Mishnah: There is no difference between one who has vowed not to derive benefit from his fellow and one who has vowed not to benefit from his fellow’s food, except this: setting foot on the other’s land, and the use of vessels that are not used for the preparation of food.
Gemara: Thus, in the case of vessels that are used for the preparation of food, this and that i.e., both cases are equivalent and it is forbidden to derive benefit from the vessels.
The Mishna spoke of “Setting foot”. In this case, people are not particular. Rava said: According to whom does the Misha rule? According to the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that a thing thing that is usually permitted i.e., about which people are usually lax is forbidden to one who vowed not to benefit.
Mishnah: There is no difference between vows (nedarim) to bring an offering and free-will offerings (nedavot) except this: one is obligated to replace the vowed offerings if they become lost or damaged and for free-will offerings there is no obligation to bring another to replace them.
Gemara: Since the Mishnah says that the only difference is in the case of replacing a lost or damaged offering, here, in the case of “do not delay” see Deut. 23, this and that i.e., both cases are equivalent i.e., the law of “do not delay” applies to both vowed offerings and free-will offerings equally.
It was taught there in a baraita: What is this “neder”? Where one says “Behold! Upon me is the obligation to bring a burnt offering!” What is this “nedavah”? Where one says “Behold! This is a burnt offering!” And what is the difference between nedarim and nedavot? When nedarim die, or are stolen, or are lost, one is obligated to replace them with another; when nedavot die, or are stolen, or are lost, there is no obligation to replace them.
From where do we learn this? Because the rabbis taught about Lev. 1 “And it shall be accepted for him to atone for him” — Rabbi Shimon says: that which is upon him he is obligated to replace with another, and that which is not upon him, there is no obligation to replace it with another.
And how is it implied? Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avdini said: Because he said “upon me”, it is as though he rested it on his shoulder.
Mishna: There is no difference between a zav who sees two emissions and a zav who sees three emissions, except bringing an offering.
Gemara: Here, in the case of a bed or a seat, and the counting of seven days, both this and that i.e., both cases are equivalent.
From where do we learn this? For the rabbis taught: Rabbi Simai says: The scripture Lev. 25 says seeing two means he is called tamei; and the next verse says that seeing three means he is called tamei. How so? Two suffice to make him tamei, and three require an offering.
But I might say two suffice to make him tamei but do not require an offering; while three require an offering but do not make him tamei. If I said that, you would say in reply as long as he has not yet seen the third emission, he saw two and so he would be tamei, and the third emission can’t then revoke his tumah.
I could say two requires an offering and does not make him tamei; three adds on tumah. You would reply: Do not let that enter your mind! For it was taught based on Lev. 15: “And the Kohen shall atone for the zav before God from his discharge.” By reading “mizovo” not as “from his discharge” but instead reading it as “from those who are zavim”, we deduce that some zavin bring an offering, and some zavin do not bring an offering. How so? If he saw three, he brings; if he saw two, he does not bring.
Or here’s another possible interpretation: No one except a person who saw two emissions brings an offering; if he saw three he does not bring an offering. You would say in response as long as he has not seen the third, he saw two and is already obligated to bring an offering.
In case you thought one of these explanations was unnecessary because it could be derived from the other, the Gemara explains: And it is necessary to bring the explanation of Rabbi Simai, and it is necessary to bring the explanation of interpreting the text “from his emission.” For if I had only the teaching from Rabbi Simai, I would say that there’s a difficulty as raised above, that perhaps two require an offering and three adds on tumah, and which was resolved by recourse to the verse from Lev. 15; therefore we also learn it from the phrase “from his emission.”
And if I only had the teaching based on “from his emission,” I would not know how many “seeings” of emissions are necessary to make him tamei and how many to require an offering. Therefore, we learn from the ruling of Rabbi Simai.
Up to now, you have said “from his emission” is for a particular interpretation; but the same word appears in the next verse of Lev. 15 “And when the zav becomes tahor from his emission“ – how do you interpret it?
That is necessary the explain this, as it has been taught: “And when the zav becomes tahor…” – when there is an interruption a day in which he doesn’t have an emission – “…from his emission…” means only an interruption from his emission, but if he is also a leper, we do not require an interruption both from his emission and his leprosy. Continuing with the verse, the next word, “and he counts,” teaches this rule about a zav: one who saw two emissions must count seven days without additional emissions.
Could we not rule thus by logical deduction? If he makes a bed and a seat tamei, shouldn’t he have to count seven days, which is a lesser degree of tumah? 8b No, and here’s the counterargument. A woman who is checking day by day during the time of the month when she is not expecting her menstrual period, and sees blood on one or two days, is not presumed to have become niddah, but is assumed to have had an incidental discharge of blood, and although she makes a bed and a seat tamei, she does not have to count seven days without spotting.
And, also, do not be surprised by the case of the zav, for even though he makes bed and seat tamei, he is not required to count seven days. Scripture says “from his emission, and he counts”; from even a portion of his emission he counts. This teaches this rule about a zav: one who saw two emissions must count seven days without additional emissions.
Rav Papa said to Abayye: Why do we learn in the first instance of the word “from his emission” that it includes a zav who saw two emissions, and why do we learn in the second instance of the word “form his emission” that it excludes a zav who saw two emissions?
Abayye said to Rav Papa: (1) If you thought that first case actually came to exclude, then the text could have been silent and omitted the word without changing the meaning. (2) And if you’d say we can deduce it, there is a refutation based on the law of the woman who is checking day by day. (3) And if you’d say this is to indicate “from his emission” and not from his leprosy, if so then the text should write “and when the zav becomes tahor” and remain silent on the matter of what he has become tahor from. In conclusion, Why do I have the word “from his emission”? To teack regarding a zav who has seen two emissions that he must cound seven days.
Mishna: There is no difference between a metzorah who has been isolated for observation to see whether the tzaraat is fullblown and a metzorah who has been confirmed, except this: letting the hair grow and tearing the clothing. There is no difference between one who is tahor after being isolated and one who is tahor after being confirmed except this: shaving and offering birds.
Gemara: Thus, in the case of sending the metzorah out of the city and the tumah that is transmitted when he enters a building this and that i.e., both cases are equivalent.
From where do we learn this? It is as Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak taught while standing before Rav Huna citing Lev. 13 about someone suspected of meing a metzorah who is cleared “The kohen shall declare him tahor; it is a scab; he launders his clothes and he is tahor.” Since “he is tahor” is in the ongoing tense, this implies that he is tahor in the first instance and the kohen’s declaration is a statement of fact, not a change in status, and therefore he does not require rending of garments and letting down of hair.
Rava said to him, if so, from here in the case of a zav, it is written in Lev. 15: “he launders his clothes and he is tahor.” There, how can it say he is tahor in the first instance? Rather, what it must mean is this: he is tahor at this point in regard to transmitting tumah to earthenware vessels by moving them even indirectly, even in the case where he later sees another emission he does not make them tamei after the fact. Here, too, the metzorah is tahor inasmuch as he does not render things tamei by entering a dwelling.
Rather, Rava said, it is derived from here Lev. 13: “The afflicted person within whom is the blemish” The words “within whom” restrict the scope to one whose status of tzara’at depends on his body, and excludes this one who status of tzara’at does not depend on the condition of his body, but rather it depends on the counting of days i.e., his quarrantine to see if he develops full-blown tzara’at.
Abay said to Rava: But what about this verse? “All the days that the the blemish is in him he shall be tamei and his dwelling place shall be outside of the camp.” By applying your logic, Rava, we’d deduce that one whose tzara’at status depends on his body, he is sent out from the camp; but one whose tzara’at does not depend on his body is not sent out from the camp. And although you might say this, too, can be derived, look at what our Mishna taught: “There is no difference between a metzorah who has been isolated and a metzorah who has been confirmed except this: letting the hair grow and tearing his garments.” And as we said the beginning of this gemara, but in the case of sending him out from the city and the tumah transmitted when he enters a building, this and that i.e., both cases are equivalent.
So: if Rava’s logic applied in this latter case, we would incorrectly exempt an isolated metzorah from being sent out from the city. Does this refute Rava’s reasoning in the former case?
Rava said to Abaye: The second verse, which establshes that the metzorah should be sent out from the city, did not simply say “The days” that he is afflicted; instead, it says “All the days” that he is afflicted, in order to include a metzorah who has been isolated in the commandment of sending out from the city.
If so, shaving the hair and offering birds – what is the reason that these mitzvot do not apply to a metzorah who has been isolated? For our Mishna states: There is no difference between one who is tahor after being isolated and one who is tahor after being confirmed except this: shaving and offering birds. What is the source for exempting the metzorah who has been isolated?
Abaye said: The scripture in Lev. 14 says, “The kohen shall go out to the area outside of the camp … and behold! The blemish of tzara’at has become healed.” One whose tzara’at depends on his becoming healed i.e., a metzorah whose status has been confirmed, requires the ritual of shaving and bird offerings once he has recovered. This excludes one whose tzara’at does not depend on his becoming heald, but instead on counting days. I.e., a metzorah whose status is questionable, and is isolated lest his affliction develop into confirmed tzara’at, requires only time, and not recovery, for his status to change back to tahor, and the verse establishing the ritual of shaving and bird offerings does not apply in his case.
Mishna: There is no difference between sacred books on the one hand and tefillin and mezuzot on the other hand, except this: the sacred books are written in all tongues, but tefillin and mezuzot are not written in any tongue except Ashurit a specific way of writing the Hebrew aleph-bet. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: even in the case of sacred books, they did not permit that they be written in foreign tongues except for Greek.
Gemara: Thus, for the case of sewing them with sinews, and making the hands tamei, this and that i.e., both cases are equivalent.
so close to the end of 8b that I’ll start 9a here