Keritot 10b — the Talmud in English

Whose is this?

beraita?

If you say it is the Rabbis, do the Rabbis hold that they are dispersed? Here, the Rabbis —

it is counted for the second child,

and you do not find them dispersed!?

And here this will not help even if we say that the case concerns twins, for it is stated that the first was male. And if so, even if the second was also male, it is impossible that his days of purity should end before the first one's. And in such a case it is obvious that according to the Rabbis we follow the second, and it is not applicable to say that the first one's days of purity were dispersed.

Rather, is it not Rabbi Judah? And learn from it: he has the stringency, but he does not have the leniency!

For the days of purity of the first are not completed where they were interrupted in the middle by the impurity of the second.

And furthermore Rav Ashi said: ta shma:

with regard to a woman who gives birth to a female it is stated, “and sixty days

and six days.” It might have been thought

that she counts the six days

both consecutively and dispersed,

for here it is not written “day” but “days,” which implies even dispersed. That is, for example, she counted sixty-three days of purity, and three more days remained, and she miscarried. And it might have been thought that the days of impurity of the second would interrupt the count, and she would complete the three remaining days after the days of impurity of the second [and afterward begin the days of purity for the second], and it would follow that the six days were dispersed.

The verse says, “sixty

and six

”—

” —

just as the sixty are all consecutive,

as we expounded above,

so too the six are all consecutive,

and she does not complete them afterward.

This

whose is it? If you say it is the Rabbis, do the Rabbis hold that they are dispersed?

And here certainly the days of purity of the second child extend after the completion of the days of purity of the first, and in such a manner

here the Rabbis count it for the second child,

and dispersed is not applicable with regard to the count of the first.

Rather, is it not Rabbi Judah, and learn from it: he has the stringency, but he does not have the leniency

for with regard to days of purity Rabbi Judah concedes that the second is primary, and there is no completion of the days of purity of the first.

Learn from it!

Mishna:

And now the tanna explains who the five are who bring a sliding-scale offering, according to his means.

These bring a sliding-scale offering:

For hearing a voice.

That is, the oath of testimony [and it uses the wording of the verse, “and he hears the voice of the curse

]”]. And for an utterance of the lips —

the oath of utterance!

And for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things,

when one entered the Sanctuary or ate sacred things while impure in body.

And the woman who gives birth.

And the leper.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: There is one who brings

his offerings

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

And we explain:

the woman who gives birth —

she brings in poverty and wealth.

A wealthy woman who gives birth brings a lamb for an elevation-offering and one bird for a sin-offering, while a poor woman brings two birds, one for a sin-offering and one for an elevation-offering. And this is “in poverty and wealth”: even when she is wealthy and brings the offering of wealth, namely an animal, she brings with it also a bird, which is the offering of poverty [Hak Natan]. [Another explanation: even when she is poor and brings two birds, the sin-offering among them is considered an “offering of a wealthy person,” since even a wealthy woman brings a bird for a sin-offering [Rashash]].

A leper brings in poverty,

when he is poor he brings two birds, one for a sin-offering and one for an elevation-offering, in place of the ewe for a sin-offering and the lamb for an elevation-offering that the wealthy person brings.

For

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

two birds, one for a sin-offering and one for an elevation-offering, in place of one ewe for a sin-offering, which the wealthy person brings.

And in extreme poverty,

the poorest person brings a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a sin-offering.

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 with regard to the tenth of an ephah that it is [worth] a pruta,

that it must be worth at least a pruta.

And we explain:

a woman who gives birth brings one in place of one.

That is,

one bird [a fledgling]

[a fledgling]

of a bird

for an elevation-offering in poverty,

in place of a lamb

that the wealthy woman brings for an elevation-offering.

A leper

who is poor brings

two birds

for a sin-offering and an elevation-offering,

in place of two lambs

for a sin-offering and an elevation-offering in the case of a wealthy person.

For

hearing a voice, an utterance of the lips, and impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, they bring two birds

for a sin-offering and an elevation-offering,

in place of one ewe

for a sin-offering 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 birds

of poverty; this is one in place of two.

It teaches

in the beraita:

From here you learn with regard to the tenth of an ephah that it is worth a pruta.

And we explain:

From where do we know this?

For the Sages taught: One who says, “It is incumbent upon me

to bring an offering

worth a sela for the altar —

he brings a lamb!

Because

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

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

And we explain:

From what

do we know that the lamb is [worth] a sela?

From what the Merciful One said

with regard to the guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated property,

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

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

from this it follows that a lamb

which is

one year old —

is [worth] a sela!

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

From what 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]

[above, 8a]

the pairs of birds stood on that day at a quarter-[dinar],

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

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

And from the fact that the Merciful One had compassion upon poverty, making it one-sixteenth of wealth.

For the poor person brings [for hearing a voice] a pair worth a quarter of a dinar in place of the wealthy person's lamb, which is worth a sela, and it follows that the value of the pair is one-sixteenth of the value of the lamb [for a sela is four dinars, and a quarter-dinar is one-sixteenth of four dinars]. And likewise

the Merciful One had compassion upon extreme poverty,

for he brings a tenth of an ephah of flour,

to make it one-sixteenth of poverty

of the price of the pair. And from this we know that the tenth of an ephah is worth a pruta, as it will explain below.

And we object:

if so,

for you said that the offering of

“poverty”—how much is it —

a quarter

of a dinar.

And how many prutot

are there

in a quarter

of a dinar? —

forty-eight prutot [see Rashi's calculation]. And now

[see Rashi’s calculation]. And now,

one-sixteenth of “poverty”—how much is it —

three prutot [48 divided by 16 = 3]!

And it teaches: “From here you learn with regard to the tenth of an ephah —

‘for a pruta.’”

And now it is difficult:

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

that extreme poverty is

counted as one-sixteenth of poverty,

if so, the tenth of an ephah

is three prutot

and not one pruta?

And we answer:

the tanna

[derived] the ratio between poverty and wealth

from the woman who gives birth.

For she brings

the woman who gives birth in poverty only

one bird

which is half a pair, whose price is one-eighth of a dinar. And she brings it

in place of

the

lamb

that the wealthy woman brings, whose price is a sela,

so that

the bird

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

and this is twenty-four prutot. [For in a quarter-dinar there are forty-eight prutot, and it follows that in an eighth of a dinar, which is half a quarter-dinar, there are twenty-four prutot.] And now that we know that the offering of poverty of a woman who gives birth is priced at twenty-four prutot, we must learn the ratio between the tenth of an ephah and the bird of the woman who gives birth from the extreme poverty of the oath of utterance.

For although we learn the ratio between poverty and wealth from the woman who gives birth, which is one to thirty-two, nevertheless we cannot learn the ratio between extreme poverty and poverty from the woman who gives birth, since in the offering of a woman who gives birth there is no offering of extreme poverty. Therefore we must learn the ratio between extreme poverty and poverty from the oath of utterance, which is a case in which there is extreme poverty.

And until now,

if so,

extreme poverty

in relation to poverty

how much is it —

only

one-sixteenth of poverty,

and not one thirty-second! For

from where does he learn

the ratio between poverty and extreme poverty? From the oath of utterance. And there the ratio between poverty and wealth is one-sixteenth, for this is learned

from a lamb and a ram!

For the ram for a guilt-offering, which is two years old, has a price fixed in the Torah of two sela, while the lamb, which is one year old, has a price of one sela. And for the oath of utterance, in poverty one brings two birds whose price is a quarter-dinar, in place of the lamb of wealth whose price is four dinars, and the ratio is one-sixteenth. And only there is there also an offering of extreme poverty; therefore we learn that the ratio between extreme poverty and poverty is like the ratio between poverty and wealth, which is one-sixteenth.

And after we know that the ratio between extreme poverty and poverty is one-sixteenth, we return to learn from the woman who gives birth the value of the offering in poverty. Since the offering of poverty of the woman who gives birth is an eighth of a dinar [which is one thirty-second of the price of the lamb, which is a sela], namely twenty-four prutot, and extreme poverty is one-sixteenth of it, we must divide the twenty-four prutot by sixteen to obtain the price of the tenth of an ephah of flour, which is the offering brought in extreme poverty. [24 divided by 16 = 1.5] And we still object:

until now,

if so,

it is one and a half prutot

for extreme poverty, and not one pruta?

And we answer:

Rava said: He learns the entire matter from the woman who gives birth,

also with regard to the ratio between extreme poverty and poverty, even though in the case of the woman who gives birth there is no offering of extreme poverty.

And this is what he says: From the fact that the Merciful One had compassion upon poverty, making it one thirty-second of wealth—and what is it?

the offering of poverty of

the woman who gives birth. So too

also

the Merciful One had compassion upon extreme poverty

in a place where there is extreme poverty, and what is it? The tenth of an ephah,

to make it one thirty-second of poverty.

That is, one thirty-second of the twenty-four prutot, which are the price of the bird that the woman who gives birth brings in poverty [24 divided by 32 = 0.75]. And we object:

if so, less

lacking

it is a quarter of a pruta,

that is, three-quarters of a pruta?

And we answer:

Indeed, so it is! But it is not proper conduct to bring less than a pruta to a place,

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

Mishna:

What is the difference between a

designated maidservant

and all forbidden sexual relations?

The maidservant did not become equal

the maidservant

to them

to the forbidden sexual relations

neither in punishment nor in offering.

And as it explains:

For all forbidden sexual relations —

[one brings] a sin-offering, and

whereas

the maidservant —

[one brings] a guilt-offering.

All forbidden sexual relations

their offering

is female,

for an individual's sin-offering is always female.

And

whereas

the maidservant

her offering

is male,

for a guilt-offering is always male.

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

who transgressed the offense,

are equal with regard to lashes,

for if they acted intentionally, both receive lashes [in those forbidden sexual relations for which there is an obligation of lashes],

and

both are obligated

in an offering

if they acted unintentionally.

But

whereas

with regard to the maidservant, he did not make equal

the verse

not

with

the man to the woman with regard to lashes,

for the man does not receive lashes; only the woman receives lashes when acting intentionally.

And he did not make equal

the

the woman to the man with regard to an offering,

for the woman does not bring an offering even when acting unintentionally, while the man brings an offering whether acting unintentionally or intentionally.

With regard to all forbidden sexual relations, he made one who begins intercourse

even though he did not complete his intercourse, nevertheless his law

like one who completes

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

And he is liable

for an offering in forbidden sexual relations

for each and every act of intercourse,

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