Megillah 8a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

There is

a distinction

between

the laws of

one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from his fellow—

and one prohibited by a vow from deriving food from him ,

except for treading of the foot.

For one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit is forbidden even to tread with his foot in his fellow’s house, whereas one prohibited by a vow from deriving food from him is permitted, for this is not the benefit of food.

And

so, there is a difference between them with regard to

utensils that are not used to prepare food for human consumption.

For one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit is forbidden to borrow them from him, whereas one prohibited by a vow from deriving food from him is permitted [and specifically in a place where utensils of this kind are not rented; but if such utensils are rented, it is forbidden even for one prohibited by a vow from deriving food. For if he had not lent them to him, he would have lost money, and that money is fit to purchase food with].

Gemara:

Since we learned in the Mishna that specifically utensils that are not used to prepare food for human consumption were permitted to one prohibited by a vow from deriving food, it follows:

with regard to utensils used to prepare food for human consumption—

this one and that one are equal,

and it is forbidden even for one prohibited by a vow from deriving food, and even where utensils of this kind are not rented, since they are utensils used to prepare food for human consumption.

We learned in our Mishna:

treading of the foot

[is forbidden to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit].

And we raise an objection:

people are not particular

about treading of the foot, and if so, why is it forbidden?

Rava said: This

Mishna

is according to whom—

Rabbi Eliezer

it is,

who said: waiver

—a matter that people waive and are not particular about—

is forbidden to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit.

Mishna:

There is no difference between vows

[such as one who says: “It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering,” and afterward designates an animal for his vow]

and freewill offerings

[such as one who says concerning an animal: “This is a burnt offering”],

except that vows—

he is liable for them, and freewill offerings—

he is not liable for them

[as will be explained below in the Gemara] .

Gemara:

Since it did not teach a distinction between them except with regard to the obligation of responsibility, it follows:

with regard

to transgressing the prohibition of

“Do not delay”

if he did not bring his vow at its proper time—

this one and that one are equal

[for although “Do not delay” is not written concerning a freewill offering, but only concerning a vow, we include it by means of an gezerah shavah in tractate Rosh HaShanah].

We learned there

[in tractate Rosh HaShanah]:

What is a vow? One who says: “It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering.”

What is a freewill offering? One who says

concerning an animal standing before him:

“This is a burnt offering.”

And what

is the distinction

between vows and freewill offerings?

Vows,

if

they died, were stolen, or were lost

the animals that he afterward designated for the sake of his vow—

the one who made the vow is liable

to

bear responsibility for them,

and he must bring another animal in order to fulfill his vow.

In contrast,

freewill offerings,

if

they died, were stolen, or were lost—

he is not liable to bear responsibility for them,

and he need not bring another.

From where are these matters derived?

For the Sages taught:

It is written:

“And it shall be accepted for him to atone for him. Rabbi Shimon says: That which is upon him—

he is liable to bear responsibility for it.

For this is the meaning of the verse: “And it shall be accepted for him” \-

When will his vow be accepted? “To atone”—when atonement is made for him. That is, when he brings the offering .

But if he did not bring it, for example, if it died or was stolen, he has not fulfilled his vow.

And concerning which offering did I tell you this? Concerning that offering for which the obligation is “upon him,” namely, a vow.

And that which is not upon him,

namely, a freewill offering—

he is not liable to bear responsibility for it.

What indication is there

that “upon him” is an expression of accepting responsibility?

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: Since he said

—the one who made the vow—“It is upon

me,” it is as one who carries it upon his shoulders

[as though he is carrying it upon his shoulders].

Mishna:

There is

a distinction

between

the laws of

a zav who sees two emissions

[on one day or on two consecutive days]—

and one who sees three

emissions [on one day, or on three consecutive days, or who saw one emission on one day and two on one day]—

except for an offering.

For one with two emissions does not bring an offering, whereas one with three brings one.

Gemara:

Since it did not teach a distinction between them except with regard to an offering, it follows:

with regard

to the impurity of

a lying place and a sitting place,

if he lay or sat—even upon ten garments, and even if he did not touch them—all of them become a primary source of ritual impurity [in contrast, if he touched something without lying or sitting, it becomes only a first degree of ritual impurity. And it renders neither a person nor utensils impure, but only food and liquids],

and

likewise with regard to

counting seven

clean days from the discharge, which he must count after he has ceased from his discharge, before he immerses. And if he saw on one of the seven days, he invalidated his count and must count again—

this one and that one are equal.

From where are these matters derived

that they are equal with regard to impurity, but are not equal with regard to an offering?

For the Sages taught, Rabbi Simai says: Scripture counted two,

two emissions, as it is written: “And when a man has a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is impure”—behold, two emissions.

And it called him

Scripture

impure,

as it is written: “He is impure.”

And in another verse Scripture counted

three

emissions, as it is written: “And this shall be his impurity in his discharge: whether his flesh runs with his discharge or his flesh is stopped up from his discharge”—

and it called him impure,

as it is written: “It is his impurity.”

How so?

For once he has seen two emissions, he is already impure, so why did Scripture specify three emissions?

Necessarily, the verse comes to say that with

two

he is a zav with regard to

the impurity

of a zav, which is severe, for he renders a lying place and a sitting place impure, and he requires counting seven clean days.

And

with

three

emissions, he is a zav also

with

regard to the obligation of

an offering.

And we raise an objection:

But say

this:

two—

with regard to the impurity

of a zav

but not with regard to an offering,

as we have said. Whereas

three, with regard to an offering

only,

but not with regard to impurity

of a zav , but he should simply be like one who experienced a seminal emission?!

And we answer:

You have said,

for

before he saw three

emissions, he

saw two already,

and if so, he has already become impure with the impurity of a zav; how could he leave his impurity when he saw a third emission?! Rather, necessarily, with three emissions he becomes obligated to bring an offering in addition to his impurity.

And we raise an objection:

And

still,

say

the opposite:

two—

with regard to an offering and not with regard to impurity ,

whereas

three—

also with regard to impurity!

And they will be equal with regard to an offering and different with regard to impurity?!

And we reject this:

It does not enter your mind. For it was taught:

It is written

“And the priest shall make atonement

for him before the Lord, from his discharge.”

And the word “from his discharge” \-

means part of his discharge. And we expound:

Some of those with a discharge—

bring an offering, and some of those with a discharge—

do not bring an offering.

How so?

Which are those with a discharge who bring an offering, and which are those who do not bring one?

One with a discharge who

saw three

emissions—

brings

an offering. But if he

saw two—

he does not bring one.

Or perhaps it is only

that this is the distinction:

he saw two—

he brings

an offering. But if he

saw three—

he does not bring one?!

You have said,

it is impossible to say this, for

before he saw three—

he saw two,

and he had already become obligated to bring an offering; how could he be released by means of the third emission?!

And it was necessary

to have the exposition

of Rabbi Simai,

who expounded it from the fact that Scripture counted two and three, and

it was also necessary

to have the verse brought in the beraita:

“From his discharge.”

For if [we had] Rabbi Simai’s [derivation]

alone—

I would have thought

to reject it

as our question,

that one might say: Two—with regard to an offering and not with regard to impurity; three—with regard to an offering and also with regard to impurity.

It teaches us

the verse

“from his discharge,”

that some of those with a discharge bring an offering and some do not; and if so, it cannot be said that both bring an offering. Rather, necessarily, with two he does not bring an offering, and with three he brings one.

And

on the other hand,

if

we had derived from the verse

“from his discharge”

alone, we would know that some of those with a discharge bring an offering and some do not, but

we would not

have

known

with

how many emissions

he brings one and with how many he does not.

It teaches us from Rabbi Simai

that with two emissions he does not bring one, and with three he brings one.

And we raise a difficulty to the tanna of the beraita:

And now, since you say

that the verse “before the Lord,

from his discharge”—

comes for an exposition

of part of his discharge, what exposition do you make of this “from his discharge” in

“And when the one with a discharge becomes clean from his discharge”—

what do you expound from it?

And we explain:

That

verse

is needed for that which was taught:

It is written: “And when the one with a discharge becomes clean from his discharge, he shall count for himself seven days for his purification.” And that which is written

“And when the one with a discharge becomes clean”—

teaches

that when

the one with a discharge

ceases from his discharge,

he need not immerse immediately; rather, he shall count seven clean days and afterward immerse.

And from the fact that it is written

“from his discharge”

we expound: From his discharge,

but not from his discharge and his affliction.

That is, if a person was both one with a discharge and a metzora, he may count seven clean days immediately after he becomes clean from his discharge, even though he is still a metzora. And when he becomes clean from his affliction he may immerse immediately, and it will help him become clean from the severe impurity of one with a discharge [the impurity of a lying place and a sitting place, and the impurity of shifting an earthenware utensil, for he renders them impure through shifting] and also for the first immersion of a metzora.

However, he still requires counting seven days for the purification of a metzora, and a second immersion, in order that he be permitted to eat consecrated offerings .

And the reason Scripture juxtaposed discharge to counting—

“from his discharge, and he shall count” \-

taught concerning one with a discharge who has

[seen]

two emissions, that

even though he is partially one with a discharge,

he requires counting seven

clean days before he immerses .

And do not wonder why a derivation is needed for this matter, that one who sees two emissions requires seven clean days:

Is it not a logical inference? If

one with two emissions renders impure

a lying place and a sitting place, should he not require counting seven days?

And why would it enter our mind that he should be excluded from counting?