Bava Batra 166a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And say: small coins,

perhaps the intention is to gold perutot?

And the Gemara answers:

People do not make gold perutot.

Nowhere do people make gold perutot. And the smallest gold coin is a dinar.

The Master said: “

gold in dinarin,”

it is no less than two silver dinarin, [and] gold.

And the Gemara discusses this:

And say: it is loose gold; he is speaking of two gold dinarin.

Perhaps here too “in dinarin” refers to gold dinarin, and its meaning is that he borrowed from him pieces of gold worth two gold dinarin?

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

Indeed, it is possible to interpret the wording of the document in this way. However, since it is uncertain,

the hand of the holder of the document is on the lower side.

And he can claim only the lesser amount that can be understood from the document, namely, that the gold should be worth only two silver dinarin.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so, the first clause also,

the preceding beraita, which says that if it was written “silver in dinarin,” he must give him silver worth two gold dinarin. Why should we not say there the opposite: that the hand of the holder of the document is on the lower side, and perhaps the intention is pieces of silver worth only two silver dinarin!?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Ashi said: The first clause,

the first beraita, speaks of a case in which

he wrote “

“dinarei.

For its meaning is gold dinarin, and therefore we say that “silver in dinarei” means silver worth two gold dinarin.

The final clause,

the second beraita, speaks of a case in which

he wrote “

“dinarin,

whose meaning is silver dinarin. Therefore, when it is written “gold in dinarin,” it means gold in the amount of two silver dinarin.

And the Gemara discusses this:

And from where do you say

do we know

that there is a difference

that there is a difference

between “

“dinarei”

and “

“dinarin”?

And the Gemara answers:

For we learned

in tractate Keritot:

A woman upon whom there were five possible births,

who miscarried five times and does not know what she miscarried—whether it was a fetus, for which she is obligated to bring a childbirth offering, or perhaps she merely miscarried wind, for which she is not obligated to bring an offering.

Or there were upon her

five possible cases of ziva,

for she saw blood five times [in five monthly cycles], and each time the seeing of the blood continued for three consecutive days; but she does not know whether these sightings were during her “days of ziva,” when she becomes a zava obligated in a zava offering, or whether they were during her “days of menstruation,” when she does not become a zava but is only a menstruant and exempt from the offering.

Every woman has an eighteen-day cycle for seeing the blood of her menstruation. Its beginning consists of seven days “fit for menstruation,” followed by eleven days “fit for ziva.”

The first seven days of the cycle, called “days fit for menstruation,” are the days that are “the time of her menstruation,” during which every woman normally sees menstrual blood. During these days, even if she sees blood throughout all seven days, she does not become a zava [obligated to bring an offering]; she becomes only a “menstruant.” Once the blood stops, even at the end of the seventh day, she can immerse immediately that evening, and she will immediately be pure both for her husband and for eating sacrificial meat.

At the completion of the seven days of menstruation, eleven “days fit for ziva” begin. These days are called in the language of Scripture “not the time of her menstruation,” meaning that a woman does not normally continue seeing blood after the seven days of menstruation. Therefore, if it happens that she sees blood during them for three consecutive days, she becomes a “zava.” To become pure from the impurity of her ziva, she must count seven clean days without seeing blood and immerse. On the eighth day she must bring an offering of “two turtledoves or two young pigeons,” one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering.

Immediately after the immersion she is permitted to her husband, but she is still forbidden to eat sacrificial meat, according to the law of those lacking atonement, until she brings her offering on the following day.

After the eleven “days of ziva,” the days fit for menstruation return again. If she sees blood on one of the subsequent days, the seven days of menstruation begin from then, followed by the eleven days of ziva, and so forever.

And although this woman may possibly be obligated in five offerings, nevertheless she

brings one offering

only, consisting of two birds, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering.

And she eats

sacrificial meat,

for her to be able to eat sacrificial meat, bringing one offering is sufficient to permit her to eat sacrificial meat. Since this offering comes to complete the purification, its law is like that of immersion: just as a person who became impure several times is purified from all of them by one immersion, so this single offering permits her and removes her, with regard to eating sacrificial meat, from the impurity of ziva resulting from all the cases of ziva or childbirth.

And the remainder is not an obligation upon her!

She does not need to bring the remaining offerings for the four possible cases of ziva or childbirth, since bringing a bird sin offering in a case of uncertainty contains the possibility of bringing unconsecrated property upon the altar. And even the one offering they permitted her to bring only with difficulty, so that she could eat sacrificial meat.

And if

there were upon her five definite births

or

five definite cases of ziva—

she brings one offering and eats sacrificial meat

by means of it, for, as stated, one offering permits her with regard to all the births and cases of ziva.

And the remainder is an obligation upon her,

she is obligated to complete the remaining offerings.

An incident

occurred in which the prices of birds rose,

and the nests in Jerusalem stood at

a price of

gold dinarin.

That is, one gold dinar per nest [a nest is two turtledoves or two young pigeons].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: By this Dwelling! [

he swore by the Temple]

I will not spend this night until

the

price of the nests

is in dinarin

of silver. That is, until their price is reduced [a silver dinar is one twenty-fifth of a gold dinar].

He entered the court and taught: A woman upon whom there were five definite births

or

five definite cases of ziva, brings one offering and eats sacrificial meat, and the remainder is not an obligation upon her!

For she does not need to bring the remaining offerings. Although by Torah law she is obligated to bring the other offerings, as we learned above, nevertheless Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was lenient with them because of “It is a time to act for the Lord; they have violated Your Torah,” in order to bring about a reduction in the price of the nests, by not requiring so many offerings. For if not, poor women would refrain from bringing even one offering, and would stumble by eating sacrificial meat in impurity while lacking atonement.