We learned in the continuation of the previously cited mishna that the law governing one who had relations with a menstruating woman is like the law governing one who is ritually impure due to a corpse. With regard to what did they formulate this comparison? If we say they made the comparison with regard to their impurity, that they are both impure for seven days, impurity for seven days is explicitly written about this one, someone who had relations with a menstruating woman, and impurity for seven days is explicitly written about that one, someone who is impure due to a corpse, and so there would be no need for the mishna to inform us of these laws.

Rather, is it not that they are compared with regard to their camps, to teach that one who had relations with a menstruating woman is sent out from the same camp as someone ritually impure due to a corpse? And from the fact that the comparison in the latter clause of the mishna relates to their camps, it stands to reason that the comparison in the earlier clause of that same mishna between one who experienced a seminal emission and one who became ritually impure through contact with a creeping animal also relates to their camps, and not as we explained it earlier. The Gemara rejects this argument: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is; each part of the mishna formulates its own comparison.

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught: The legal status of a leper is more severe than a zav and the legal status of a zav is more severe than one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, with regard to which camps they are prohibited to enter; to the exclusion of a person who experienced a seminal emission, for the legal status of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe than his status.

The Gemara wishes to clarify this enigmatic statement: What is the meaning of the words, to the exclusion of a person who experienced a seminal emission? Is the intent not that he is excluded from the category of a zav and enters the category of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, for the legal status of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe than his status, as his impurity lasts for seven days, and nonetheless he is permitted in the Levite camp. We should therefore learn from here that someone who experienced a seminal emission is also permitted in the Levite camp.

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the intent is that one who experienced a seminal emission is excluded from the camp of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, and he enters the camp of a zav, meaning that he is excluded from the Levite camp, just like a zav. And although the legal status of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe than his status and he is permitted in the Levite camp, and so it would seem that one who experienced a seminal emission should similarly be permitted, nonetheless, we compare him to that to which he is similar. The ritual impurity of one who experienced a seminal emission is fundamentally similar to that of a zav, and different from that of one who is ritually impure due to a corpse.

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi: “If there be among you a man that is impure by reason of a nocturnal occurrence, he shall go outside the camp, he shall not come within the camp” (Deuteronomy 23:11). This verse may be expounded as follows: “He shall go outside the camp,” this is the camp of the Divine Presence. “He shall not come within the camp,” this is the Levite camp. From here we derive that a person who experienced a seminal emission must go out from two camps.

Rav Yitzḥak said to the tanna: Something is amiss in the wording of this baraita: You have not yet brought him in and you already send him out? In other words, in order to say that the words “he shall not come within the camp” teach that a person who experienced a seminal emission must leave the Levite camp, you must first prove that he was there to begin with. Another version, which differs from the previous one only in formulation but not in substance: You have not yet sent him out and you already bring him in? In other words, how can you say that the words “he shall not come within the camp” refer to the Levite camp if we have not yet learned that he must leave that camp in the first place? Rather, emend the baraita and say that it reads as follows: “Outside the camp,” this is the Levite camp. “He shall not come within the camp,” this is the camp of the Divine Presence.

Ravina strongly objects to this exposition of the verse: Say that both this and that refer to the camp of the Divine Presence, that he must leave the camp of the Divine Presence and may not enter it; and the repetition comes to teach that he violates a positive command to leave the camp and a negative command barring entry into the camp. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse say only: “He shall go outside the camp, he shall not come within,” or “within it.” Why do I need the repetition of the word “the camp”? Conclude from this that it is to give him a different camp; it refers not to the same camp that he left but rather to a different one.

We learned in the mishna that cleaning the intestines of the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is meant by cleaning the intestines? Rav Huna said: It means that he punctures them with a knife allowing the excrement to exit. Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav said: It refers to the removal of the secretions of the intestine, which come out through the pressure of the knife and would ruin the entire sacrifice and cause it to become putrid were they allowed to remain in the intestines.

Rabbi Eliezer said: What is Ḥiyya bar Rav’s reason for explaining the term in this manner? As it is written: “Then shall the lambs feed as in their pasture, and the ruins of the fat ones [meḥim] shall wanderers eat” (Isaiah 5:17). From where may it be inferred that this verse is in any way connected to our discussion? As Rav Yosef translates this verse: “And the righteous shall inherit the possessions of the wicked.” This indicates that the word meḥim, understood by Rav Yosef as referring to the wicked, is a term of degradation. This led Ḥiyya bar Rav to interpret the mishna’s clause with regard to cleaning [miḥui] the intestines as referring to removing the repulsive matter inside.

Having explained the latter part of the verse in Isaiah, the Gemara turns to the beginning of that same verse. “Then shall the lambs feed as in their pasture [kedavram].” Menashya bar Yirmeya said that Rav said: As was said about them [kamedubar bam], i.e., as the prophet promised. To what prophecy does the verse refer with the expression “as was said about them”? Abaye said: It is referring to the continuation of the verse: “And the ruins of the fat ones shall wanderers eat.” Rava said to him that this cannot be: Granted, were it written only “the ruins of the fat ones,” it would be possible to explain as you said. Now that it is written “and the ruins,” with the addition of the word “and,” this indicates that it states something else, and the verse contains two separate prophecies.

Rather, Rava said: This verse should be understood in accordance with what Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said. For Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: In the future, the righteous will resurrect the dead. It is written here: “Then shall the lambs feed [vera’u] as in their pasture,” the lambs serving as an allusion to the righteous, and it is written there: “Tend your people with your staff, the flock of your heritage, who dwell alone in the wood, in the midst of Carmel; let them feed [yiru] in Bashan and Gilad as in the days of old” (Micah 7:14).

“Bashan” is an allusion to the prophet Elisha, who came from the Bashan. How do we know that Elisha came from Bashan? As it is stated: “Joel the chief, and Shafam the next, and Yanai and Shafat in the Bashan” (I Chronicles 5:12), and it is written: “Here is Elisha ben Shafat who poured water on the hands of Elijah” (II Kings 3:11). “Gilad” is an allusion to Elijah, as it is stated: “And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilad, said” (I Kings 17:1). Based on the similarity of the verses and the verbal analogy between the two instances of the word “feed,” we learn that in the future the righteous will be like Elijah and Elisha, who resurrected the dead.

This idea is derived from a different source as well. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: In the future the righteous will resurrect the dead, as it is stated: “Old men and old women shall yet again dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age” (Zechariah 8:4). And the staff will then be used as it was used by Gehazi when Elisha sent him to bring the son of the Shunamite woman back to life, as it is written: “And you shall lay my staff on the face of the child” (II Kings 4:29).

As we have been discussing the world of the future and the resurrection of the dead, the Gemara cites additional statements on these topics. Ulla raised a contradiction between two verses: In one verse it is written: “He will destroy death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces, and the insult of His people shall He take away from off all the earth; for the Lord has spoken” (Isaiah 25:8). And in another verse it is written: “There shall be no more there an infant who lives a few days, nor an old man who has not filled his days; for the youngest shall die a hundred years old” (Isaiah 65:20), implying that people will live long lives, but death will not be totally eradicated. Ulla answers: This is not difficult: Here, in the first verse, it is referring to Jews, who will not die at all, while there, in the second verse, it is referring to gentiles, who will live exceedingly long lives but eventually die. The Gemara asks: What are gentiles doing there in the future world? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vineyard workers” (Isaiah 61:5).

Rav Ḥisda raised a contradiction between two verses: In one verse it is written: “Then the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before His elders will be His glory” (Isaiah 24:23), which indicates that in the future there will be no light at all from the sun or the moon. And elsewhere it is written: “Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, on the day that the Lord binds up the breach of His people and heals the stroke of their wound blow” (Isaiah 30:26), which indicates that the light of the sun and moon will be even brighter than before. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: Here, where it says that the sun and the moon will be ashamed before the glow of the Divine Presence, it is referring to the World-to-Come, which is an entirely different world; while there, where it says that their light will increase, it is referring to the days of the Messiah.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said that there is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah except for subjugation to foreign kingdoms, but in all other ways, including the illumination of the celestial bodies, the world order will remain unchanged, what is there to say to reconcile these verses? The Gemara answers: This and that refer to the World-to-Come, and it is not difficult: Here, where it says that the sun and the moon will be totally ashamed, it refers to the camp of the Divine Presence; while there, where it says that the light of the sun and moon will be greatly magnified, it refers to the camp of the righteous.

Rava raised a contradiction between two parts of a verse. It is written: “I put to death and I make live” (Deuteronomy 32:39) and in that same verse it is written: “I wound and I heal.” Now once it says that He gives life to the dead, all the more so is it not clear that He can heal those who are still alive? What then does the second clause add to the first? Rather, the second clause clarifies the first one: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Those same people whom I put to death I will bring to life, just as those people whom I wounded I will heal. In other words, the verse means to say that just as God will heal the same people He wounded, so will He revive those He put to death; and not, as the verse might otherwise have been understood, that He puts some people to death and gives life to others.

Similarly, the Sages taught in a baraita: “I put to death and I make live”; one might have thought that this refers to death for one person and life, i.e., birth, for another person, in the customary manner of the world. Therefore, the verse states: “I wound and I heal”; just as the wounding and the healing mentioned here clearly refer to the same person, so too death and life refer to the same person. From this verse, there is a refutation to those who say that there is no Torah source for the resurrection of the dead, for it is explicitly mentioned in this verse. Alternatively, the verse can be explained as follows: At first, those whom I put to death I will bring to life, but they will be revived with the same injuries that they had when they died; and subsequently, those whom I wounded I will heal, meaning that their injuries will be healed after they are resurrected.