מגילה 8 — Soncino English Talmud

¹MISHNAH.THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE WHO IS INTERDICTED BY VOW TO HAVE NO BENEFIT FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR AND ONE WHO IS INTERDICTED BY VOW FROM HIS FOOD, SAVE IN THE MATTER OF SETTING FOOT [ON HIS PROPERTY] AND OF UTENSILS WHICH ARE NOT USED FOR [PREPARING] FOOD. GEMARA. It is to be inferred from this that in the matter of utensils which are used for preparing food they are on the same footing. SETTING FOOT. But people are not particular about this? — Raba said: Whose view is this? R. Eleazar's, who said that [even] a thing which is usually excused is forbidden to one who vows to have no benefit. MISHNAH. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VOWS AND FREEWILL-OFFERINGS SAVE THAT VOWED OFFERINGS HAVE TO BE REPLACED BUT FREEWILL-OFFERINGS NEED NOT BE REPLACED. GEMARA. It is to be inferred from this that in respect of ‘not delaying’ they are on the same footing. We have learnt in another place: What is a vow? Where a man says, I take upon me the obligation to bring a burnt-offering. What is a freewill-offering? Where a man says, Behold this is [to be] a burnt-offering. What then is the [practical] difference between vows and freewill-offerings? — If vowed animals die or are stolen or lost, the one who offered is under obligation to replace them; if freewill-offerings die or are stolen or lost, he is not under obligation to replace them. Whence is this rule derived? — As our Rabbis have taught: And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him: R. Simeon says: That which is ‘upon him’ he is under obligation to replace. How is it implied [that this substitute is upon him’]? — R. Isaac b. Abdini replied: Since he has said ‘[I take] upon me’, it is as if he had taken it upon his shoulder. MISHNAH. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE SUFFERING FROM AN ISSUE WHO MAKES TWO OBSERVATIONS AND ONE WHO MAKES THREE, SAVE IN THE MATTER OF BRINGING A SACRIFICE. GEMARA. From this it is to be inferred that in the matter of [defiling] a bed or a seat and counting seven days they are on the same footing. Whence is this rule derived? — As our Rabbis have taught: ‘R. Simai says: The text specified two [observations] and designated the man as unclean, and also specified three and designated him as unclean’. How do we explain this? Two bring uncleanness but do not entail a sacrifice, three entail a sacrifice. But cannot I say that two bring uncleanness but do not entail a sacrifice, while three entail a sacrifice but no uncleanness? — To this you may answer that before he has three observations he must have two. Let me say then that two observations entail a sacrifice but not uncleanness, whereas three bring uncleanness also? — Do not imagine such a thing, since it has been taught: And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord from his issue; this implies that some persons with an issue bring a sacrifice and some do not. How is this? if he has three observations, he brings a sacrifice, if only two, he does not bring. Or shall we expound differently and say that if he has two he brings the sacrifice, but if three he does not? — You can reply to this that before he has three he must have had two. And both the exposition of R. Simai and the text ‘from his issue’ are necessary [to prove this point]. For if I had only the dictum of R. Simai, I could raise against it the objection mentioned, and therefore l have recourse to ‘from his issue’. And if I had only ‘from his issue’, I should not know how many observations [are necessary for a sacrifice]; therefore I have the dictum of R. Simai. Now, however, that you have assumed that the words ‘from his issue are to be used for a special exposition, [I may ask], what lesson do you derive front the words and when he that hath an issue is cleansed from his issue? That is required for the following lesson, as it has been taught: ‘And when he that hath an issue is cleansed’: that is to say, when the issue ceases. ‘From his issue’: that is to says from his issue [only], and not from both his issue and his leprosy. ‘Then he shall number’: this teaches us that one with an issue who has had two observations must count seven days [without issue]. But cannot this be deduced logically [as follows]? If he defiles bed and seat, shall he not [all the more] be required to count seven days?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵃnote:The latter may take these liberties, the former may not.
^ᵇnote:And therefore if one takes this liberty, he cannot be said to be deriving any benefit.
^ᶜnote:ru,hu Aliter: ‘The (retailer's customary) addition (to exact measure)’, and the accenting of which is not counted as receiving a benefit.
^ᵈnote:Lit., one is responsible for them’. V. infra.
^ᵉnote:To fulfil the undertaking, in accordance with Deut. XXIII, 22.
^ᶠnote:Because the vow still stands.
^ᵍnote:Because the undertaking applied only to that particular animal.
^ʰnote:So lit. E.V, ‘for him’. Lev. I, 4.
^ⁱnote:I.e.,the vow.
^ʲnote:Apparently R. Simeon renders: ‘Any animal will be accepted so long as it is "upon him"’.
^ᵏnote:On a single day or two successive days.
^ˡnote:On one day or three successive days or two on one day and one on the next.
^ᵐnote:V. Lev. XV, 13-15.
^ⁿnote:Ibid. 4-6.
^ᵒnote:For his cleansing, after the cessation of the issue. Ibid.13.
^ᵖnote:Lev. XV, 2: When a man hath an issue out of his flesh, his issue is unclean.
^ᵠnote:Ibid. 3: And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue: whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his uncleanness,
^ʳnote:Viz., the stringent uncleanness of one with an issue (cf. nn. 3-4), but only the lighter uncleanness resulting from a discharge of semen. V. Deut. XXIII, 11-12.
^ˢnote:And is already unclean as a zab.
^ᵗnote:Ibid. 15.
^ᵘnote:The proposition ‘from’ is stressed, as implying only part of these who have an issue.
^ᵛnote:And so already become liable for the sacrifice.
^ʷnote:To show that it is three.
^ˣnote:I.e.,for some lesson not contained in the literal meaning of the words.
^ʸnote:Ibid. 13.
^ᶻnote:V. next note.
^ᵃᵃnote:If the one with an issue was also a leper, he need not wait for his counting till he is healed of his leprosy.
^ᵃᵇnote:And why therefore is a text required?

²— This argument can be confuted by the case of the woman who is keeping day for day, for such a one defiles bed and seat but does not count seven days. And thus do not be surprised that this one also, although he defiles bed and seat, should not be obliged to count seven days. Therefore it says, ‘from his issue, and he shall number’, which implies that after part of his issue he shall number; this teache with regard to one with an issue who has had two observations that he is required to count seven days. R. Papa said to Abaye: Why do we use the one text ‘from his issue’ to include one with an issue who has had two observations, and the other text ‘from his issue’ to exclude one with an issue who has had two observations? — He replied: If you should assume that the former text is for the purpose of excluding, then the text could simply omit the word. And should you say, we could then derive the rule [that he is to count seven days] by a logical deduction, such a deduction could be confuted by the case of the woman who counts day for day. And should you say that this word is required to show that the text refers to one who is cleansed of his issue [only] and not [of his issue and] his leprosy, — in that case the text should say, ‘and when he that hath an issue is cleansed’, and no more. Why do I require, ‘from his issue’? This teaches that one with an issue who has two observations is required to count seven days. MISHNAH. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEPER WHO IS UNDER ORSERVATION AND ONE DEFINITELY DECLARED SUCH SAVE IN THE MATTER OF LEAVING THE HAIR LOOSE AND RENDING THE GARMENTS. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEPER WHO HAS BEEN DECLARED CLEAN AFTER BEING UNDER OBSERVATION AND ONE WHO HAS BEEN DECLARED CLEAN AFTER HAVING BEEN DEFINITELY DECLARED A LEPER SAVE IN THE MATTER OF SHAVING AND [OFFERING] THE BIRDS. GEMARA. From this it is to be inferred that in the matter of being sent outside [the camp] and uncleanness they are on the same footing. Whence is this rule derived? — As R. Samuel b. Isaac taught before R. Huna: Then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes and be clean; which implies that he shall already have been [in a sense] clean from the first, not having been liable to rending the garments and loosening the hair. Said Raba to him. If that is so, then in regard to one with an issue, of whom it is written, and he shall wash his garments and be clean, how is it possible to say that he shall have been clean from the start? What it means then is, ‘clean now so far as not to defile earthenware vessels by moving them’, so that, even if he observes an issue again, he does not defile them retrospectively. So here, [the meaning is that] the leper is clean now to the extent of not defiling retrospectively by his entrance! The fact is, said Raba, that we learn it from here: And the leper in whom the plague is; [that means] one whose leprosy is due to the state of his body, excluding this one whose leprosy is due to days. Said Abaye to him: If that is so, then when it says, All the days wherein the plague is in him he shall be unclean, are we to say that one whose leprosy is due to his state of body is required to be sent out of the camp, but one whose leprosy is not due to his state of body is not to be sent out of the camp? And should you reply that that is so, [how can this be] seeing that it states, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEPER UNDER OBSERVATION AND ONE DEFINITELY DECLARED SUCH SAVE IN THE MATTER OR LOOSENING THE HAIR AND RENDING THE GARMENTS, from which it may be inferred that in the matter of being sent out [of the camp] and defiling by entrance they are on the same footing? — [The text might have said simply] ‘the days’, and it says, ‘all the days’, to bring a leper under observation within the rule of sending out [of the camp]. If that is the case, what is the reason that he is not required to shave and offer birds [which is not the case], as it states: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEPER UNDER OBSERVATION AND ONE DEFINITELY DECLARED SUCH SAVE IN THE MATTER OF SHAVING AND OFFERING BIRDS? — Abaye replied: Scripture says: And the priest shall go forth out of the camp, and behold the plague of leprosy is healed in the leper; this means, one whose leprosy is such because it requires healing, and excludes one whose leprosy is such in virtue not of [requiring] healing but of days [of isolation]. MISHNAH. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOOKS [OF THE SCRIPTURE] AND TEFILLIN AND MEZUZAHS SAVE THAT THE BOOKS MAY BE WRITTEN IN ANY LANGUAGE WHEREAS TEFILLIN AND MEZUZAHS MAY BE WRITTEN ONLY IN ASSYRIAN. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS THAT BOOKS [OF THE SCRIPTURE] ALSO WERE PERMITTED [BY THE SAGES] TO BE WRITTEN ONLY IN GREEK. GEMARA. [From this we infer] that for requiring [the sheets] to be stitched with sinews and for defiling the hands both are on the same footing. BOOKS MAY BE WRITTEN IN ANY LANGUAGE. The following seems to conflict with this: ‘[A Scriptural scroll containing] a Hebrew text written in Aramaic or an Aramaic text written in Hebrew, or [either] in Hebraic script, does not defile the hands; [it does not do so] until it is written in Assyrian script upon a scroll and in ink’! — Raba replied: There is no contradiction;^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ

^ᵃᶜnote:If a niddah (v. Glos.) who is counting her eleven days between the menses sees blood on one or two of the days, she need not count seven clean days but becomes clean after ablution on the evening of the following day. V. Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 577, n. 2.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. Nid. 72b.
^ᵃᵉnote:Cf. p. 43. n. 10.
^ᵃᶠnote:Under the obligation to count seven days.
^ᵃᵍnote:From the obligation to bring a sacrifice.
^ᵃʰnote:Lev. XV, 13.
^ᵃⁱnote:rdxun Lit., ‘shut up’. V. Lev. XIII, 4.
^ᵃʲnote:ykjun Lit., ‘confirmed’; by the priest. Ibid. v. 11.
^ᵃᵏnote:Or ‘let his hair grow wild’, v. M.K 15a.
^ᵃˡnote:Which is incumbent on the latter but not on the former. Ibid. 45.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., one in whom the suspicious signs did not develop into actual leprosy
^ᵃⁿnote:Which was incumbent on the latter. Lev. XIV, 2-7.
^ᵃᵒnote:V. Num. V, 2.
^ᵃᵖnote:The stringent laws of uncleanness to which lepers are subjected.
^ᵃᵠnote:That the leper under observation need not loosen his hair and rend his garments.
^ᵃʳnote:Lev. XIII, 6, of the suspect in whom the signs do not develop.
^ᵃˢnote:The Hebrew word being rvyu in the present tense (as if to say: ‘and he was already clean’), where the future rvyhu might have been used.
^ᵃᵗnote:Lev. XV, 13. Here again he present tense rvyu is used.
^ᵃᵘnote:Without touching them. Such a defilement is termed yxhv.
^ᵃᵛnote:The rule was that a leper by entering a room defiled persons and things within it. The question thus remains, Whence is this rule (v. p. 45, n. 9) derived?
^ᵃʷnote:Lev. XIII, 45.
^ᵃˣnote:The leper under observation.
^ᵃʸnote:It is the seven days of his observation that cause him to be designated a leper, for should there be no change in the leper at the end of the seven days he is pronounced clean.
^ᵃᶻnote:Ibid. 46.
^ᵇᵃnote:Lev. XIV, 3.
^ᵇᵇnote:I.e., who has been declared definitely a leper. Only such a one has to shave and bring birds.
^ᵇᶜnote:This means apparently, scrolls of the Scriptural books.
^ᵇᵈnote:V. Glos.
^ᵇᵉnote:Apparently what is meant is that official translations for use in the synagogue may be made in any language. We know actually of two such — the Aramaic translation known as Targum Onkelos, and the Greek translation of Aquilas made under the supervision of R. Eleazar and R. Joshua.
^ᵇᶠnote:‘Assyrian is used as the equivalent of Hebrew written in the square characters used for religious writings. This script was called ‘Assyrian’, the reason being that it came into common use after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile; v. Sanh. 21b, Sonc. ed. pp. 119ff and notes.
^ᵇᵍnote:And not merely with flax thread.
^ᵇʰnote:V. supra p. 35, n. 11.
^ᵇⁱnote:I.e., translated into.
^ᵇʲnote:E.g., the Chaldaic parts of Daniel and Ezra.
^ᵇᵏnote:hrcg c,f. The ancient Hebrew script (as found e.g., in the Siloam and Moabite inscriptions and old Jewish coins, and in modified form in Samaritan writing) which was in common use before the Exile. V. Sanh. ibid.
^ᵇˡnote:Whereas the Mishnah seems to imply that they do.