Keritot 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

From where is this

beraita?

If you say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, do the Rabbis hold that the days are spread out? This is the opinion of the Rabbis—

it is counted for the second offspring,

and you will not find a case of days being spread out!?

And here it would not help even if we say that the case involves twins, since it is stated that the first was male. If so, even if the second was also male, it is impossible for his days of purity to end before those of the first. And in such a case it is obvious that according to the Rabbis we follow the second offspring, and it is not applicable to say that the days of purity of the first were spread out.

Rather, is it not the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? And learn from this: He holds of the stringency, but not of the leniency!

Namely, the days of purity of the first are not completed where they were interrupted midway by the impurity of the second.

And Rav Ashi further said: Come and hear:

With regard to a woman who gives birth to a female, it is stated: “And sixty days

and six days.”

One might have thought that she counts the six days

both consecutively and intermittently,

since here it does not say “day” but “days,” which implies that they may even be intermittent. For example, she counted sixty-three days of purity, and three days remained, and she miscarried. One might have thought that the days of impurity of the second would interrupt the count, and that she would complete the remaining three days after the days of impurity of the second [and afterward begin the days of purity of the second], with the result that the six days would be intermittent.

The verse therefore states: “Sixty

and six

”—

—

just as all sixty are consecutive,

as we expounded above,

so too all six are consecutive,

and she does not complete them afterward.

This

is whose opinion? If you say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, do the Rabbis hold that the days are intermittent?

Here, certainly, the days of purity of the second offspring continue after the completion of the days of purity of the first, and in such a manner

this is the opinion of the Rabbis: it is counted for the second offspring,

and it is not applicable to speak of intermittent days with regard to the count of the first.

Rather, is it not the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? And learn from this: He holds of the stringency, but not of the leniency,

as with regard to the days of purity Rabbi Yehuda agrees that the second is primary, and there is no completion of the days of purity of the first.

Learn from this!

Mishna:

And now the tanna explains who the five people are who bring an adjustable offering, according to their means.

These bring an adjustable offering:

For hearing a voice.

That is, an oath concerning testimony [and it uses the wording of the verse: “And he hears the voice of the curse”].

And for an utterance of the lips—

an oath of utterance!

And for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings,

where he entered the Temple or ate sacred offerings while impure in body.

And a woman after childbirth.

And a leper.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: There is one who brings

his offerings

in poverty or in wealth. And there is one who brings in poverty, and there is one who brings in extreme poverty.

And we explain:

A woman after childbirth—

she brings in poverty or in wealth.

A wealthy woman after childbirth brings a lamb as an olah and one bird as a hattat, while a poor woman brings two birds, one as a hattat and one as an olah. This is the meaning of “in poverty or in wealth”: even when she is wealthy and brings the offering of a wealthy person, namely an animal, she also brings with it a bird, which is the offering of a poor person [Hak Natan]. [Another explanation: Even when she is poor and brings two birds, the hattat among them is considered an “offering of a wealthy person,” since even a wealthy woman brings a bird as a hattat [Rashash].

A leper brings in poverty,

when he is poor, he brings two birds, one as a hattat and one as an olah, instead of the ewe as a hattat and the ram as an olah brought by a wealthy person .

For

hearing a voice, an utterance of the lips, and impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings, they bring in poverty

two birds, one as a hattat and one as an olah, instead of the one ewe as a hattat brought by a wealthy person.

And in extreme poverty,

the poorest person brings a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a hattat.

It was taught in another beraita: There is one who brings one in place of one; there is one who brings two in place of two. There is one who brings two in place of one. There is one who brings one in place of two. From here you learn that the tenth of an ephah must be worth a peruta,

that it must be worth at least a peruta.

And we explain:

A woman after childbirth brings one in place of one.

That is,

one bird

fledgling

as an olah

when she is poor,

in place of a lamb

brought by a wealthy woman as an olah.

A leper,

when poor, brings

two fledglings

as a hattat and an olah,

in place of two lambs

as a hattat and an olah in the case of a wealthy person.

For

hearing a voice, an utterance of the lips, and impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings, they bring two fledglings

as a hattat and an olah,

in place of one ewe

as a hattat in the case of a wealthy person; this is two in place of one.

And in extreme poverty they bring a tenth of an ephah, in place of two fledglings

of the offering of poverty; this is one in place of two.

It teaches

in the beraita:

“From here you learn that the tenth of an ephah is worth a peruta.”

And we explain:

From where do we know this?

As the Sages taught: One who says, ‘It is incumbent upon me

to bring an offering

worth a sela for the altar’—

brings a lamb!

Because

there is nothing that is offered for a sela except a lamb.

For the law is that a lamb must be worth at least a sela.

And we explain:

From what

do we know that the lamb is worth a sela?

From the fact that the Merciful One said

with regard to an asham of misuse of consecrated property:

“A ram as a guilt-offering, with shekels of silver.”

That is, two sela. And a ram is two years old,

by inference, a lamb

which is

one year old—

is worth a sela!

And from where do we know that a ram is two years old?

As it is written

throughout the Torah:

“A lamb in its year,”

from this it follows that

a ram is two years old

.

And we learned:

[above, 8a]

“The pairs of birds stood that day at a quarter,”

that is, each pair [containing two birds] cost a quarter of a dinar.

And now we explain from where we know that a tenth of an ephah is worth a peruta:

And since the Merciful One had compassion on the offering of poverty, making it one-sixteenth of the offering of wealth.

For the poor person brings [for hearing a voice] a pair of birds worth a quarter of a dinar in place of the lamb of a wealthy person, which is worth a sela; consequently, the value of the pair is one-sixteenth of the value of the lamb [since a sela is four dinars, and a quarter of a dinar is one-sixteenth of four dinars]. Likewise,

the Merciful One had compassion on the offering of extreme poverty,

who brings a tenth of an ephah of flour,

making it one-sixteenth of the offering of poverty

in relation to the price of the pair. From this we know that the tenth of an ephah is worth a peruta, as will be explained below.

And we ask:

If so,

since you say that the offering of

“poverty” is how much—

a quarter

of a dinar—

and how many perutot

are there

in a quarter

of a dinar?—

Forty-eight perutot

[see Rashi’s calculation]. And now,

one-sixteenth of “poverty” is how much—

three perutot [48 ÷ 16 = 3]!

And it teaches: “From here you learn that the tenth of an ephah—

is worth a peruta.”

And now there is a difficulty:

Why a peruta? Did you not say that the tenth of an ephah is an offering of “extreme poverty,” and did you not say

that extreme poverty is

one-sixteenth of poverty, which we calculate,

so if so, the tenth of an ephah

is worth three perutot

and not a peruta?

And we answer:

The tanna

learned the ratio between poverty and wealth

from the woman after childbirth.

For she brings

in poverty only

one fledgling,

which is half a pair and is worth one-eighth of a dinar. And she brings it

in place of the

the

lamb

brought by a wealthy woman, which is worth a sela,

so that

the fledgling is

one thirty-second of the lamb [32:1],

which is twenty-four perutot. [For a quarter of a dinar contains forty-eight perutot, and therefore an eighth of a dinar, which is half a quarter of a dinar, contains twenty-four perutot.] Now, since we know that the offering of poverty of a woman after childbirth is worth twenty-four perutot, we must derive the ratio between the tenth of an ephah and the fledgling of the woman after childbirth from the offering of extreme poverty in the case of an oath of utterance.

Although we derive the ratio between poverty and wealth from the woman after childbirth, namely one to thirty-two, nevertheless, we cannot derive the ratio between extreme poverty and poverty from the woman after childbirth, since there is no offering of extreme poverty in the offering of a woman after childbirth. Therefore, we must derive the ratio between extreme poverty and poverty from an oath of utterance, which is a case where there is an offering of extreme poverty.

And up to this point,

if so,

extreme poverty,

in relation to poverty,

is how much—

only

one-sixteenth of poverty,

and not one-thirty-second! For

from where does he derive

the ratio between poverty and extreme poverty? From an oath of utterance. And there the ratio between poverty and wealth is one-sixteenth, since it is derived

from a lamb and a ram!

For the ram used for an asham, which is two years old, has a value fixed by the Torah at two sela, while the lamb, which is one year old, is worth one sela. And in the case of an oath of utterance, the poor person brings two fledglings worth a quarter of a dinar in place of the lamb of the wealthy person, which is worth four dinars; the ratio is one-sixteenth. And only there is there also an offering of extreme poverty, so we derive that the ratio between extreme poverty and poverty is the same as the ratio between poverty and wealth, namely one-sixteenth.

And after we know that the ratio between extreme poverty and poverty is one-sixteenth, we return to deriving from the woman after childbirth the value of the offering of poverty. Since the offering of poverty of a woman after childbirth is worth one-eighth of a dinar [which is one thirty-second of the price of the lamb, which is a sela], namely twenty-four perutot, and extreme poverty is one-sixteenth of that amount, we must divide the twenty-four perutot by sixteen to obtain the price of the tenth of an ephah of flour, which is the offering brought in extreme poverty. [24 ÷ 16 = 1.5] And we still ask:

Up to this point,

if so,

it is worth one and a half perutot,

the offering of extreme poverty, and not one peruta?

And we answer:

Rava said: The entire matter is derived from the woman after childbirth,

even with regard to the ratio between extreme poverty and poverty, although in the offering of a woman after childbirth there is no offering of extreme poverty.

And this is what it is saying: Since the Merciful One had compassion on the offering of poverty, making it one thirty-second of the offering of wealth—and what is it?

The offering of poverty of a

woman after childbirth. This

likewise

the Merciful One had compassion on the offering of extreme poverty

where there is an offering of extreme poverty—and what is it? The tenth of an ephah—

making it one thirty-second of the offering of poverty.

That is, one thirty-second of the twenty-four perutot, which are the price of the bird brought by a woman after childbirth in poverty [24 ÷ 32 = 0.75]. And we ask:

If so, it is lacking

a quarter

of a peruta,

that is, it is worth three-quarters of a peruta?

And we answer:

Yes, indeed! But it is not proper conduct to bring less than a peruta to the designated place,

and therefore it was established that the value of the tenth of an ephah is at least one peruta.

Mishna:

What is the difference between a maidservant

designated for a slave

and all forbidden sexual relations?

For the designated maidservant is not equal

the maidservant

to them,

to the other forbidden relations,

either with regard to punishment or with regard to an offering.

And as it explains:

With regard to all forbidden sexual relations—

the offering is a hattat, and

in contrast,

the maidservant—

the offering is an asham.

With regard to all forbidden sexual relations,

their

offering is a female,

since an individual’s hattat is always female.

But

in contrast,

the maidservant,

her offering is

a male,

since an asham is always male.

With regard to all forbidden sexual relations, both the man and the woman

who transgressed the prohibition

are equal with regard to lashes,

for if both acted intentionally, both receive lashes [in those forbidden relations for which lashes are incurred].

And

both are obligated

to bring an offering

if they acted unintentionally.

But

in contrast,

with regard to the maidservant, Scripture did not make equal

the

man

to the

woman with regard to lashes,

for the man does not receive lashes; only the woman receives lashes when the act was intentional.

Nor did it make equal

the

woman to the man with regard to an offering,

for the woman does not bring an offering even when she acted unintentionally, whereas the man brings an offering whether he acted unintentionally or intentionally.

With regard to all forbidden sexual relations, one who merely begins intercourse is treated,

even though he did not complete intercourse, nevertheless his status is

like one who completes

intercourse. But with regard to a designated maidservant, he is liable only for completing intercourse.

And he is liable

for an offering in the case of forbidden sexual relations

for each and every act of intercourse,

whereas with regard to a maidservant he brings one offering for multiple acts of intercourse [as above, 9a, in the Mishna].