Bava Batra 166a (קסו.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But say: small coins,

perhaps the reference is to small gold coins?

And the Gemara answers:

People do not mint small gold coins.

Small gold coins are not made anywhere. The smallest gold coin is a dinar.

The Master said: “

Gold in dinars,”

means no fewer than two silver dinars, [namely] gold.

And the Gemara analyzes this:

But say: He means unrefined gold, worth two gold dinars.

Perhaps “in dinars” refers to gold dinars as well, and its meaning is that he borrowed from him gold scraps worth two gold dinars?

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

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

the holder of the document has the lower hand.

He may claim only the lesser amount that can be understood from the document—namely, that the gold should be worth only two silver dinars.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so, the first clause as well,

the preceding beraita, which states that if it was written “silver in dinars,” he must give him silver worth two gold dinars. Why should we not say there, conversely, that the holder of the document has the lower hand, and that perhaps the reference is to silver scraps worth only two silver dinars!?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Ashi said: The first clause,

the first beraita, speaks of a case in which he

wrote “

dinarei.”

This term means gold dinars; therefore, we say that “silver in dinarei” means silver worth two gold dinars.

The latter clause,

the second beraita, speaks of a case in which he

wrote “

dinars,”

which means silver dinars. Therefore, when it says “gold in dinars,” it means gold worth two silver dinars.

And the Gemara analyzes this:

And from where do you say

that we know

that there is a difference

that there is a distinction

between “

dinarei”

and “

dinars”?

And the Gemara answers:

As we learned

in tractate Keritot:

A woman who had five births of uncertain status,

who miscarried five times but does not know what she miscarried—whether it was a fetus, in which case she is obligated to bring the offering of a woman who gave birth, or whether she merely discharged fluid, in which case she is not obligated to bring an offering.

Or if she had

five uncertain discharges of ziva,

meaning that she saw blood five times [during five monthly cycles], and each time the bleeding continued for three consecutive days, but she does not know whether these sightings occurred during her “days of ziva,” when she becomes a zava obligated to bring a zava offering, or whether they occurred during her “days of menstruation,” when she does not become a zava but is merely a menstruant and exempt from the offering.

Every woman has an eighteen-day cycle for menstruation: its first seven days are the “days fit for menstruation,” followed by eleven “days fit for ziva.”

The first seven days of the cycle, called the “days fit for menstruation,” are the days that are “the time of her menstruation,” during which an ordinary woman is expected to see 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 bleeding stops, even at the end of the seventh day, she may immerse immediately that evening, and she becomes pure at once both for her husband and for eating consecrated food.

At the end of the seven days of menstruation, the eleven “days fit for ziva” begin. In the language of the verse, these days are called “not the time of her menstruation,” meaning that a woman is not normally expected to continue seeing blood after the seven days of menstruation. Therefore, if she happens to see blood during these days for three consecutive days, she becomes a zava. To become pure from the impurity of 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 as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering.

Immediately after immersion she is permitted to her husband, but she is still prohibited from eating consecrated food, as one who lacks atonement, until she brings her offering the following day.

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

Although this woman is uncertain whether she is obligated to bring five offerings, she nevertheless

brings one offering

alone, consisting of two birds, one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering.

And she eats

of the sacrifices;

in order for her to eat consecrated food, it is sufficient for her to bring one offering to permit her to eat consecrated food. Since this offering completes the purification process, its status is like that of immersion: just as a person who became impure several times is purified from all of them by a single immersion, so too this single offering permits her to eat consecrated food and removes her from the impurity of ziva with regard to all the possible discharges or births.

And the rest is not incumbent upon her as an obligation!

She need not bring the remaining offerings for the four uncertain cases of ziva or childbirth, because bringing a bird sin offering in a case of uncertainty involves the possibility of offering non-sacred animals on the altar. Even the one offering was permitted to her only with difficulty, so that she would be able to eat consecrated food.

And if

she had five definite births

or

five definite discharges of ziva—

she brings one offering and eats of the sacrifices

by virtue of it, since, as stated, one offering permits her with regard to all the births and discharges of ziva.

And the rest is incumbent upon her as an obligation;

she is obligated to complete the remaining offerings.

An incident

occurred in which the prices of birds rose

and the pairs of birds in Jerusalem stood at

a price of

gold dinars.

That is, one gold dinar for each pair [a pair consists of two turtledoves or two young pigeons].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: By this Temple! [

he swore by the Temple]

I will not lie down tonight until

they are

the prices of the pairs

in dinars

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

He entered the court and taught: A woman who had five definite births

or

five definite discharges of ziva brings one offering and eats of the sacrifices, and the rest is not incumbent upon her as an obligation!

She need not bring the remaining offerings. Although by Torah law she is obligated to bring the other offerings, as we learned above, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel nevertheless eased the requirement for them because of the principle “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified Your Torah,” in order to bring about a reduction in the price of the pairs by ensuring that so many offerings would not be required. For otherwise, impoverished women would refrain from bringing even one offering, and would consequently stumble by eating consecrated food in a state of impurity while lacking atonement.