Keritot 8a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

It was taught in a beraita: The School of Hillel said to the School of Shammai: Behold, it says:

“And when the days of her purification are completed, for a son or

for a daughter”

and we expound from the redundancy of “or”

to include

a woman who miscarries

on the eve

of

the eighty-first

that she is obligated to bring an additional offering of a woman who gives birth, and she does not achieve atonement with the offering for the first birth.

A person who saw one sighting [on one occasion] of flux—his status is like that of one who experienced a seminal emission, who is impure for only one day. He immerses on that day [and is immediately pure with regard to non-sacred food], and in the evening he eats sacrificial food.

And if he saw two sightings, he is a zav, and he must count seven clean days free of flux; on the seventh day he immerses in living water, [and is pure with regard to non-sacred food], and in the evening he is permitted to eat sacrificial food, and he is not obligated to bring an offering.

And if he saw three sightings, then in addition to immersion on the seventh day, he is obligated to bring an offering on the following day, on the eighth day, in order to render him fit to eat sacrificial food and enter the Temple.

And if, within the count of the seven clean days, he saw an additional flux of three sightings, he does not need to bring two offerings after the count of the seven days for his purification; rather, one offering alone suffices for him, since everything is considered for him one flux.

And if the second flux began from the eighth day onward, after he had already become obligated in an offering for the first flux, then even if he did not manage to bring the offerings for the first flux, he is obligated to bring an additional offering for the second sighting.

Rabbi Hoshaya was regularly before bar Kappara

in order to learn Torah from him.

Rabbi Hoshaya left

bar Kappara

and came before Rabbi Hiyya

because he was greater than bar Kappara [Rabbeinu Gershom].

One day

Rabbi Hoshaya

encountered bar Kappara.

Rabbi Hoshaya asked

Rabbi Hoshaya asked bar Kappara:

A zav who saw three sightings on the night of the eighth,

that is, on the night following the counting of seven clean days—

what does the School of Hillel say concerning this matter? Is he obligated in a separate offering for the second flux, as though he saw on the following day, on the eighth day, or perhaps he brings one offering for the two fluxes, since at night, the eve of the eighth day, it is still impossible to sacrifice, and this is as though he is still within the seven days, during which, if he sees, he does not become obligated in an additional offering, but counts seven clean days again and on the eighth day following them brings one offering for the two fluxes.

Is he obligated to bring a separate offering for the second discharge, as though he had experienced it on the following day, the eighth day? Or perhaps he brings one offering for both discharges, since during the night—the eve of the eighth day—it is still impossible to sacrifice the offering, and it is therefore as though he is still within the seven days; if he experiences an emission during those days, he does not become obligated to bring an additional offering, but counts seven clean days anew and brings one offering on the eighth day after them for both discharges?

And the sides of the doubt are: whether

the reason of the School of Hillel

that they obligate two offerings

in the case of a woman who miscarries at night,

on the eve of the eighty-first day, is

because it is written the special inclusion “or

a special inclusion, “or,”

for a daughter,”

from which we include the eve of the eighty-first day.

But, in the case of a zav who saw three sightings on the night of the eighth, they exempt

the School of Hillel from a second offering, since

there are no redundant

in the case of a zav

verses

to obligate him in two offerings.

Or perhaps it is not different! He is also obligated in two offerings in the case of a zav. For the fundamental reason of the School of Hillel that a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day is obligated in two offerings is that “night is not lacking time.”

He, too, is obligated to bring two offerings. The fundamental reason of the School of Hillel for obligating a woman who gives birth on the eve of the eighty-first day to bring two offerings is that “night does not constitute a lack of time.”

That is, since the prevention of sacrificing the offerings of a woman who gives birth at night, on the eve of the eighty-first day, is only because sacrificial service is invalid at night, and not because the time of the offering has not yet arrived, the matter is considered as though the time of the first offering has already arrived, and it can no longer also come for the second matter. And this law applies both to a woman who gives birth and to a zav, on the eve of the day on which they become obligated in an offering.

bar Kappara said to him

to Rabbi Hoshaya:

What does Ayya [a derogatory designation for Rabbi Hiyya. See Arukh LaNer, who says that he did not intend to denigrate him, but that Rabbi Hiyya could not pronounce the letter het [as explained in Megilla 24b], and when Rabbi Hiyya mentioned his own name he called himself “Ayya”; therefore his colleagues also called him so]

a derogatory appellation for Rabbi Hiyya. See Arukh la-Ner, who explains that bar Kappara did not intend to denigrate him, but that Rabbi Hiyya could not pronounce the letter het [as explained in Megilla 24b]. When Rabbi Hiyya referred to himself, he called himself “Ayya,” and therefore his colleagues also called him by that name]

say concerning this matter?

Rabbi Hoshaya said nothing to him! Since he was distressed that bar Kappara called his teacher by a derogatory expression [Rabbeinu Gershom].

Because he was distressed that bar Kappara was addressing his teacher in a derogatory manner [Rabbenu Gershom].

Rabbi Hoshaya returned,

and

asked

bar Kappara

another matter.

bar Kappara said to him: What does the Babylonian [another designation by which bar Kappara called Rabbi Hiyya, who had come up from Babylonia. Arukh LaNer writes that he intended to say that Torah is found in Babylonia more than in the Land of Israel, and one must hear what Rabbi Hiyya, who came up from Babylonia, says]

another appellation by which bar Kappara referred to Rabbi Hiyya, who had come from Babylonia. Arukh la-Ner writes that he intended to say that Torah was more readily found in Babylonia than in the Land of Israel, and that one should hear what Rabbi Hiyya, who had come from Babylonia, said]

say concerning this matter?

Rabbi Hoshaya was silent; he said nothing!

Rabbi Hoshaya said to him:

to him:

bar Kappara! We need

we

Ayya’s words, despite your denigrating him.

even though you disparage him.

Because he knows how to answer, whereas you do not [Rabbeinu Gershom].

And the Gemara says:

Let us return to the earlier matters [like “the master said”]. Above we learned in the beraita: The School of Hillel says:

as in the phrase “the Master said”] that we learned above in the beraita: The School of Hillel says:

Behold, it says, “or for a daughter”—

to include the eve of the eighty-first day! And Rabbi Hoshaya asks what is the law of the zav who saw three sightings on the night of the eighth according to the School of Hillel.

And Rabbi Hoshaya asked what the law is, according to the School of Hillel, with regard to a zav who experienced three emissions on the night of the eighth day.

And we say:

Let us say that it is subject to a dispute between tannaim: A zav who saw three sightings on the night of the eighth—

One [beraita] teaches: He brings

an offering for the second flux.

And another [beraita] teaches: He does not bring.

What, is it not a dispute between tannaim? For the one that teaches “he brings” holds:

that the reason of the School of Hillel is because

night is not lacking time,

and it is as though he saw the second flux after the time of the offering for the first flux had already arrived.

And the one that teaches: “He does not bring,” holds

that the School of Hillel hold that

night is “lacking time”

and it is as though the time of the offering for the first flux had still not arrived at the time of the second flux, [and in the case of a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, the law is different according to the School of Hillel because of the inclusion “or for a daughter”].

And we reject this:

Rav Aha bar Huna said in the name of Rabbi Elazar:

Actually,

these tannaim both hold

both

that night is “lacking time”, and they do not disagree with one another; rather, the two beraitot speak of two different circumstances:

and they do not disagree with one another. Rather, the two beraitot are speaking about two different cases:

And this one

that teaches “he brings”

speaks

of a zav

who in his first flux was

one with two sightings

only, who is not obligated in an offering; therefore he brings an offering only for the second flux, which consisted of three sightings that obligate an offering. [And below it asks: this is obvious, so what does it teach us?]

And that which teaches “he does not bring”

speaks

of a zav

who also in his first flux was a zav

with three sightings,

and he was obligated in an offering for that flux; therefore he does not bring an offering for the second flux of the night of the eighth, since night is “lacking time,” and the two fluxes are considered for him one extended flux.

And we are astonished concerning that which we established the beraita that says he brings an offering as referring to one who saw only two sightings in his first flux:

A zav with two sightings—

what is there to say!?

For is it not obvious that he is obligated in an offering for the second flux, since for the first he is exempt!?

And we answer:

This teaches us: specifically when he saw on the night of the eighth

is he obligated in an offering.

But

if he saw

during the daytime of the seventh, he does not

bring an offering even for the second flux, since the flux began within the seven clean days of the first flux, which the zav with two sightings counts.

He holds: Every sighting that invalidates

the counting of the seven clean days of a previous flux

does not bring about an offering !

Rava said: Why [like: “by what”]

meaning, “on what basis”]

did you establish [that is, since you established]

that is, since you established]

that which was taught “

he does not bring”—

as referring to a zav with three sightings,

if so

let him teach

this law

among

the Mishna below [9a], which teaches:

Five bring one offering for many transgressions [not specifically transgressions, but rather obligations of offerings]. For one who sees three sightings on the night of the eighth also brings only one offering for the first flux and the second flux, despite the fact that the second is a new flux, since the seven clean days of the first flux have already been completed; nevertheless, he brings only one offering for the two fluxes [because with regard to an offering, everything is considered one flux]. Thus, it should have taught: six bring one offering for many transgressions?

not specifically transgressions, but obligations to bring an offering]. For one who experiences three emissions on the night of the eighth day also brings only one offering for the first and second discharges, even though the second is a new discharge, since the seven clean days of the first discharge have already been completed. Nevertheless, he brings only one offering for both discharges [because with regard to an offering, everything is considered one discharge]. It should therefore have taught: Six bring one offering for many transgressions?

And we answer:

It is not definitive for him. The matter is not absolute concerning a sighting on the night of the eighth, for sometimes he brings an offering for a sighting on the night of the eighth; therefore he did not teach it.

the matter is not uniform with regard to an emission on the night of the eighth day, because sometimes he brings an offering for an emission on the night of the eighth day. Therefore, it was not included in the Mishna.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: If he saw

a sighting

one at night

on the eve of the eighth day,

and two

sightings

during the day

of the eighth day— \-

he brings

an offering for this flux, since the majority of the sightings [two out of three] were at a time when he was already fit to bring an offering for the first flux [Rabbeinu Gershom]. But if he saw

two at night

of the eighth

and one during the day—

he does not bring!

Rav Yosef said: Know this: if he saw one at night and two by day, he brings [a sacrifice], for the first sighting of a zav

is only like the sighting of

semen alone,

which renders [him] impure for only one day, and is not included in zavah-flow.

But if he saw two

other sight­ings,

they join with them—the first sighting and the two last ones—to make him a zav with three sight­ings. Therefore, here too, even though the first sighting was on the night of the eighth day, when he was still not fit to become obligated in a sacrifice for a new zavah-flow, nevertheless it joins with the two sight­ings of the eighth day for the obligation of a sacrifice.

и первое истечение вместе с двумя последними делают его мужчиной, имеющим три истечения, то есть мужчиной, страдающим истечением, который обязан принести жертву. Поэтому и здесь, хотя первое истечение произошло ночью восьмого дня, когда он еще не мог стать обязанным жертвой за новое заболевание истечением крови, тем не менее оно присоединяется к двум истечениям восьмого дня и приводит его к обязанности принести жертву.

And we reject this:

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: Is the matter really comparable!?

The case under discussion is not similar to the proof!

For there, with every

first sighting of a zav,

he indeed

saw it

—the zav saw it as a first sighting—

at the time of the obligation

of a sacrifice; therefore, it joins with the two sight­ings after it. But if he saw

one at night

before the eighth day,

and two by day

on the eighth day, and

since

the first sighting

he did not see at the time of the obligation,

the matter is not obvious, and

had Rabbi Yohanan not taught us that it joins, I would have said that it does not join.

And we raise a difficulty:

Did Rabbi Yohanan say, “The night is lacking time”?

For he says that if he saw two at night before the eighth day and one by day on the eighth day, he is exempt from a sacrifice.

But Hizkiyah said:

A nazirite who became impure in the middle of his nazirite days, who counts seven days and becomes pure, and on the eighth day brings the sacrifices of an impure nazirite—if he again

became impure

again

on the day

of the eighth day,

he brings

the sacrifices for the second impurity. But if he became impure

at night

before the eighth day,

he does not bring

sacrifices for this impurity, since the night is lacking time, and it is as though he became impure on the seventh day; everything is one prolonged impurity, because the time for offering the sacrifices for the first impurity had not yet arrived.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even if

he became impure

at night, he brings

two separate sacrifices, since the night is not lacking time. This is difficult in light of what Rabbi Yohanan said concerning a zav, that the night is lacking time.

And we answer:

When Rabbi Yohanan said

that

if he saw two at night and one by day he does not bring [a sacrifice],—

he said this according to the one who says that the night is lacking time,

but he himself does not hold this opinion!

And we raise a difficulty: But

according to the one who says

that the night is lacking time,

it is obvious

that he does not bring [a sacrifice] if he saw two at night; so what does Rabbi Yohanan teach us? [And granted, if he himself holds this opinion, that itself is the innovation—that the night is lacking time.]

And we answer:

If he saw one at night and two by day—

it was necessary for him

for Rabbi Yohanan to teach us that he brings a sacrifice. For

lest you say: Since he saw the first sighting not at the time of the obligation, say

that

it does not join; he teaches us

that it joins with the two sight­ings that he saw on the following day.

Mishna:

A woman upon whom there is a doubt concerning five births,

because she miscarried five times and does not know what she miscarried—whether it was something for which she is obligated in the sacrifice of a woman who has given birth or not [as explained in the Mishna above, 7b]—

and a doubt concerning five zavah-flows,

or she saw blood five times [in five cycles of eighteen days, with each cycle containing seven “days of niddah” and eleven “days of zavah”], and each time the sighting of blood continued for three consecutive days, except that she does not know whether these sight­ings occurred during her “days of zavah,” in which she becomes a “great” zavah obligated in a zavah sacrifice, or whether she saw her sight­ings during her “days of niddah,” in which she does not become a zavah but is only a niddah and is exempt from the sacrifice.

Every woman has two periods of time with regard to seeing blood.

When the seven days of niddah end, eleven “days of zavah” begin, which are called in the language of the Torah “not in the time of her niddah.” If she sees blood during them for three consecutive days, she becomes a zavah. In order to become pure from the impurity of her zavah-flow, she must count seven clean days without seeing blood, immerse, and on the eighth day bring a sacrifice.

After the eleven days of zavah, the seven days of niddah again return, followed by the eleven days of zavah. And so forever.

And a woman who is uncertain, regarding five cycles of days of zavah, whether she became a zavah in them—she

brings one sacrifice

of two birds, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering, and

eats of sacrifices.

For the woman who has given birth and the zavah are “lacking atonement,” who are forbidden to eat consecrated food and to enter the Temple before they bring their sacrifice. Since this sacrifice comes to complete the purification, its law is like that of immersion. Just as a person who became impure several times is purified from all of them by one immersion, so this sacrifice permits her and removes her from her impurity with regard to eating consecrated food, from all the zavah-flows and likewise from all the births.

And the rest is not an obligation upon her!

For the Sages did not require her to bring the remaining sacrifices for the four doubtful zavah-flows or births, since offering a bird sin-offering for a doubt involves the doubt of unconsecrated slaughter in the Temple courtyard. [Only with a burnt-offering can one stipulate that, if she is not obligated, the bird shall be offered as a voluntary offering.] They permitted her to bring only one sacrifice, and they permitted this to her with difficulty, as will be explained in the Gemara, in order to permit her to eat consecrated food.

And if there were upon her

five certain zavah-flows

or

five certain births—

she brings one sacrifice and eats of sacrifices

through it, for one sacrifice permits her with regard to all the zavah-flows and births, as stated above.

But the rest—

is an obligation upon her!

For she is obligated to bring a sacrifice for every zavah-flow and for every birth [in such a manner that every birth took place after the completion of the days of purification from the preceding birth].

An incident

occurred

that

the prices of birds increased, and

there stood in Jerusalem

two

nests,

which were four turtledoves [each nest is two turtledoves],

at

the price of two

gold dinars,

meaning, one nest for a gold dinar.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: By this Sanctuary!

[He swore by the Temple]:

I will not lie down tonight until

the price of two nests is

at

two

silver dinars

of

silver!

[A silver dinar is one twenty-fifth of a gold dinar.]

He entered the court and taught: A woman upon whom there are five certain births and five certain zavah-flows—

she brings one sacrifice and eats of sacrifices, and the rest is not an obligation upon her!

Although by Torah law she is obligated to bring the remaining sacrifices, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel was lenient because of “It is a time to act for the Lord; they have violated Your Torah,” in order to bring about a reduction in the price of the nests. For if not, the poor women would refrain from bringing even one sacrifice, and would come to fail by eating consecrated food in impurity while they were lacking atonement. And the nests stood that very day at four [for two]! The price of the nests fell until two nests were sold for two silver quarter-dinars. Gemara:

The Sages taught:

A woman upon whom there were

five definite births and five doubtful discharges, or five definite discharges and five doubtful births

[according to the version of the Bach, the Rashash, the Chofetz Chaim, and the Chazon Ish, and so too is the version in the Shita Mekubetzet to Bava Batra]—

brings two nests

[offerings] in order to be permitted to eat sacred offerings .

One nest for the definite case and one nest for the doubtful case.

brings two pairs

[of offerings] in order to be permitted to eat sacred food.

For the birth and the discharge are two matters, and one offering does not permit her from both of them to eat sacred offerings until she brings an offering for each obligation separately.

The

sin-offering

of the definite case is eaten, and the remainder,

the four offerings for the four additional births or discharges,

remains her obligation.

But the bird sin-offering

of the doubtful case is not eaten,

for perhaps it is unconsecrated and becomes an animal carcass through pinching.

And the remainder

[the offerings for the doubtful births or doubtful discharges]

does not remain her obligation.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: Regarding

the offering of the

definite case, you shall say:

I am bringing this offering

for

the impurity [birth or discharge

of the last one, and I shall be discharged

through this, so that she will be permitted to eat sacred offerings, while the remainder remains her obligation.

But regarding the offering

of the doubtful case, there is a distinction:

If there is a definite one among them,

such as when the doubt is concerning births, and among the five births there is one definite birth, then

you shall say

that she brings the offering

for the definite case,

so that the sin-offering will be definite. For, as stated above, they permitted her only with difficulty to sacrifice a bird sin-offering for a doubtful case, and also through this it becomes possible to eat the sin-offering,

and she shall be discharged

entirely from bringing the other offerings for the births. For the other births are doubtful, and regarding a doubt we say that the remainder does not remain her obligation .

And if not, when all the births are doubtful, you shall say that the offering will be for one of them,

so that the sin-offering will be definite. For, as stated above, they permitted her only with difficulty to sacrifice a bird sin-offering for a doubtful case; moreover, this enables the sin-offering to be eaten,

and she will be discharged

entirely from bringing the remaining offerings for the births. For the other births are doubtful, and regarding a doubtful case we say that the remainder does not remain an obligation upon her.

[of the obligations to bring offerings for the births],

and she shall be discharged

from the remaining obligations, which are only doubtful obligations.

Rabbi Akiva says: Whether for the definite case,

that is, she has five definite births,

whether for the doubtful case,

that she has five doubtful births,

you shall say

that the offering is

for one of them,

and she need not say regarding the offering for the definite case that it will be for the last impurity.

And she shall be discharged!

she should say

that the offering is

for one of them,

and she need not say, regarding the offering for the definite case, that it is for the impurity that occurred last.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said to Rav Pappa: I will tell you in the name of Rava: In what do these Tannaim dispute?

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri compares them the offerings of a woman with a discharge and of a woman who gave birth [and likewise all offerings of those lacking atonement] to a sin-offering that comes for all transgressions.

For

if

one who is obligated in five sin-offerings

is not atoned

until he brings all of them,

and

only when he brings all the sin-offerings to the

end does it atone for him.

For if he brought an offering only for the first sin, the other sins have still not been atoned for!

Here too, it is no different.

And here as well, if she brings the offering for the first impurity, the other impurities after it are still not permitted for her with regard to eating sacred offerings. Therefore, she must say that the offering will be for the last impurity, and through this she is permitted to eat sacred offerings .

and

only when he brings all the sin-offerings

in the end does it atone for him.

For if he brought an offering only for the first sin, the other sins have still not been atoned for!

And Rabbi Akiva compares them to immersions

[immersions].

For one who is obligated in five immersions, that is, a person who became impure five times, nevertheless, since he immersed one time, even if he says that the immersion should count for the first impurity, nevertheless he becomes pure from all the impurities. Therefore here too, it is no different! For even if she says that the offering will be for the first impurity, it permits her from all the impurities for eating sacred offerings.

Rav Pappa said

to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak:

If it enters your mind that

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri compares them to a regular sin-offering,

if so,

why

did he say that in the case

of a doubtful offering, you shall say for one of them and be discharged,

and need not say that it is for the last one? For if a definite offering is compared to a sin-offering, then a doubtful offering is compared to a conditional guilt-offering,

?

to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

If it enters your mind that

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri compares them to a regular sin-offering,

what is the reason

then

why did he say that regarding

сомнительной жертвы

the doubtful case, she should designate it for one of them and be discharged,

without needing to say that it is for the last one? For if a definite offering is comparable to a sin-offering, then a doubtful offering should be comparable to a conditional guilt-offering.