Who would you choose? Your wife or your friends? TB Moed Katan 7

Today’s daf TB Moed Katan 7 needs an explanatory introduction. Before we can determine whether the kohein can examine a person suspected of having tzara’at, you need to know some fundamental concepts and rules. The new JPS translation translates tzara’at as “a scaly affliction on the skin” of a human being. Baruch Levine in his commentary writes: “this rendering of tzara’at is based on the given symptomology. The etymology is uncertain.” (Leviticus 13:2, page 76) What is clear is that tzara’at is not Hansen’s disease because it can appear on clothing as well as walls of the house! Be aware that despite this fact, Sefaria continues to translate tzara’at as leprosy.

If somebody has a white spot, he needs to go to a kohein who can diagnose whether he has tzara’at or not. The kohein has three options. He may declare the person free of tzara’at; he may declare the person a metzora, (one who has tzara’at); or he may be undecided and quarantine the person for a week. If the person is disease-free, he returns to his normal life. If the person is definitely a metzora, he is sent out beyond the three camps i.e. beyond the Israelite encampment which is outside of the sanctuary, and the Levitical camps or later on in our history outside the walled city. If the person is quarantined for a week, the kohein sees the potential tzara’at again. The kohein has the same three options at the beginning of the second week of quarantine as he had initially. After the second week of quarantine, the kohein must either declare the person disease-free or a metzora.

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossei disagree whether a kohein may see and diagnose a patient on hol hamoed. “It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: A priest may examine an individual showing symptoms of leprosy on the intermediate days of a Festival in order to be lenient, but not in order to be stringent. Rabbi Yosei says: The priest may not examine the symptoms to be lenient or to be stringent. The reasoning behind Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is that if you attend to the individual with the symptoms of leprosy to be lenient, you must attend to him even to be stringent. If the priest sees that the symptom is in fact leprosy, he must declare the affected person ritually impure rather than remain silent. Consequently, in order to avoid declaring that he has leprosy on the Festival, the priest should not examine him at all.” (Sefaria.org translation) The underpinning issue is the commandment to rejoice on the holiday (שמחת יום טוב). Obviously if the diagnosis is bad and the person is either quarantined for the week or is sent outside the camp, he won’t enjoy the holiday very much.

In the course of the analysis, we learn one more aspect what constitutes joy for the patient.

“The Gemara proceeds to analyze the baraita. The Master said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yosei appears correct with regard to a confirmed leper, and the statement of Rabbi Meir appears correct with regard to a quarantined leper. The Gemara raises an objection: But isn’t the opposite taught in a different baraita, namely, that Rabbi Yosei’s statement appears correct with regard to the case of a quarantined leper, while Rabbi Meir’s statement appears correct with regard to the case of a confirmed leper?

“The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. One Sage, the author of the latter baraita, holds that the company of the world at large is preferable to the leper. Consequently, the priest may examine a confirmed leper during the Festival because the priest will either decide that the leper’s symptoms are still present, in which case the leper’s situation will be no worse than before, or the priest will declare that his symptoms have subsided, in which case the leper may reenter the community, which will bring him joy.

“And one Sage, the author of the baraita (7a), holds that the company of his wife is preferable to the leper. Consequently, the priest may not examine a confirmed leper on the Festival, because if he declares that his symptoms have subsided, the leper will begin his seven day purification process, during which time he is prohibited from engaging in conjugal relations with his wife. Due to the distress that this causes him, it is preferable that the priest not examine him at all during the Festival.” (Sefaria.org translation)

According to Jewish law the metzora may take his wife with him outside the camp and have intimate relationships with her. Once he is declared disease-free, allowed to return back into the community, and has to go through a ritual ready process, he has to separate from his wife for seven days. The issue surrounding whether the kohein may diagnose on hol hamoed is determined which does the person prefer. Does he prefer to be declared disease-free and enjoy the company of his friends or does he prefer to remain in his diseased state and enjoy the company of his wife?

All I can say is if the person chooses his friends over his wife, their marriage is in trouble.