Keritot 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

—

of

And we explain: It was necessary to teach us that an enslaved woman is included, since

you might have thought: When we say

that

with regard to every mitzva in which a woman is obligated, an enslaved person

also

is obligated, that applies

specifically

to a matter that applies equally to men and women,

which applies to both of them.

However,

the laws of

a woman who has given birth, which apply to women

but

do not apply to men, you might say that an enslaved woman is not obligated. Therefore,

accordingly,

the tanna

taught in the Mishna: “

and likewise with regard to an enslaved woman.” 132 .

We learned in the Mishna:

“These women bring a sacrifice,

and it is not eaten … Rabbi Yosei said: When does this apply? … But if both women were standing, both bring a sacrifice and it is eaten.”

And we explain:

What should they do,

how should they proceed?

Both bring

each of them brings

one sacrifice,

a burnt-offering,

definitely,

and each stipulates a condition concerning her sacrifice: If she is not obligated to bring it, it shall be a voluntary burnt-offering [and it is called “definite” because it is certainly hers and not her fellow’s].

And with regard to the bird sin-offering,

they bring one bird together as a

doubtful offering,

which they purchase as partners,

and each stipulates

that if I am obligated, you relinquish your share to me, and it shall all belong to me and be sacrificed on my behalf. Therefore, it is eaten, since in either event it is a valid sin-offering. [בעולה גם היה אפשר להביא רק כבש אחד במשותף ולהתנות שיעלה לחובת החייבת בו אלא מכיון שאפשר להתנות בנדבה עדיף שכל אחת תביא בנפרד. אבל חטאת שאינה באה בנדבה עדיף שיביאו רק קרבן אחד, ויתנו עליו

And we challenge this:

And we raise an objection:

Does Rabbi Yosei hold

that when there is a doubt as to which of two people is obligated to bring a sin-offering, they bring one sacrifice jointly, with a

stipulation

that it be sacrificed on behalf of the one who is obligated?

But didn’t we learn in the Mishna: Rabbi Shimon says:

If there were two pieces, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, and one person came and ate one of the pieces, and a second person came and ate the other,

both bring one sin-offering,

and they stipulate concerning it that it be counted toward the obligation of the one who requires atonement.

Rabbi Yosei says: They do not both bring one sin-offering,

rather, each one brings an asham talui.

Evidently, according to Rabbi Yosei—

there is no such stipulation!

And here too, each woman should bring a separate sin-offering because of the doubt!?

And we answer:

Rava said: Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to

sacrifices of

one who lacks atonement,

who do not bring the sacrifice in order to atone for their sin, but in order to render themselves fit to eat sacrificial food, such as the offering of a woman who has given birth. Such offerings may indeed be brought jointly, with a stipulation that the sacrifice be counted for the one who is obligated to bring it.

And likewise, when Ravin came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to one who lacks atonement.

What is the reason?

Because only

there,

in the case of a sin-offering that comes for a transgression, such as eating forbidden fat,

the person requires knowledge,

that he know that he sinned,

as it is written: “Or his sin becomes known to him,”

and only then does he bring a sin-offering,

therefore, two people do not bring

one sin-offering jointly

with a stipulation,

since neither of them knows that he sinned.

But here, when

these two

women

who miscarried

bring a sacrifice,

they are not bringing it because they sinned, but rather in order

to be permitted to eat sacrificial food.

Therefore, they do not need to know that they are indeed obligated; rather, they may bring it because of the doubt and with a stipulation.

There is proof that Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to those who lack atonement:

as the latter clause of that

Mishna teaches:

“Rabbi Yosei says: Any sin-offering that comes for a sin”—

two people do not bring it!”

Evidently, Rabbi Yosei disagreed specifically with regard to a sin-offering that comes for a sin.

We learned in the Mishna:

“These are the women who do not bring [a sacrifice], etc. Rabbi Shimon obligates one who delivered by caesarean section.”

And we explain:

What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s ruling?

Reish Lakish said: The verse states: “And if she gives birth to a female,”

and since it does not state, “And if it is a female,” we derive from the word “gives birth”

to include another form of birth,

in which the laws of a woman who has given birth likewise apply.

What is it? One delivered by caesarean section.

And the Rabbis,

who exempt one who delivered by caesarean section—

what is their reason?

Rabbi Mani bar Patis said:

as it is written,

“When a woman conceives and gives birth,”

which indicates

that she must give birth from the place where she conceives!

The Torah states that a woman who gives birth to [or miscarries] a female is impure for two weeks, after which she immerses and becomes pure for her husband. Then her sixty-six days of purity begin, during which she remains pure even if she sees blood.

In the case of a woman who gives birth to a male, she is impure for one week, and the days of purity are thirty-three days.

During the days of purity, she is still prohibited from eating teruma or sacrificial food and from entering the Temple, until the days of purity are completed. On the following day—that is, on the forty-first day for a male and the eighty-first day for a female—she brings her sacrifice and becomes permitted to eat sacrificial food and enter the Temple.

And if she conceived again during her days of purity and miscarried, then if the second birth [of the miscarried fetus] occurred during the days of purity of the first birth, before the time had arrived to bring the sacrifice for that birth, she need not bring two sacrifices. Rather, she brings only one sacrifice for both births, as though they were one birth in which she delivered twins.

But if the second birth occurred after the days of purity of the first birth had been completed and the time to bring the sacrifice had arrived, then although she had not yet brought the sacrifice for that birth, she is obligated to bring two sacrifices, a separate sacrifice for each birth.

Mishna:

A woman who miscarries on the night before

the day of

eighty-one

according to the count that she makes following a [previous] birth of a female [in the case of a male birth, the ruling of the Mishna could not state that she miscarried on the night before the forty-first day after the birth of a male, because in that case the miscarried fetus is less than forty days old [since she is prohibited to her husband during the first seven days], and one is not obligated to bring a sacrifice for it. Commentary of Maimonides on the Mishna].

Beit Shammai exempt her from the sacrifice

for the birth of the miscarried fetus as a separate offering. Although the day on which the sacrifices for the first birth are brought has already arrived, nevertheless, since it is impossible to sacrifice at night, it is as though the time for the sacrifice has not yet arrived. Therefore, she brings only one sacrifice for both births.

And Beit Hillel obligate her

to bring a separate sacrifice for the second birth, since the day on which she brings the sacrifice for the first birth has already arrived, despite the fact that in practice she cannot sacrifice them, because night is not a suitable time for sacrificial rites.

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: What is the difference between the night before the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day itself!?

For you agree that if she miscarried on the eighty-first day, she is obligated to bring two sacrifices. And the law of the night is like the law of the following day,

if it is equivalent to it

the night is equivalent to the day

with regard to

the matter of

impurity,

for if she sees blood on the night before the eighty-first day, she is impure as though she saw it on the following day, since the days of purity end at sunset on the eightieth day; if so, why

should it not likewise be equivalent to it with regard to

the matter of

the sacrifice?!

Beit Shammai said to them: No!

The night is not equivalent to the following day with regard to the sacrifice. For

if you say this with regard to one who miscarries on the eighty-first day,

that she is obligated to bring a separate sacrifice for the birth of the miscarried fetus,

that is because she has already emerged

from the status of the first birth and miscarried

at a time when she is fit to bring a sacrifice

for the first birth.

Can you say this with regard to one who miscarries on the night before the eighty-first day,

since

she did not emerge from the status of the first birth at a time when she was fit to bring a sacrifice,

for sacrifices are not offered at night; it is therefore as though she miscarried within the eighty days, so that everything is considered one birth, and she brings only one sacrifice.

Beit Hillel said to them: But what of a woman who miscarries

on

the eighty-first day when it occurs on Shabbat—

let it prove that although she did not emerge from the status of the first birth at a time when she was fit to bring a sacrifice,

nevertheless

she is obligated to bring a sacrifice

in addition to the one for the birth of the miscarried fetus.

Beit Shammai said to them: No!

This is not a proof.

If you say this with regard to the eighty-first day when it occurs on Shabbat,

that she is obligated to bring a sacrifice for the miscarried fetus, it is because

although it is not fit to

sacrifice

an individual offering

nevertheless

it is fit to

sacrifice

a communal offering

of the day’s obligatory offerings. It follows that this is a time fit for bringing a sacrifice.

Can you say this with regard to one who miscarries on the night before the eighty-first day, when night is fit neither for an individual offering nor for a communal offering?

Therefore, she cannot be obligated to bring a sacrifice for the miscarried fetus.

And Beit Shammai continue:

And the blood

that the woman sees on the night before the eighty-first day, rendering her impure,

does not prove

anything with regard to the sacrifice, as you sought to prove, for these matters are not interdependent.

For

indeed

a woman who miscarries before the completion of the period,

within the eighty days,

her blood is impure

because of the birth,

and she is exempt from the sacrifice.

The same applies to one who miscarries on the night before the eighty-first day: Although her blood is impure, she is exempt from the sacrifice.