and what it entails in terms of the מצורע. While it is clear that when a house has a נגע it is quarantined until the כהן returns to check it, it is not clear what we do with a person who has a נגע. See תוספות in מו"ק דף ז',ד"ה בהסגר who quotes רש"י as saying that a מצורע מוסגר is, as it sounds, quarantined (סגור) in his home during the weeks that we wait for the כהן to recheck him. רש"י‘s words are that he is “בבית הכלא” (in jail). However, see the מאירי here in the name of קצת גאונים and the תוספות הרא"ש in מו"ק דף ז' ,ד"ה ואמר who disagree and say that we do not quarantine the מצורע at all. Rather, they say we mark the מצורע to know if the disease spread (in which case סגור means we surround). Another פּשט offered by the תוספות הרא"ש is that we cover the נגע with a cloth so that the מצורע does not try to scratch it off (in which case we are “locking up” the wound). See also the דעת זקינים מבעלי התוספות in ויקרא פּרק י"ג פּסוק ד who say we avoid having the כהן check the נגע until the end of the week because the progression might be too subtle to notice. According to this, the נגע is “מוסגר” from the כהן.

3. The גמרא says that the טהרה of a מצורע מוחלט is תלויה בגופו and the טהרה of a מצורע מוסגר is תלויה בימים. See רש"י here who explains that this means that a מצורע מוסגר does not need to have his נגע go away at all. Even if it remains exactly the same, as long as it does not spread after two weeks, he is טהור. The גמרא seems to be against an explicit פּסוק in פּרשת תזריע, פּרק י"ג פּסוק ו, that says when the כהן will see at the end of the second week “והנה כהה הנגע ולא פשה הנגע בעור”. See רש"י on that פּסוק who explains that the נגע must get lighter in addition to not spreading. רש"י himself on this פּסוק seems to be inconsistent with the רש"י in the גמרא mentioned above. However, see the רמב"ן there that quotes our גמרא as a proof that this cannot be true, since our גמרא says all a מצורע מוסגר needs to become טהור is the passage of time and not for the נגע to turn to a lighter shade. Therefore, the רמב"ן says the פּסוק is just coming to teach that even if the נגע turns a lighter shade and therefore leads you to believe it’s a new נגע needing another two weeks, it is not so. In fact, the רמב"ן says that even when the נגע gets brighter, as long as it did not spread, it would still become טהור after two weeks. As far as the apparent contradiction between רש"י in חומש and רש"י in our גמרא, I would assume that רש"י in חומש is giving the simple explanation of the words, but not necessarily the resulting הלכה as the רמב"ן points out in many places.

*******************************

Click here to download Shaklya v’Tarya Summary by Rabbi Chaim Smulovitz (in PDF)

Click here to download Shaklya v’Tarya Summary by Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld (in PDF)