Keritot 10a (י.) — the Talmud in English

The issue was raised before them:

With regard to ritual 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 Yehuda say?

That is, what is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion? With regard to the counting of the days of purity, does he concede that a fetus born within the eighty days [following the birth of a female] is considered as though it exists, or does he also disagree in this regard and maintain that it is considered as though it does not exist [not entirely, but in a certain respect, as follows]?

And the sides of the uncertainty are as follows:

Perhaps we say: Rabbi Yehuda stated

that

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

so that she is exempt for this birth.

Since it did not emerge,

as she did not miscarry it at

the time when she would have been fit to bring an offering

for the first birth,

therefore,

we say that

the second offspring 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 maintains

—Rabbi Yehuda—that

it is considered as though it exists

entirely, and the days of impurity and purity are counted for it.

And the days

of

impurity of the second

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

And she completes,

as she returns and completes

the days of purity of the

offspring

first

after the days of impurity of the second.

And then she counts the 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 to her from the first, and afterward counts another sixty-six days of purity for the second birth.]

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.

Rav Huna of Sura said: Come and hear:

As it is taught in a

beraita:

A woman who has given birth—

the Paschal offering is slaughtered

and its blood is sprinkled

for

her

[on her behalf]

on the fortieth day after the birth of a

male

and on the eightieth day after the birth of a female.

For by evening the fortieth or eightieth day will already have passed, and she will then be permitted to eat from the Paschal offering.

And this 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. 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 when it states “on the fortieth day for a male,” this refers to the birth of the second, which is the forty-first day for the first.

And whose opinion is this?

It is Rabbi Yehuda’s, who says that a second offspring is considered as though it does not exist,

and the offering is for the first. Therefore, today she is fit 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 have ended and she will be permitted to eat sacrificial food, since she need not bring an offering for the second and is not lacking atonement because of it].

And now we resolve the question:

And if you say

that

with

regard to the counting of the days of

impurity Rabbi Yehuda maintains

that

a second offspring is considered as though it exists,

and, as explained above, according to this possibility the days of impurity of the second interrupt the days of purity of the first, then the eighth day from the first, which is the seventh day from the second, is a day of impurity. It delays the beginning of the count of the days of purity for the first until the following day, and the count is delayed by one day. It follows that the fortieth or eightieth day from the second is also the fortieth or eightieth day from the first. If so, this is difficult:

How can we slaughter the offering for her

the Paschal offering

on the fortieth day,

when

in the evening

on that same day

she likewise cannot eat it,

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

Rather, is it not apparent from here

that

with regard to purity and impurity as well, Rabbi Yehuda maintains

that

a second offspring is considered as though it does not exist,

and its days of impurity do not interrupt the days of purity of the first; rather, the count 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 from the second, since it is the forty-first day from the first.

And we reject this:

I can tell you that, in fact, with regard to impurity and purity Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a second offspring is considered as though it exists! And when that teaching was taught

—that the offering is slaughtered and its blood sprinkled for her on the fortieth day—this does not concern twins, but an ordinary birth; and

it is referring to a Paschal offering brought in a state of impurity,

when most of the community was impure and impure people also ate from the offering. This woman who had given birth could likewise eat from it, even though she still lacked atonement in the evening.

And we ask:

But could she eat

this woman who had given birth, from a Paschal offering brought in a state of impurity?

But didn’t we learn: A Paschal offering brought in a state of impurity—

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

but only those impure due to contact with the dead were permitted to eat from it [see Rashi for the source of this derivation]?!

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 was taught, that the offering is slaughtered and its blood sprinkled for her

on the fortieth day, it is according to the fact

that she had immersed

on the eighth day after her birth [and although, by virtue of the status of one who immersed that day but remains impure until nightfall, she is still forbidden to eat sacrificial food until her days of purity are complete, in the case of a Paschal offering brought in a state of impurity she is permitted, because one who immersed that day is permitted when the impurity affects the public].

And we ask:

If so,

why does it state the fortieth day? Since she immerses already on the eighth day, then already

from her eighth day she is fit

to eat a Paschal offering brought in a state of impurity?

And we answer:

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

This

one who immersed that day because of gonorrhea

with regard to impurity affecting the public

is considered like one with gonorrhea!

His impurity is not permitted when it affects the public. The same applies to a woman who has given birth and is one who immersed that day: She is like a woman who has given birth who has not immersed, whose impurity is not permitted when it affects the public. Every woman who has given birth is considered, until the end of the full term, like one who immersed that day but remains impure until nightfall, a status that continues until the evening of the fortieth day; until then she is forbidden to eat the Paschal offering brought in a state of impurity, like a woman who has given birth before immersion! And it had entered our minds that just as one who immersed that day because of gonorrhea is considered like one with gonorrhea, so too one lacking atonement because of gonorrhea is considered like one with gonorrhea, and one lacking atonement because of gonorrhea is not permitted to eat from a Paschal offering brought in a state of impurity. And we ask:

If so, on the fortieth day

in the evening

she should likewise not be 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 maintains: One lacking atonement because of gonorrhea is not considered like one with gonorrhea.

And we ask:

But according to Rava, who says that one lacking atonement because of gonorrhea is considered like one with gonorrhea,

how does he explain this teaching

that the offering is slaughtered and its blood sprinkled for her

on the fortieth day?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said: Rava explains it

as follows: When it states that the offering is slaughtered and its blood sprinkled for her on the fortieth day for a male and on the eightieth day for a female, it does not refer to the fortieth or eightieth day after the birth of a male or 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—

for a male, and on the eightieth day from the formation of

the fetus

for a female,

when it does not yet have the status of an offspring and she does not have the impurity of a woman who has given birth.

And it is Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion,

who holds that the completion of the formation of a female differs from that of a male.

For

Rabbi Yishmael says: A woman who miscarries without knowing 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 for only one week].

And for a female

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

eighty-one,

because the formation of a female is completed only after eighty days [whereas according to the Rabbis, the formation of both a male and a female is completed after forty days].

And we ask:

Ultimately,

how can the offering be slaughtered for her on the day of her birth?

Let it emerge that she is impure on account of menstruation,

since she saw blood at the time of childbirth?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

With a bloodless birth,

without blood.

And we ask:

If so, what is the point of stating this?!

It is obvious that she is pure.

And we answer:

Lest you say

that we say:

The opening of the womb

cannot occur

without blood,

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

it teaches us that the opening of the womb can occur without blood!

Rabbi Shemaya said: Come and hear

to resolve the question concerning Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: It is taught in a beraita: Regarding a woman who gives birth to a female, it is stated: “And sixty days and six days she shall remain over the blood of purity.” Had it been written only

“sixty

days and six days,”

I might

have said:

Whether they are

they are

consecutive,

with no miscarriage in the interim,

or whether they are

they are

scattered,

as in the case under discussion, where she miscarried on the fifty-fifth day, and the days of impurity of the second interrupt the days of purity of the first in the middle, after which she completes them, so that the sixty-six days of purity are scattered over two periods.

The verse therefore states “day,”

and we derive:

Just as a day is entirely consecutive,

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

so too the sixty

and six days

are all consecutive

for purposes of purity! This is the wording of the beraita.

And we conclude as proof: This beraita—

whose opinion

is it?

If you say it is the Rabbis

who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, then

do the Rabbis hold that they can be “scattered”?

But according to their view, the second offspring is primary, and the days of purity of the first are entirely nullified. What relevance is there to saying “scattered”?

Rather, is it not Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion?

According to his view, the first offspring is primary with regard to the offering, and one might have thought that it is likewise primary with regard to the days of purity, and that she completes them after the days of impurity of the second.

And since the verse grants her

sixty

consecutive days together,

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

learn from here: a stringency

is what Rabbi Yehuda holds!

Rabbi Yehuda 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 opinion of the Rabbis.

And one cannot object that according to the Rabbis, “dispersed” days are impossible, since she counts only from the second birth:

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

and in a case where the thirty-three days of purity for the male end within the eighty days of purity for the female. Since the days of purity of the first birth continue even after the completion of the days of purity of the second birth, the Rabbis concede that we do not say that the second offspring is primary; rather, she completes the days of purity of the first birth after the days of purity of the second birth. One might have said that she adds another seven days of purity at the end, after the eightieth day, in order to complete the seven days of impurity following the second birth that were subtracted from the days of purity of the first birth. If so, one could find “dispersed” days. Therefore, the verse teaches us that we do not add anything; rather, the sixty-six days of purity are consecutive, and the impurity following the second birth does not interrupt them.

And we raise an objection:

Ultimately,

one cannot find a case in which the days of purity for a male end within the days of purity for a female, except the reverse—

the days of the first have been completed, and until now,

still,

those of the latter have not been completed!

For, as explained above, it is impossible for the second birth to be considered a birth before the fifty-fifth day after the first birth; therefore, the forty days of the second birth are completed only after the eightieth day from the first birth!

And in this case,

in such a situation,

the Rabbis—

count from the second offspring,

and the days of purity of the first birth are nullified. But why, then, is a verse needed to exclude the possibility that the days are dispersed? And we answer:

Rather, the possibility exists according to the Rabbis of “

dispersed

” days

in the case of a woman who gives birth to twins. Their conception was simultaneous, but she gave birth to the

female

first, and to the male afterward. And this is where she gave birth to the male afterward, on the twentieth day of the female’s days of purity.

It follows that the days of purity of the male are completed before the end of the days of purity of the female. And one might have said

that it is necessary to count for him

that she complete

the seven days of impurity following the birth

of the male at the end of the eighty days.

And this is what the tanna

of the beraita

is saying:

Could it be that when she gives birth to twins, and the

female

is born

first and the male last, the impurity following the birth

of the male

will interrupt

the days of purity of the female in the middle,

and

in place of these seven days she will count seven additional days of purity, so that now

we will count for her sixty-six dispersed days,

some before the impurity and some afterward?

The verse therefore states: “day”! Just as a day is entirely consecutive, so too the sixty

six

are all consecutive!

That is, the impurity does not interrupt the days of purity at all; rather, all of them are consecutive, and consequently nothing is added [see the Rashash on Rashi, s.v. “No; actually”].

Abaye said: Come and hear

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

“thirty”

and three

“days” understood to mean whether consecutive or dispersed? The verse therefore states: “day”—

just as a day is entirely consecutive, so too the thirty

and three

are consecutive.