Megillah 15

Chapter 15

א <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אין בין המודר הנאה מחבירו למודר ממנו מאכל אלא דריסת הרגל וכלים שאין עושין בהן אוכל נפש:
1 Mishnah. There is no difference between one who is prohibited by a vow from benefiting from his fellow and one who is prohibited by a vow from [benefiting] from his food, except for setting foot [on his property] and utensils that a person does not use for [preparing] food.
ב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> הא לענין כלים שעושין בהן אוכל נפש זה וזה שוין:
2 GEMARA. We can deduce from this that in the matter of utensils which are used for preparing food they are on the same footing.
ג דריסת הרגל: הא לא קפדי אינשי אמר רבא הא מני רבי אליעזר דאמר ויתור אסור במודר הנאה:
3 'Setting foot': But people are not sensitive [about others setting foot on their property]. Rava said: Whose opinion is this? Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Customary benefits are prohibited to one who is prohibited by a vow from any benefit.
ד <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אין בין נדרים לנדבות אלא שהנדרים חייב באחריותן ונדבות אינו חייב באחריותן:
4 Mishnah. There is no difference between vow-offerings and generosity-offerings except that vow-offerings obligate one with [providing] surety (for the vowed animal), but generosity-offerings do not obligate one with surety.
ה <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> הא לענין בל תאחר זה וזה שוין
5 GEMARA. It is to be inferred from this that in respect of ‘not delaying’ they are the same.
ו תנן התם אי זהו נדר האומר הרי עלי עולה איזו היא נדבה האומר הרי זו עולה ומה בין נדרים לנדבות נדרים מתו או נגנבו או אבדו חייב באחריותן נדבות מתו או נגנבו או אבדו אינו חייב באחריותן
6 It was taught there: What constitutes a vow? When one says: “It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah.” And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: “Behold, this shall be an olah.” What is the [practical] difference between vows (neder) and freewill offerings (nedavah)? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement. Whence is this rule derived? —
ז מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא א, ד) ונרצה לו לכפר עליו ר' שמעון אומר את שעליו חייב באחריותו ואת שאינו עליו אינו חייב באחריותו
7 As our Rabbis have taught: “And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him” (Leviticus 1:4). R. Shimon says: That which is “upon him” he is obligated to replace but that which is not “upon him” he is not obligated to replace.
ח מאי משמע א"ר יצחק בר אבדימי כיון דאמר עלי כמאן דטעין אכתפיה דמי:
8 How is that implied [from the verse]? R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi replied: Since he has said “[I take] it upon myself,” it is as if he had taken it upon his shoulder.
ט <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אין בין זב הרואה שתי ראיות לרואה שלש אלא קרבן:
9 Mishnah. There is no difference between a zav who sees two discharges and one who sees three except an offering. (A zav is a male who experiences a genital discharge of something other than semen. -- trans.)
י <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> הא לענין משכב ומושב וספירת שבעה זה וזה שוין
10 GEMARA. Behold we can deduce that in the matter of [defiling] a bed or a seat and counting seven days they are on the same footing.
יא מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן רבי סימאי אומר מנה הכתוב שתים וקראו טמא שלש וקראו טמא הא כיצד שתים לטומאה ושלש לקרבן
11 From where is this thing? The Rabbis taught: Rabbi Simai says: That which is written (Leviticus 15:2) counted two [discharges] and they called [the zav] 'unclean'. (Leviticus 15:3) Three and they called [the zav] 'unclean'. In what manner is this? Two [discharges] to be unclean and three to bring an offering.
יב ואימר שתים לטומאה ולא לקרבן שלש לקרבן ולא לטומאה אמרת עד שלא ראה שלש ראה שתים
12 But say that two means he is unclean but he does not bring a sacrifice, while three means he brings a sacrifice but he is not unclean? Say: before he has three issues he must have already had two.
יג ואימר שתים לקרבן ולא לטומאה שלש אף לטומאה לא ס"ד דתניא (ויקרא טו, טו) וכפר עליו הכהן לפני ה' מזובו מקצת זבין מביאין קרבן ומקצת זבין אין מביאין קרבן הא כיצד ראה שלש מביא שתים אינו מביא
13 Say then that two observations obligate him for a sacrifice but not uncleanness, whereas three means he is uncleanness also? Do not even think this, since it has been taught: “And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord from his issue” (Leviticus 15:15); [From his issue] implies that zavim bring a sacrifice and some zavim do not bring a sacrifice. How so? If he has three issues, he brings a sacrifice, if only two, he does not bring.
יד או אינו אלא ראה ב' מביא ראה שלש אינו מביא אמרת עד שלא ראה שלש ראה שתים
14 'Or he does not', rather, he saw two [so] he brings [an offering]; he saw three [so] he does not bring. Say, before, he did not see three, he saw [only] two.
טו ואיצטריך דרבי סימאי ואיצטריך מזובו דאי מדרבי סימאי הוה אמינא כי קושיין קמשמע לן מזובו ואי מזובו לא ידענא כמה ראיות קמשמע לן דרבי סימאי
15 And both the midrash of R. Simai and the midrash on “from his issue” are necessary [to prove this point]. For if I had only R. Simai, I might have raised the above objection, and therefore it teaches us “from his issue.” And if I had only “from his issue,” I would not have known how many issues [obligate for a sacrifice]; therefore I have R. Simai.
טז והשתא דאמרת מזובו לדרשא (ויקרא טו, יג) וכי יטהר הזב מזובו מאי דרשת ביה
16 Now that you have said that the words “from his issue” are to be used for a derashah, “And when he that had an issue is cleansed from his issue” (Leviticus 15:13) what do you derive from it?
יז ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא וכי יטהר הזב לכשיפסוק מזובו [מזובו] ולא מזובו ונגעו מזובו וספר לימד על זב בעל שתי ראיות שטעון ספירת שבעה
17 That one is required for that which was taught: And 'when the zav has been cleansed' for when his discharge has ended. ['From his discharge'], and not from [both] his discharge and his leprosy (tzaraat). "From his discharge he shall count" (Leviticus 15:13): This teaches about the zav who sees two [discharges], so that he requires a count of seven [days].
יח והלא דין הוא אם מטמא משכב ומושב לא יהא טעון ספירת שבעה
18 But cannot this be deduced logically [as follows]? If he defiles bed and seat, should he not [all the more] be required to count seven days?
Previous ChapterNext Chapter