Keritot 10a — the Talmud in English

It was asked of them: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

with regard to impurity,

concerning the counting of the days of purity of a woman who has given birth [during which the blood she sees is pure]—

what does Rabbi Judah say?

And this means: what is Rabbi Judah’s view? With regard to the counting of the days of purity, does he concede that a fetus that was born within the eighty days [from the birth of a female] is considered as though it exists, or does he also dispute this and hold that it is considered as though it does not exist [not completely, but in a certain respect, as follows]?

And the sides of the doubt are:

perhaps we say: Rabbi Judah said only this far,

that

a second fetus is considered as though it does not exist only with regard to the offering,

so that she is exempt from an offering for this birth. For

since it did not emerge,

since she did not miscarry it at

the time at which she was fit to offer an offering

for the first birth,

since this is so,

we say that

the second fetus is considered as though it does not exist

with regard to the obligation to bring an additional birth-offering; rather, she is exempted by the offering for the first birth.

But with regard to impurity and purity, perhaps he holds

—Rabbi Judah—that

it is considered as though it exists

completely. And they count for it days of impurity and purity.

And the days

of

impurity of the second

interrupt the days of purity of the first in their middle.

And she completes,

for she returns and completes the

days of purity of the

fetus

first

after the days of impurity of the second.

And afterward she counts days of purity for the second. [For example, if she miscarried a female on the fifty-fifth day after the birth of a female, she now counts two weeks of days of impurity, and afterward completes the twenty-five days of purity that remained for her from the first, and afterward counts another sixty-six days of purity for the second birth.]

For example, if she miscarried a female on the fifty-fifth day after the birth of a female, she now counts two weeks of days of impurity, and afterward completes the twenty-five days of purity that remained to her from the first, and afterward counts another sixty-six days of purity for the second birth.]

Or perhaps, according to Rabbi Judah—

it is stringency that he holds!

For he always proceeds stringently. With regard to the offering, we say that it is considered as though it does not exist, whereby she becomes liable for an offering for the third birth. And with regard to impurity, we say the opposite: it is considered as though it exists, whereby she is forbidden to eat sacrificial food until eighty days from the birth of the second have ended.

But here,

that is, to say that it is considered as though it exists to the extent that its days interrupt the days of purity of the first and she completes them afterward—this is

a leniency,

adding days during which the blood she sees is pure [the Rashash raised that the statements contradict one another, for earlier we said that days of purity are a stringency because she is then forbidden to eat sacrificial food, whereas here we say that it is a leniency; see Shitah Mekubetzet, note 4].

And Rabbi Judah does not hold of a leniency,

and therefore, with regard to the counting of the days of purity of the first fetus, we say that the second fetus is considered as though it does not exist, and the counting of the days of purity of the first is not interrupted on account of its birth, but continues within the days of impurity and purity of the second. And it follows that the days of purity of the two are absorbed into one another, and when the days of purity of the first are completed, she merely completes counting the days of purity remaining from the birth of the second.

Rav Huna of Sura said: ta shma:

For it is taught in a beraita:

A woman who has given birth—

they slaughter

the Paschal offering

and sprinkle

its blood

for her [on her behalf]

[on her behalf]

on the fortieth day of the

birth of a

male, and on the eightieth day for a female.

For by the evening the forty or eighty days will already have passed, and she will then be permitted to eat from the Paschal offering.

And it is difficult for us:

But

on the fortieth day for a male and the eightieth day for a female, until this point

she is still

impure?! That is, she lacks atonement, and is forbidden to eat sacrificial food until she brings her offerings; and she can bring them only on the following day, on the forty-first day for a male or the eighty-first day for a female. If so, how can she eat from the Paschal offering in the evening?!

!?

And Rav Hisda said

to resolve what we asked: What are we dealing with here? She gave birth to twins, one day apart. And that which it teaches, “on the fortieth day for a male,” refers to the birth of the second, which is the forty-first day for the first. And

whose opinion is this?—

It is Rabbi Judah’s, who says: A second fetus is considered as though it does not exist,

and the offering is for the first. Therefore she is fit today to bring her offerings [and although today she is forbidden to eat sacrificial food until evening because of the fortieth day from the birth of the second, which is one of her days of purity, nevertheless by evening the days of purity will already have ended and she will be permitted to eat sacrificial food, since she does not need to bring an offering for the second and is not one who lacks atonement on its account].

And now we resolve the question:

And if you say

that

with

regard to the counting of the days of

impurity Rabbi Judah holds

that

the second fetus is considered as though it exists,

and as was explained above, according to this side we say that the days of impurity of the second interrupt the days of purity of the first, then the eighth day for the first, which is the seventh day for the second, is a day of impurity. And it prevents the beginning of the counting of the days of purity for the first until the following day, so that the counting is delayed by one day. It follows that the fortieth or eightieth day for the second is also the fortieth or eightieth day for the first. If so, this is difficult:

how do we slaughter for her

the Paschal offering

on the fortieth day,

for

in the evening

on that same day

she also cannot eat it,

until she brings her offerings on the following day for the first?

Rather, is it not, learn from this,

that

with regard to purity and impurity as well Rabbi Judah holds

that

the second fetus is considered as though it does not exist,

and its days of impurity do not interrupt the days of purity of the first, and the counting of its days of purity begins immediately on the eighth day. Therefore the woman who has given birth is fit to bring her offerings on the fortieth day for the second, since it is the forty-first day for the first.

And we reject this:

I will always say to you: With regard to impurity and purity Rabbi Judah holds that the second fetus is considered as though it exists! And when that

teaching, that they slaughter and sprinkle for her on the fortieth day, was stated, we are not dealing with twins, but with an ordinary birth, and

it speaks of a Paschal offering brought in impurity,

where most of the community was impure and the impure also ate from the Paschal offering; this woman who had given birth could also eat from it, even though she still lacked atonement in the evening.

And we ask:

But does she eat

—this woman who has given birth—from a Paschal offering brought in impurity?

But we learned: A Paschal offering brought in impurity—

those with gonorrhea, women with gonorrhea, menstruating women, and women who have given birth may not eat from it,

but only those impure through contact with a corpse were permitted to eat from it [see Rashi for where this is derived]?!

And we answer:

That

which we learned,

that they did not eat

means

when they had not immersed,

when they had not yet immersed from their impurity.

When that teaching, that they slaughter and sprinkle for her, was stated,

on the fortieth day, it is according to the view

that she immersed

on the eighth day after her birth [and although by the law of one who immersed on that day but whose sunset has not yet come she is still forbidden to eat sacrificial food until the days of her purity are fulfilled, nevertheless, in a Paschal offering brought in impurity she is permitted, for one who immersed on that day was permitted in a case of communal impurity].

And we ask:

If so,

why did it specify the fortieth day? Since, once she immerses on the eighth, then already

from her eighth day she is fit

to eat a Paschal offering brought in impurity?

And we answer:

From the eighth day she is not fit! For this tanna holds:

this

one who immersed on that day with regard to one with gonorrhea

in relation to impurity in the community

is considered like one with gonorrhea!

His impurity was not permitted in the community. The same applies to a woman who has given birth who has immersed on that day: she is like a woman who has given birth who has not immersed, whose impurity was not permitted in the community. Every woman who has given birth is considered until the end of the period of fulfillment to have the status of one who immersed on that day but whose sunset has not yet come, a status that continues until the evening of the fortieth day; until then she is forbidden to eat from a Paschal offering brought in impurity, like a woman who has given birth before immersion! And it occurred to us that just as one who immersed on that day with regard to one with gonorrhea is considered like one with gonorrhea, so too one who lacks atonement with regard to one with gonorrhea is considered like one with gonorrhea, and one who lacks atonement with regard to one with gonorrhea is not permitted to eat from a Paschal offering brought in impurity. And we ask:

If so, on the fortieth day

in the evening

she also is not fit?! For she still lacks atonement

until the following day.

And we answer:

Indeed!

That is not so! Rather,

on the fortieth day

in the evening

she is fit, for he holds: One who lacks atonement with regard to one with gonorrhea is not considered like one with gonorrhea.

And we ask:

But according to Rava, who says that one who lacks atonement with regard to one with gonorrhea is considered like one with gonorrhea—

how does he explain this teaching

that they slaughter and sprinkle for her

?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said: Rava explains it

that when it teaches that they slaughter and sprinkle for her on the fortieth day for a male and on the eightieth day for a female, it does not refer to the fortieth and eightieth days from the birth of a male and a female. Rather, it refers to the day on which she gave birth. For example, she gave birth

on the fortieth day from the formation of

the fetus, that is, on the fortieth day from the beginning of her pregnancy, in a

male, and on the eightieth day from the formation of

the fetus in a

female,

when the fetus does not yet have the designation of a fetus and the impurity of a woman who has given birth does not apply to her.

And it is Rabbi Ishmael’s

opinion, for according to him the completion of the formation of a female differs from that of a male.

For

Rabbi Ishmael said: A woman who miscarries and does not know what she miscarried must be concerned

for a male

only if this occurred on day

forty-one

from the beginning of the pregnancy [and she is impure only for one week]. And

for a female

she need begin to be concerned only if she miscarried from day

eighty-one,

because the completion of the formation of a female occurs after eighty days [whereas according to the Sages, both a male and a female complete their formation after forty days].

And we ask:

Ultimately,

how can they slaughter for her on the day of her birth? For

it follows that she is impure on account of “menstruation,”

since she saw blood at the time of birth?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

With a dry birth,

without blood.

And we ask:

If so, what does it teach us?!

For it is obvious that she is pure?

And we answer:

It might enter your mind

that we say

it is impossible for the opening of the womb

to occur

without blood,

and even if she did not see it, she is impure, for we presume that blood certainly emerged from her;

it teaches us that it is possible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood!

Rabbi Shemaya said: ta shma

to resolve the question concerning Rabbi Judah’s view: It is taught: In the case of a woman who gives birth to a female, it is stated: “And sixty days and six days she shall sit upon the blood of her purity.” And if it had been written only

“sixty

days and six days,”

I might have said

that

both

they are

consecutive,

with no miscarriage in the middle,

and

they are

scattered,

as in the case of our discussion, where she miscarried on the fifty-fifth day, so that the days of impurity of the second interrupt the days of purity of the first in the middle and afterward she completes them, with the result that the sixty-six days of purity are scattered across two periods.

The verse therefore says “day,”

and we interpret:

Just as a day is entirely consecutive,

that is, either it is entirely pure or it is entirely impure [see the Rashash],

so too the sixty

and six days

are all consecutive

for purity! This is the wording of the beraita.

And we conclude the proof: This beraita—

whose opinion

is it?

If you say it is the Rabbis

who dispute Rabbi Judah, then do

the Rabbis have “scattered”?

But according to their view, the second fetus is primary, and the days of purity of the first are entirely annulled; so what relevance is there to saying “scattered”?

Rather, is it not Rabbi Judah’s opinion?

For according to his view, the first fetus is primary with regard to the offering, and one might have thought that it is also primary with regard to the days of purity, and that they should be completed after the days of impurity of the second.

And since the verse gives her

the

sixty consecutive ones together,

that is, they must specifically be consecutive, and if they were interrupted in the middle by the impurity of another miscarried fetus, they are not completed afterward but are annulled—

learn from this: a stringency—

is what Rabbi Judah holds!

Rabbi Judah said that the first is primary only as a stringency, for example with regard to the offering. But

a leniency—

he does not hold!

For with regard to completing the count of the days of purity, it is not primary, since we learned in the beraita that the days of purity must be consecutive.

And we reject this:

No, actually it is the Rabbis.

And do not raise a difficulty that according to the Rabbis “scattered” is impossible, since she counts only from the birth of the second:

And with what are we dealing here? With a woman who gave birth to a male within the eighty days of a female

and in a case where the thirty-three days of purity of the male ended within the eighty days of the female. And since the days of purity of the first continue even after the completion of the days of purity of the second, the Rabbis agree that we do not say that the second offspring is primary; rather, she completes the days of purity of the first after the days of purity of the second. And I might say that she adds, at the end, another seven days of purity after the eightieth day, in order to complete the seven days of impurity of childbirth of the second that were subtracted from the days of purity of the first. If so, “scattered” is found: this teaches us that we do not add them; rather, the sixty-six days of purity are consecutive, and the impurity of the second does not interrupt them.

And we raise a difficulty:

In the end,

you cannot find the days of purity of a male ending within the days of purity of a female, but only the reverse—

the days of the first have ended, and until now,

still,

those of the latter have not ended!

For as was explained above, it is impossible for the birth of the second to be considered a birth before the fifty-fifth day from the birth of the first, and if so, the forty days of the second end after the eightieth day of the first!

And in this,

in such a case,

the Rabbis—

they count for the second offspring,

and the days of purity of the first are nullified. And why was a verse needed to exclude that they should be “scattered”? And we answer:

Rather, the Rabbis find “scattered”

“scattered”

in a woman who gives birth to twins.

For their conception was at one time, and the

female

she gave birth to

first, and the male afterward. And such as when she gave birth to the latter male on the twentieth of the days of purity

of the female. And it is found that the days of purity of the male ended before the completion of the days of purity of the female. And I might say

that she must retain for him

that she should complete

the seven days of impurity of childbirth

of the male at the end of the eighty.

And this is what

the tanna of the beraita says:

I might have thought that where she gave birth to twins,

and the

female

was born

first and the male last, the impurity of childbirth

of the male

would interrupt

the days of purity of the female in the middle,

and

in place of these seven days she would count another seven days of purity, for now

we would count for her sixty-six scattered days,

some of them before the impurity and some of them afterward.

The verse therefore says “day”! Just as an entire day is continuous, so too the sixty

and six

are all continuous!

That is, the impurity does not interrupt the days of purity at all; rather, they are all consecutive, and consequently she adds nothing [see Rashash on Rashi, s.v. “Actually”.

Abaye said: ta shma

to resolve the question: It was taught: With regard to a male it is stated, “And thirty days and three days she shall sit in the blood of purity.” Is

“thirty

and three

—could it mean whether consecutive or scattered? The verse therefore says “day”—

just as an entire day is continuous, so too thirty

and three

are continuous.