Megillah 8a (ח.) — the Talmud in English

MISHNA:

There is no

distinction

between

the laws governing one who is

prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another—

and one who is prohibited by vow from deriving food from him ,

except with regard to treading upon his property.

One who is prohibited from deriving benefit is forbidden even to tread upon the other’s property, whereas one who is prohibited from deriving food is permitted, since this is not the benefit of food.

And

likewise, there is a difference between them with regard to

utensils that are not used to prepare food.

One who is prohibited from deriving benefit is forbidden to borrow them from him, whereas one who is prohibited from deriving food is permitted [and this is specifically in a place where utensils of this kind are not rented. But if they are rented, they are forbidden even to one prohibited from deriving food. For if the owner had not lent them to him, he would have lost money, and that money could have been used to purchase food].

GEMARA:

Since the Mishna teaches that only utensils that are not used to prepare food are permitted to one prohibited from deriving food, it follows that

with regard to utensils used to prepare food—

the two cases are identical,

and they are forbidden even to one prohibited from deriving food, even where utensils of this kind are not rented, since they are utensils used to prepare food.

We learned in our Mishna:

treading upon the property

[is forbidden to one prohibited from deriving benefit].

And we raise an objection:

do people not ordinarily object

to others’ treading upon their property? If so, why is it forbidden?

Rava said: This

Mishna

is in accordance with whom?

It is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer,

it is,

who says: Waiver—

a matter that people waive and do not object to—

is forbidden to one prohibited from deriving benefit.

MISHNA:

The 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 of an animal: “This is a burnt-offering”] is

only that, with regard to vows,

he is liable for their responsibility, whereas with regard to freewill offerings,

he is not liable for their responsibility

[as the Gemara will explain below] .

GEMARA:

Since the Mishna teaches a distinction between them only with regard to liability for their responsibility, it follows that

with regard to

transgressing the prohibition of

“You shall not delay”

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

the two cases are identical

[even though “You shall not delay” is written with regard only to a vow and not to a freewill offering; it is extended to freewill offerings in tractate Rosh HaShana by means of a gezerah shavah].

We learned there

[in tractate Rosh HaShana]:

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

of an animal standing before him:

“This is a burnt-offering.”

And what

is the distinction

between vows and freewill offerings?

With regard to vows,

if

the animals died, were stolen, or were lost

—the animals that he subsequently designated for his vow—

the one who vowed

is

liable for their responsibility,

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

By contrast,

with regard to freewill offerings,

if

they died, were stolen, or were lost—

he is not liable for their responsibility,

and he need not bring another.

From where are these matters derived?

As 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 for its responsibility.

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 achieved for him, that is, when he brings the offering .

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

And with regard to which offering did I tell you this? With regard to the offering concerning which the obligation is “upon him,” namely, a vow.

But that which is not upon him,

namely, a freewill offering—

he is not liable for its responsibility.

What is the indication

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

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Avdimi said: Once he says

“It is incumbent upon

me,” it is as though he has loaded it upon his shoulders

[as though it were loaded upon his shoulders].

MISHNA:

There is no

distinction

between

the laws governing a

zav who sees two sightings

[on one day or on two consecutive days] and one

who sees three

sightings [on one day, or on three consecutive days, or who saw one sighting on one day and two on another day]—

except with regard to an offering.

One who has two sightings does not bring an offering, whereas one who has three brings an offering.

GEMARA:

Since the Mishna teaches a distinction between them only with regard to an offering, it follows that

with regard to

the impurity of

a place of lying and a place of sitting,

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 impurity [by contrast, if he touched an object without lying or sitting upon it, it becomes only a first-degree source of impurity, and it does not impart impurity to a person or vessels, but only to food and liquids],

and

likewise with regard to

counting seven

clean days after the discharge, which he must count after he has ceased discharging and before immersing. If he sees a discharge on one of the seven days, he has invalidated his count and must count again—

the two cases are identical.

From where are these matters derived,

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

As the Sages taught, Rabbi Simai says: The verse counted two,

two sightings, as it is written: “When a man has a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is impure,” which indicates two sightings.

And it called him

the verse

impure,

as it is written: “It is impure.”

And in another verse the verse counted

three

sightings, 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 from his discharge”—

and it called him impure,

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

How so?

Once he has seen two sightings, he is already impure; why, then, did the verse specify three sightings?

It must be that the verse comes to teach that with

two

sightings he is a zav with regard to

the impurity

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

And

with

three

sightings he is a zav also

with

regard to the obligation to bring

an offering.

And we challenge this:

But perhaps

this is what the verse means:

two—

for the impurity

of a zav

but not for an offering,

as we have said; whereas

three are for an offering

only,

but not for the impurity

of a zav, which is stringent , but he is merely like one who experienced a seminal emission!?

And we answer:

You have said

that

before he saw three

sightings, he had already

seen two,

and therefore he had already become impure with the impurity of a zav. How could he emerge from his impurity when he saw the third sighting? Rather, it must be that with three sightings he becomes obligated to bring an offering in addition to his impurity.

And we challenge this:

And

still,

perhaps

the opposite is true:

two—

for an offering but not for impurity ,

whereas

three—

also for impurity!

Thus they would be identical with regard to an offering and different with regard to impurity!?

And we reject this:

It should not enter your mind. As it is taught:

It is written:

“And the priest shall atone

for him before the Lord, from his discharge.”

The word “from his discharge”

means part of his discharge. And we expound it:

Some zavim

bring an offering, and some zavim

do not bring an offering.

How so?

Which zavim bring an offering, and which do not?

A zav who

saw three

sightings

brings

an offering. But if he

saw two

he does not bring one.

Or perhaps it is only

that the distinction is as follows:

if he saw two

he brings

an offering, but if he

saw three

he does not bring one!?

You have said

that this cannot be so, since

before he saw three

he saw two,

and he had already become liable to bring an offering. How could he be exempted by the third sighting!?

And

the exposition

of Rabbi Simai

was necessary, since he expounded it from the fact that the verse counted two and three, and

the

verse cited in the beraita was also necessary:

“from his discharge.”

For if we had only Rabbi Simai’s exposition,

alone,

I might have thought

to reject it

as in our challenge,

saying: Two are for an offering but not for impurity; three are for an offering and also for impurity.

It teaches us

the verse

“from his discharge,”

which indicates that some zavim bring an offering and some do not. Therefore, it cannot be said that both bring an offering; rather, necessarily, with two he does not bring an offering, whereas with three he brings one.

And

conversely,

if

we had learned only from the verse

“from his discharge”

alone, we would know that some zavim bring an offering and some do not, but

we would not

have

known

with

how many sightings

he brings one and with how many he does not.

Rabbi Simai’s teaching therefore teaches us

that with two sightings he does not bring an offering, whereas with three he brings one.

And we challenge the tanna of the beraita:

And now that you have said

that the verse “before the Lord,

from his discharge”

is expounded

to mean part of his discharge, what do you expound from the word “from his discharge” in

“when the zav is cleansed from his discharge”?

What do you derive from it?

And we explain:

That

verse

is needed for that which is taught

in a beraita: It is written: “When the zav is cleansed from his discharge, he shall count for himself seven days for his purification.” And the fact that it is written

“when the zav is cleansed”

teaches that

when the zav ceases

from

his discharge,

he need not immerse immediately; rather, he counts seven clean days and then immerses.

And since it is written

“from his discharge,”

we expound it: From his discharge,

but not from his discharge and his affliction.

That is, if a person was both a zav and a leper, he may begin counting seven clean days immediately after he becomes clean from his discharge, even though he is still a leper. Once he becomes clean from his affliction , he may immerse immediately, and this immersion is effective in purifying him from the severe impurity of a zav [the impurity of a place of lying and a place of sitting, and the impurity of moving an earthenware vessel, which he renders impure by moving it], as well as serving as the first immersion of a leper.

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

And the fact that the verse juxtaposes discharge and counting—

“from his discharge, and he shall count”—

teaches with regard to a zav

[who saw]

two sightings, that

even though he is only partially a zav,

he requires counting seven

clean days before immersing .

And do not wonder why a derivation is needed for the teaching that one who sees two sightings requires seven clean days:

Is this not a logical inference? If

one with two sightings renders

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

Why would we have thought that he is excluded from the counting?