## Megillah Daf 8a

###### Megillah 8a:1
[Megillah 8a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵין בֵּין הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לַמּוּדָּר מִמֶּנּוּ מַאֲכָל, אֶלָּא דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל וְכֵלִים שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The difference between one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow and one for whom benefit from** another’s **food is forbidden by vow is only** with regard to **stepping foot** on his property, **and** with regard to borrowing **utensils** from him **that one does not use** in the **preparation of food,** but for other purposes; as those two benefits are prohibited to the former, but permitted to the latter.


###### Megillah 8a:2
[Megillah 8a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** הָא לְעִנְיַן כֵּלִים שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara infers **that with regard to the matter of utensils that one uses** in **preparation of food,** both **this,** one who vowed that any benefit is forbidden, **and that,** one who vowed that benefit from food is forbidden, **are equal.** It is prohibited for both to derive benefit from utensils used in the preparation of food.


###### Megillah 8a:3
[Megillah 8a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:3)

דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל? הָא לָא קָפְדִי אִינָשֵׁי! אֲמַר רָבָא: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר: וִיתּוּר אָסוּר בְּמוּדַּר הֲנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna stated that for one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow, **stepping foot** on the latter’s property is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What benefit is that? **Aren’t people not particular** about other people treading on their property? **Rava said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna taught? It is the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Overlooking is prohibited** in the case **of one for whom benefit is forbidden by vow.** For one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow, benefit is forbidden even in matters with regard to which one is typically not particular and overlooks others’ use of his property, e.g., stepping foot on it.


###### Megillah 8a:4
[Megillah 8a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵין בֵּין נְדָרִים לִנְדָבוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַנְּדָרִים חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, וּנְדָבוֹת אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The difference between** animals consecrated to the Temple as **vow** offerings **and** animals consecrated as **gift** offerings **is only that** in the case of **vow** offerings, if they died or were lost before being sacrificed on the altar, one **is obligated in** the **responsibility** to replace **them, and** in the case of **gift** offerings, if they died or were lost, one **is not obligated in** the **responsibility** to replace **them.**


###### Megillah 8a:5
[Megillah 8a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** הָא לְעִנְיַן ״בַּל תְּאַחֵר״ — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara infers **that with regard to the matter of** the prohibition: **Do not be slack** to pay one’s pledges, both **this,** a vow offering, **and that,** a gift offering, **are equal.** If one delayed bringing either a vow offering or a gift offering, he violates the prohibition.


###### Megillah 8a:6
[Megillah 8a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:6)

תְּנַן הָתָם: אֵי זֶהוּ נֶדֶר? הָאוֹמֵר: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״. אֵיזוֹ הִיא נְדָבָה? הָאוֹמֵר: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה״, וּמָה בֵּין נְדָרִים לִנְדָבוֹת? נְדָרִים, מֵתוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ — חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, נְדָבוֹת, מֵתוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in a mishna **there: Which is** the case of **a vow** offering? It is **one who says:** It is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a burnt-offering. Which is** the case of **a gift** offering? It is **one who says: This** animal is a **burnt-offering. And what is** the difference **between a vow** offering **and a gift** offering? With regard to **vow** offerings, if the animals **died or were stolen or were lost,** the one who vowed **is obligated in** the **responsibility** to replace **them,** as he undertook to bring a burnt-offering and he is not absolved of his obligation until he brings the offering. With regard to **gift** offerings, however, if the animals **died or were stolen or were lost,** the one who vowed **is not obligated in** the **responsibility** to replace **them.**


###### Megillah 8a:7
[Megillah 8a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:7)

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְנִרְצָה לוֹ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו״, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֶת שֶׁעָלָיו — חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָלָיו — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? The Gemara answers: It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita* with regard to a burnt-offering, that the verse states: **“And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him”** (Leviticus 1:4). **Rabbi Shimon says: That which is** incumbent **upon him,** i.e., which he accepted as a personal obligation, **he bears responsibility** to replace **it** if it died or was stolen; **however, that which is not** incumbent **upon him,** i.e., that which he did not accept as a personal obligation but which he designated as an offering, he **does not bear responsibility** to replace **it.**


###### Megillah 8a:8
[Megillah 8a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:8)

מַאי מַשְׁמַע? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ — כְּמַאן דִּטְעִין אַכַּתְפֵּיהּ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where may** that conclusion **be inferred** from the verse? **Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: Since he said** it is incumbent **upon me** to bring a burnt-offering, he is **considered as one who bears** it **upon his shoulders.** The expression: Upon me, indicates an assumption of responsibility to bring an offering.


###### Megillah 8a:9
[Megillah 8a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵין בֵּין זָב הָרוֹאֶה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת לָרוֹאֶה שָׁלֹשׁ אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The difference between a *zav* who experiences two emissions** of a pus-like discharge from his penis **and one who experiences three** emissions **is only** that the *zav* who experienced three emissions is obligated to bring **an offering** after he recovers, in order to complete his purification process.


###### Megillah 8a:10
[Megillah 8a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** הָא לְעִנְיַן מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב וּסְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara infers **that with regard to the matter of** transmitting ritual impurity to a surface designated for **lying and** a surface designated for **sitting, and** similarly with regard to **the counting of seven** days clean of emissions so that he may immerse in a ritual bath as part of the purification process, both **this,** i.e., one who experienced two emissions, **and that,** one who experienced three emissions, **are equal.**


###### Megillah 8a:11
[Megillah 8a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:11)

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: מָנָה הַכָּתוּב שְׁתַּיִם, וּקְרָאוֹ ״טָמֵא״. שָׁלֹשׁ, וּקְרָאוֹ ״טָמֵא״. הָא כֵּיצַד? שְׁתַּיִם לַטּוּמְאָה וְשָׁלֹשׁ לַקׇּרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? The Gemara answers: It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Simai says: The verse enumerated two** emissions: “When any man has an emission out of his flesh, due to his emission he is impure” (Leviticus 15:2), **and it called** the *zav* **impure.** Another verse enumerated **three** emissions: “And this shall be his impurity in his emission: Whether his flesh runs with his emission, or his flesh be stopped from his emission, it is his impurity” (Leviticus 15:3), **and it** too **called him impure. How so?** If he is impure after two emissions, for what purpose does the Torah mention three? It is to teach: **Two** emissions **to** establish **impurity and three to** render him liable to bring **an offering.**


###### Megillah 8a:12
[Megillah 8a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:12)

וְאֵימַר: שְׁתַּיִם לְטוּמְאָה וְלֹא לְקׇרְבָּן, שָׁלֹשׁ לְקׇרְבָּן וְלֹא לְטוּמְאָה! אָמְרַתְּ: עַד שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ רָאָה שְׁתַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an alternative. **And say** instead: **Two** emissions **to** establish **impurity but not to** render him liable to bring **an offering; three** emissions **to** render him liable to bring **an offering, but not to** establish **impurity.** The Gemara rejects this: That is impossible, as **you** can **say** that **until he experienced three** emissions, **he** already **experienced two,** and therefore he is impure in the case of three emissions as well.


###### Megillah 8a:13
[Megillah 8a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:13)

וְאֵימַר: שְׁתַּיִם לְקׇרְבָּן וְלֹא לְטוּמְאָה, שָׁלֹשׁ אַף לְטוּמְאָה! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי ה׳ מִזּוֹבוֹ״, מִקְצָת זָבִין מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן וּמִקְצָת זָבִין אֵין מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן. הָא כֵּיצַד? רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ — מֵבִיא, שְׁתַּיִם — אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a different alternative. **And say** instead: **Two** emissions **to** render him liable to bring **an offering, but not to** establish **impurity; three** emissions **to** establish **impurity as well.** The Gemara answers that this suggestion **cannot enter your mind, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that the verse states: **“And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord from his emission”** (Leviticus 15:15). The preposition “from” that precedes the words “his emissions” indicates that **some** with the status of a ***zav* bring an offering and some** with the status of a ***zav* do not bring an offering. How so?** If **he experienced three** emissions, **he brings** an offering; if he experienced **two** emissions, **he does not bring** an offering.


###### Megillah 8a:14
[Megillah 8a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:14)

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא: רָאָה שְׁתַּיִם — מֵבִיא, רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ — אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא, אָמְרַתְּ: עַד שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ רָאָה שְׁתַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* suggests: **Or** perhaps, **it** means **nothing other** than that if **one experienced two** emissions, **he brings** an offering; if **he experienced three** emissions, **he does not bring** an offering. The *baraita* rejects this: That is impossible, as **you** can **say** that **until he experienced three** emissions, **he** already **experienced two,** and therefore he is obligated to bring an offering in the case of three emissions as well.


###### Megillah 8a:15
[Megillah 8a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:15)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרַבִּי סִימַאי וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״, דְּאִי מִדְּרַבִּי סִימַאי — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא כִּי קוּשְׁיַין, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״. וְאִי ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״ — לָא יָדַעְנָא כַּמָּה רְאִיּוֹת, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּרַבִּי סִימַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **It was necessary** to cite the proof **of Rabbi Simai** based on the number of mentions of the word emissions in the two verses, **and it was necessary** to cite the proof from the words: **From his emission. As if** the difference between two and three emissions was derived **from** the statement **of Rabbi Simai, I would have said in accordance with our question:** Perhaps one who experiences two emissions brings an offering, and one who experiences three emissions is impure and brings an offering. Therefore, **it teaches us: From his emission. And if** the difference between two and three emissions was derived from the term: **From his emission, I would not have known how many emissions** render him liable to bring an offering, only that some with the status of a *zav* are not required to bring an offering. Therefore, **it teaches us** the proof cited **by Rabbi Simai.**


###### Megillah 8a:16
[Megillah 8a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:16)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״ לִדְרָשָׁא, ״וְכִי יִטְהַר הַזָּב מִזּוֹבוֹ״ מַאי דָּרְשַׁתְּ בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And now that you said** that the term: **From his emission,** is exclusionary and comes **for derivation, what do you derive from** the verse: **“And when the *zav* is cleansed from his emission”** (Leviticus 15:13)?


###### Megillah 8a:17
[Megillah 8a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:17)

הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״וְכִי יִטְהַר הַזָּב״ — לִכְשֶׁיִּפְסוֹק מִזּוֹבוֹ, [״מִזּוֹבוֹ״ —] וְלֹא מִזּוֹבוֹ וְנִגְעוֹ. ״מִזּוֹבוֹ וְסָפַר״ — לִימֵּד עַל זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁטָּעוּן סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** verse **is needed to** derive **that which was taught** in a *baraita*. It is written: **“And when the *zav* is cleansed** from his emission, then he shall count to himself seven days for his purification” (Leviticus 15:13), **when** his emissions **cease.** The *baraita* infers from the term: **From his emission,** that he needs to be cleansed only **from his emission, but not from his emission and his leprosy.** If one was both a *zav* and also had leprosy, he need not wait until he is asymptomatic of his leprosy before counting seven clean days. Rather, he counts seven clean days, and after the leprosy symptoms cease, he immerses for both impurities. **“From his emission, then he shall count”: This teaches concerning a *zav* who experienced two emissions, that he** too **requires a count of seven** clean days.


###### Megillah 8a:18
[Megillah 8a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Megillah/r/8a:18)

וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא, אִם מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לֹא יְהֵא טָעוּן סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **But** in order to derive that *halakha*, the verse is unnecessary, as **isn’t it** only **logical?** If a *zav* who experienced two emissions **renders** a surface designated for **lying and** a surface designated for **sitting ritually impure** and all strictures of a *zav* apply to him, **wouldn’t he require a count of seven** clean days to become purified?