Megillah

MISHNAH.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.1 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?2 — Raba said: Whose view is this? R. Eleazar's, who said that [even] a thing which is usually excused3 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 REPLACED4 BUT FREEWILL-OFFERINGS NEED NOT BE REPLACED. GEMARA. It is to be inferred from this that in respect of ‘not delaying’5 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;6 if freewill-offerings die or are stolen or lost, he is not under obligation to replace them.7 Whence is this rule derived? — As our Rabbis have taught: And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him:8 R. Simeon says: That which is ‘upon him’9 he is under obligation to replace.10 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 OBSERVATIONS11 AND ONE WHO MAKES THREE,12 SAVE IN THE MATTER OF BRINGING A SACRIFICE.13 GEMARA. From this it is to be inferred that in the matter of [defiling] a bed or a seat14 and counting seven days15 they are on the same footing. Whence is this rule derived? — As our Rabbis have taught: ‘R. Simai says: The text specified two [observations]16 and designated the man as unclean, and also specified three17 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?18 — To this you may answer that before he has three observations he must have two.19 Let me say then that two observations entail a sacrifice but not uncleanness,18 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;20 this implies that some persons with an issue bring a sacrifice and some do not.21 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.22 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.23 Now, however, that you have assumed that the words ‘from his issue are to be used for a special exposition,24 [I may ask], what lesson do you derive front the words and when he that hath an issue is cleansed from his issue?25 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.26 ‘From his issue’: that is to says from his issue [only], and not from both his issue and his leprosy.27 ‘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]?28 If he defiles bed and seat, shall he not [all the more] be required to count seven days? receiving a benefit. from his issue, it is his uncleanness, discharge of semen. V. Deut. XXIII, 11-12.