Keritot 8a (ח.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

It was taught: The School of Hillel said to the School of Shammai: Is it not stated: “

And when the days of her purification for a son or

for a daughter”

and we expound from the superfluous “or”

to include

a woman who gives birth

on the eve of

the

eighty-first

day, who is obligated to bring an additional offering of a woman after childbirth, and her first childbirth is not atoned for by a single offering.

A man who experienced one emission [on one occasion] of ziva is governed like one who experienced a seminal emission, who is impure for only one day. He immerses on that same day [and is immediately pure with regard to chullin], and in the evening he may eat sacrificial food.

If he experienced two emissions, he is a zav and must count seven clean days free of ziva. On the seventh day he immerses in living water, [and is pure with regard to chullin], and in the evening he may eat sacrificial food; but he is not obligated to bring an offering.

If he experienced three emissions, in addition to immersing on the seventh day, he must bring an offering on the following day, the eighth day, in order to render himself fit to eat sacrificial food and enter the Temple.

If, during the count of the seven clean days, he experienced an additional discharge consisting of three emissions, after completing the seven days of purification he need not bring two offerings; one offering alone suffices, since everything is considered one discharge of ziva.

But if the second discharge began on the eighth day or thereafter, after he had already become obligated to bring an offering for the first discharge, then even if he had not yet managed to bring the offerings for the first discharge, he must bring an additional offering for the second discharge.

Rabbi Hoshaya was frequently before bar Kappara

in order to learn Torah from him.

He left him

Rabbi Hoshaya left bar Kappara

and came before Rabbi Hiyya

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

One day, Rabbi Hoshaya encountered

Rabbi Hoshaya

bar Kappara.

He asked him

Rabbi Hoshaya asked bar Kappara:

A zav who experienced three emissions on the night of the eighth day,

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

what do the School of Hillel say about this matter?

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?

The sides of the uncertainty are as follows: Is

the reason of the School of Hillel

who obligate two offerings

in the case of a woman who gives birth at night

on the eve of the eighty-first day

because it is written

the special amplification “or

for a daughter,”

from which we derive that the eve of the eighty-first day is included?

But, in the case of a zav who experienced three emissions on the night of the eighth day, they exempt him

the School of Hillel from a second offering, since

there are no superfluous

verses concerning a zav

in the verses

to obligate him to bring two offerings?

Or perhaps there is no difference!

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 fact that the offerings of a woman after childbirth may not be sacrificed 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, it is considered that the time of the first offering has already arrived, and it can no longer be used also for the second matter. This law applies both to a woman after childbirth and to a zav, on the eve of the day on which they become obligated to bring an offering.

Bar Kappara said to him

to Rabbi Hoshaya:

What does Ayya [

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 about this matter?

Rabbi Hoshaya said nothing to him!

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

Rabbi Hoshaya then returned,

and

asked him

bar Kappara

another matter.

Bar Kappara said to him: What does the Babylonian [

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 about this matter?

Rabbi Hoshaya fell silent and said nothing!

He said to him

Rabbi Hoshaya said:

Bar Kappara! We need

we

the words of Ayya,

despite your denigrating him.

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

And the Gemara says:

Let us return to the earlier matter [

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

Is it not stated, “or for a daughter”—

to include the eve of the eighty-first day!

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:

Shall we say that this is a dispute between tannaim: A zav who experienced three emissions on the night of the eighth day—

One [beraita] teaches: He brings

an offering for the second discharge.

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

What, is it not a dispute between tannaim? For the one that teaches that he brings an offering holds

that the reason of the School of Hillel is that

night does not constitute a lack of time,

and it is as though he experienced the second discharge after the time for the offering for the first discharge had already arrived.

And the one that teaches that he does not bring an offering holds

that the School of Hillel maintains that

night does constitute a “lack of time,”

and it is as though the time for the offering for the first discharge had still not arrived when the second discharge occurred [whereas in the case of a woman who gives birth on the eve of the eighty-first day, the law according to the School of Hillel is different because of the amplification “or for a daughter”].

And we reject this:

Rav Aha bar Huna said that Rabbi Elazar said:

In fact,

these tannaim both maintain

both of them maintain that

night constitutes a “lack of time,”

and they do not disagree with one another. Rather, the two beraitot are discussing two different circumstances:

And

the one that teaches that he brings

is discussing

a zav

whose first discharge consisted of

only two emissions,

for which he is not obligated to bring an offering. Therefore, he brings an offering only for the second discharge, which consisted of three emissions and entails an obligation to bring an offering. [And below the Gemara will challenge this: It is obvious; what does this teach us?]

And the one that teaches that he does not bring

is discussing

a zav

who was also a zav in his first discharge,

having experienced three emissions,

and was obligated to bring an offering for that discharge. Therefore, he does not bring an offering for the second discharge on the night of the eighth day, since night constitutes a “lack of time,” and the two discharges are considered one extended discharge.

The Gemara wonders about our interpretation that the beraita stating that he brings an offering is referring to one whose first discharge consisted of only two emissions:

A zav with two emissions—

what is it coming to teach us!?

Is it not obvious that he is liable to bring an offering for the second discharge, since he is exempt with regard to the first one!?

And we answer:

This teaches us that specifically when he experienced an emission on the night of the eighth day

is he liable to bring an offering.

But if he

experienced an emission

during the daytime of the seventh day, he does not

bring an offering even for the second discharge, since the discharge began within the seven clean days that a zav with two emissions is counting.

He holds: Any emission that invalidates

the counting of the seven clean days following a previous discharge

does not lead to an offering !

Rava said: Why [

meaning, “on what basis”]

did you establish [

that is, since you established]

the one that teaches “

he does not bring”—

as referring to a zav with three emissions,

then

let him teach it

this law

alongside

the Mishna below [9a], which teaches:

Five 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 an unequivocal case for him:

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.

As Rabbi Yohanan said: If he experienced

an emission

one at night,

on the eve of the eighth day,

and two

emissions

during the day

of the eighth day— -

he brings

an offering for this discharge, since the majority of the emissions [two out of three] occurred at a time when he was already fit to bring an offering for the first discharge [Rabbenu Gershom]. But if he experienced

two at night

of the eighth day

and one during the day—

he does not bring one!

Rav Yosef said: Know that if he sees one at night and two during the day, he brings an offering: for the first sighting of a zav

is nothing other than the equivalent of a sighting of

ordinary seminal emission,

for which he is impure for only one day, and it is not included in the category of ziva.

But if he sees two

other sightings,

they join with them—the first sighting and the two latter sightings combine to make him a zav who has had three sightings. Therefore, here too, although the first sighting took place on the night of the eighth day, when he was still not fit to become obligated to bring an offering for a new occurrence of ziva, nevertheless it combines with the two sightings of the eighth day to obligate him in an offering.

And we reject this:

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

The case under discussion is not comparable to the proof!

There, with every

first sighting of a zav,

he

experienced it

as the zav’s first sighting

at a time of obligation

for an offering. Therefore, it joins the two sightings that follow it. But if he saw

one at night

on the night leading into the eighth day,

and two during the day

of the eighth day,

since

the first sighting

was not experienced at a time of obligation,

the matter is not obvious;

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

And we challenge this:

But did Rabbi Yohanan say, “Night is a period of lack of time”?

For he says that if one saw two sightings during the night leading into the eighth day and one during the eighth day, he is exempt from an offering.

But didn’t Hezekiah say

that a nazirite who became impure in the middle of his naziriteship, counts seven days and becomes pure, and on the eighth day brings the offerings of a nazirite who became impure—if he again

became impure

again

during the day

of the eighth day,

he brings

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

at night

on the night leading into the eighth day,

he does not bring

offerings for this impurity, since night is a period of lack of time. It is therefore as though he became impure on the seventh day, and the entire matter 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 offerings, since night is not a period of lack of time. This is difficult in light of what Rabbi Yohanan said concerning a zav, that night is a period of lack of time.

And we answer:

When Rabbi Yohanan said

that

if he saw two at night and one during the day, he does not bring an offering,

he was speaking according to the one who says that night is a period of lack of time,

but he himself does not hold that way!

And we challenge this:

According to the one who says

that night is a period of lack of time,

it is obvious

that he does not bring an offering if he saw two during the night; so what is Rabbi Yohanan teaching us? [Granted, if he himself held this view, that itself would be the novelty: that night is a period of lack of time.]

And we answer:

If he saw one at night and two during the day,

it was necessary

for Rabbi Yohanan to teach us that he brings an offering.

Lest you say that since he saw the first sighting not at a time of obligation,

with regard to the first sighting, say

that it does not join them; he teaches us

that it does join the two sightings he experienced on the following day.

Mishna:

A woman who has upon her the uncertainty of five births,

because she miscarried five times and does not know what she miscarried—whether it was something for which she is obligated to bring the offering of a woman who gave birth or not [as explained in the previous Mishna, 7b],

and the uncertainty of five occurrences of ziva,

or who saw blood five times [during five cycles of eighteen days, with each cycle consisting of seven “days of nida” and eleven “days of ziva”], and each time the bleeding continued for three consecutive days, but she does not know whether these sightings occurred during her “days of ziva,” when she becomes a “great” zava obligated to bring a zava’s offering, or whether she experienced them during her “days of nida,” when she does not become a zava but remains merely a nida and is exempt from the offering,

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

At the conclusion of the seven days of nida, eleven “days of ziva” begin, which are called in the Torah “not during the time of her menstruation.” If she sees blood during them for three consecutive days, she becomes a zava. In order to become pure from her impurity of ziva, she must count seven clean days without seeing blood and immerse, and on the eighth day bring an offering.

After the eleven days of ziva, the seven days of nida begin again, followed by the eleven days of ziva. And so it continues forever.

And a woman who is uncertain, concerning five cycles of days of ziva, whether she became a zava during them,

brings one offering

of two birds, one as an olah and one as a hattat,

and eats of the sacrificial offerings.

For a woman who gave birth and a zava are both “lacking atonement”: they are forbidden to eat consecrated offerings and to enter the Temple before they bring their offering. Since this offering completes the purification, its status is like that of immersion. Just as a person who became impure several times is purified from all of them through one immersion, so this offering permits her and removes her impurity with regard to eating consecrated offerings, both from all the occurrences of ziva and from all the births.

And the rest are not an obligation upon her!

For the Sages did not require her to bring the remaining offerings for the four uncertainties concerning the occurrences of ziva or the births, since offering a bird hattat in a case of uncertainty involves the uncertainty of unconsecrated slaughter in the Temple courtyard. [Only with an olah can one stipulate that, if she is not obligated, the bird should be offered as a voluntary offering.] They permitted her to bring only one offering, and even that they permitted only with difficulty, as the Gemara will explain, in order to permit her to eat consecrated offerings.

And if she had

five definite occurrences of ziva

or

five definite births,

she brings one offering, and eats of the sacrificial offerings

through it, since one offering permits her with regard to all the occurrences of ziva and all the births, as stated above.

But the rest

are an obligation upon her!

For she is obligated to bring an offering for every occurrence of ziva and every birth [provided that each birth occurred after the completion of the purification period following the preceding birth].

There was an incident

that

when

the prices of birds rose,

two nests stood in Jerusalem,

consisting of two

nests,

that is, four turtledoves [each nest consists of two turtledoves]

at

the price of two

gold dinars,

meaning one nest cost one gold dinar.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: By this Sanctuary! [He swore by the Temple]:

I will not sleep tonight until

the price of two nests is

at

two

dinars

of

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

He entered the court and taught: A woman who has five definite births and five definite occurrences of ziva

brings one offering, eats of the sacrificial offerings, and the rest are not an obligation upon her!

For although by Torah law she is obligated to bring the remaining offerings, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was lenient because of the principle, “It is a time to act for the Lord; they have nullified Your Torah,” in order to bring about a reduction in the price of the nests. For were this not so, poor women would refrain from bringing even one offering, and would come to violate the prohibition against eating consecrated offerings in a state of impurity while lacking atonement.

And pairs stood that very day at two quarter-dinars!

The price of the pairs fell until two pairs were sold for two silver quarter-dinars.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

A woman who had

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 Chafetz Chaim, and the Chazon Ish, and so too in the Shitah Mekubetzet of Bava Batra]—

brings two pairs

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

One

pair for the definite case and

one

pair for the doubtful case.

For the birth and the discharge are two separate matters, and one offering cannot permit her to eat sacred food on account of both of them until she brings an offering for each obligation separately.

The

sin-offering for the definite case is eaten, while the remainder

the four offerings for the four additional births or discharges,

remains an obligation upon her.

But the bird sin-offering

for the doubtful case is not eaten,

lest it be unconsecrated property and become an animal carcass through pinching.

And the remainder [

the offerings for the doubtful births or doubtful discharges]

does not remain an obligation upon her.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: Regarding

the offering of the

definite case, she should say:

I am bringing this offering

for

the impurity [of the birth or discharge

that occurred last, and she will be discharged

by this, so that she will be permitted to eat sacred food, while the remainder remains an obligation upon her.

But regarding the offering

for the doubtful case,

there is a distinction:

If there is a definite case among them,

for example, the doubt concerns the births, and among the five births there is one definite birth, then

she should say

that she is bringing 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; 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.

And if not,

when all the births are doubtful,

she should say

that the offering will be

for one of them, [

of the obligations to bring offerings for the births]

and she will be discharged

from the remaining obligations, which are only doubtful obligations.

Rabbi Akiva says: Whether for the definite case,

that is, when she has five definite births,

or for the doubtful case,

when she has five doubtful births,

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.

And she will be discharged!

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.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Pappa: Let me tell you in the name of Rava: In what do these tannaim disagree?

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri compares them

the offerings for a discharge and a birth [and likewise all offerings of those lacking atonement]

to a sin-offering

brought for each of the transgressions.

For

if

one who is liable to bring five sin-offerings

then

until he brings all of them

he does not achieve atonement,

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!

Here too, it is no different.

Here as well, if she brings the offering for the first impurity, the other impurities that followed it are still not permitted her for eating sacred food. Therefore, she must say that the offering is for the last impurity, and through this she is permitted to eat sacred food.

And Rabbi Akiva compares them to immersions

[immersions].

For one who is liable to perform five immersions,

that is, a person who became impure five times, nevertheless,

once he immersed one time,

even if he says that the immersion should count for the first impurity, nevertheless

he becomes purified

from all the impurities. Therefore

here too, it is no different!

Even if she says that the offering is for the first impurity, it permits her to eat sacred food after all the impurities.

Rav Pappa said

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

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.