Keritot 9b — the Talmud in English

Regarding a maidservant as well, it is written: “who lies with a woman, an emission of seed ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

and she is a maidservant”

and we expound from “and she is a maidservant” —

to divide [the transgression] for each maidservant and maidservant!

We learned in the Mishna:

“A nazirite who became impure with many impurities.”

[This sugya was explained above, 2b.]

And we explain:

Who is the tanna

who taught this Mishna?

Rav Hisda said: It is Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda,

for he says: The naziriteship of purity

which the impure nazirite observes after he becomes pure

from

the

seventh

day of his purification from his impurity,

takes effect upon him,

even before the eighth day of his purification arrives, on which he brings the offerings of an impure nazirite.

And

therefore

you can find

that he brings one offering for many impurities.

And

for example:

an impure nazirite counted seven days, during which the ashes of the red heifer were sprinkled upon him to purify him from his impurity, and on the seventh day he began observing naziriteship of purity, and it happened

that

again

became impure on

that day which was

the seventh

day of his purification. And he again became pure,

and again became impure on the seventh

day of his purification, for his impurity on the seventh day is a new impurity, since naziriteship of purity had already begun on the seventh day.

And since he did not leave

the nazirite for

the time fit for bringing an offering

at the time when he became impure—for he brings an offering only on the eighth day—

he is liable for only one offering

for all those impurities.

For if it is Rabbi, since Rabbi says: The naziriteship of purity does not take effect upon him until the eighth day—

the law of our Mishna cannot be found!

For

if he became impure on the seventh and again became impure on the seventh—

it is all one prolonged impurity!

And

if he became impure on the eighth and again became impure on the eighth,

then

since the time fit for bringing an offering has passed—

he is liable for each one and one!

Rather, is it not, learn from it—

it is Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda!

And we explain:

And what are “Rabbi” and “Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda”?

For it was taught:

regarding an impure nazirite who became pure, who counted seven days for his purification and was sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer on the third day and on the seventh day:

“And he shall consecrate his head on that day”—

on the day of bringing his offerings, the words of Rabbi.

That is, he begins counting his naziriteship of purity starting from the eighth day, on which he brings his offerings.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: On the day of his shaving!

That is, on the seventh day, on which he shaves; on it the naziriteship of purity begins.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to enumerate those who bring one offering for many transgressions:

“One who warns his wife because of many men,

who warns her not to seclude herself with so-and-so and with so-and-so, and she secluded herself with those men: when her husband brings her to the Temple so that the priest will make her drink the bitter waters according to the law of a sota, and he brings for her the sota meal-offering, it is sufficient for him to bring one meal-offering for all those men with whom he warned her not to seclude herself.

A leper who was healed from his leprosy: this is the order of his purification. He takes two birds and performs with them according to the order written in the section of the leper, and immerses; but he is still not pure, rather he must count seven days. On the seventh day he immerses, and he is pure for ordinary food. On the following day, the eighth day, he brings his offerings, and from then on he is permitted regarding sacrificial food.

The offerings of the leper are three: two lambs, one for an elevation-offering and one for a guilt-offering, and one ewe for a sin-offering. But if he is poor and cannot afford to purchase three lambs, he brings two birds, one for an elevation-offering and one for a sin-offering, and a lamb for a guilt-offering.

“And a leper who was afflicted with many afflictions,

who, after being healed from his first affliction and counting seven days, did not manage to bring his offerings before he was afflicted again—and likewise many times—brings one offering at the end for all of them.

If he brought birds

at the beginning of his purification process, and again

was afflicted—

they do not count for him

as his obligation for the first affliction. Rather, when he becomes pure from his second affliction, he must bring birds again for the first affliction, in addition to the birds he brings for the second affliction.”

And this law applies

until he brings his sin-offering!

For if he already brought his sin-offering for the first affliction and was again afflicted, he need not bring birds once more for the first affliction.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If he was afflicted

until he brings his guilt-offering,

then although he brought his sin-offering, he must again bring other birds for the first affliction. [And according to the Gemara’s conclusion, the explanation of the Mishna is in another manner.]

Gemara:

And we explain:

From where do we know

that the husband who warns brings one meal-offering for the many warnings with which he warned his wife?

For it is written

in the section of the sota:

“This is the law of the jealousies.”

And we expound:

one law for many jealousies,

for the procedure written concerning the sota is performed for them only once, including that he brings only one meal-offering.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A leper who was afflicted with many afflictions.”

And we explain:

From where do we know

that he brings only one offering?

For it is written: “This is the law of the leper.”

And we expound:

one law for many lepers,

that is, for many afflictions.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He brought birds and was afflicted”—

“they do not count for him until he brings his sin-offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: until he brings his guilt-offering.”

And we challenge:

But you said

at the beginning

“he brings only one offering,”

which indicates that all the afflictions are considered one prolonged leprosy; why, then, must he bring separate birds for each affliction? And we answer:

The text is deficient, and this is what it teaches

in the Mishna

1.

He brought birds and was afflicted,

and again

brought birds and was afflicted; he brings only one offering

at the end for all of them, since all the afflictions are considered one leprosy.

2.

And with regard to determining [his status] in poverty and wealth,

to determine the status of the leper—whether he is poor or wealthy—in relation to his obligation of offerings

it is not determined until he brings his sin-offering!

For everything depends on his situation at the time of sacrificing the sin-offering. If he was then poor and brought the sin-offering from a bird, then although he subsequently became wealthy, he also brings the elevation-offering from a bird.

And if he was wealthy at the time of sacrificing the sin-offering and sacrificed an animal as a sin-offering, he also sacrifices the elevation-offering from an animal, even though he became poor at the time of sacrificing the elevation-offering.

And this is the explanation of the Mishna: “They did not count for him”—the birds—since the time of bringing the birds does not determine his status—“until he brings his sin-offering.” If he was poor at the time of bringing the birds and subsequently became wealthy, he brings the offerings of a wealthy person, and likewise in the reverse case.

And Rabbi Yehuda says: until he brings his guilt-offering!

For the time of sacrificing the guilt-offering—which is the first offering sacrificed among the offerings of a leper—determines it. If he was then poor, he brings the elevation-offering and sin-offering from birds, even though at the time of sacrificing the elevation-offering and sin-offering he was wealthy, and likewise in the reverse case.

We learned there

in tractate Negaim:

“A leper

who is poor

who set aside his offering,

the offering of a poor person,

and

afterward

became wealthy—

everything follows

the

sin-offering,

according to what his situation was at the time of sacrificing the sin-offering,

the words of Rabbi Shimon.”

Rabbi Yehuda says: everything follows

the

guilt-offering.

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: everything follows

the time of bringing the

birds.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: All three derived [their views] from one verse. For it is written: “which his hand cannot reach in his purification,”

that is, he was poor at the time of his purification.

Rabbi Shimon holds:

this “purification” means

the thing that atones for him,

namely, the sin-offering, which we find atones for him in the other transgressions.

Rabbi Yehuda holds: the thing that renders him fit,

namely, the guilt-offering, whose blood is placed on the thumbs and toes of the leper, and through this he is permitted regarding sacrificial food.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds: “the thing that causes him purification”—and what is it? The birds!

For they are the beginning of the purification, since he is sprinkled with the blood of the slaughtered bird.

Mishna:

And now the tanna explains the fifth matter in which there is one who brings one offering for many transgressions:

“A woman who gave birth to many offspring.”

And the Mishna explains: how so? For example, if she

miscarried within eighty

days of a previous birth of a female [when she is still within the days of purity, after which she brings the offerings], and now miscarried again

a female [

the Mishna mentioned within eighty days of a female, and not within forty days of a male, because if the fetus is less than forty days old, it is merely water and there is no offering obligation for it. Therefore it is impossible to become obligated for a woman-after-childbirth offering for a fetus born during the days of purity of a male. But in the case of a female this is possible. For example, she immersed after two weeks from her birth, became pregnant again, and miscarried after forty days, that is, after fifty-four days from the first birth]

she again miscarried, within eighty

days of the first miscarriage. This fetus too was

a female.

And she brings one offering for all of them.

“And one who miscarries twins”

who was pregnant with three fetuses [even males], and miscarried the first after forty days from the beginning of the pregnancy, while the second was delayed and she miscarried it within forty days, during the days of purity from the first miscarriage, and she miscarried the third within forty days of the second miscarriage: she brings one offering for all of them.

Rabbi Yehuda says [

he disputes both the law of the offspring and the law of the twins]: she

brings

an offering

for

the first fetus,

but she does not bring for the second,

which she miscarried within the full term of eighty days from the first in the case of many offspring, or within the full term of the days of purity for a male in the case of twins.

But

she brings for the third,

since it emerged after forty or eighty days from the first birth [for, as stated, there are at least fifty-four days between one birth and the next]. The second is not considered at all, since it emerged within the full term from the first; therefore only the third is considered a new birth.

And she does not bring for the fourth,

which emerged within the full term from the third, which we considered a birth [and in the case of twins Rabbi Yehuda disputes in a manner in which the third emerged after the days of purity of the first].

Gemara:

And we explain:

From where do we know

that she brings one offering for all the births?

A tanna taught before Rav Sheshet:

It is written:

“This is the law of the woman giving birth, for a male or for a female,”

and we expound from “law,” which implies many:

it teaches that she brings one offering for many offspring!

One might [think] that also for the birth and for the discharge

she should bring only one offering?

The verse states: “This”

in the singular, to say that she brings an offering for the discharge separately and for the birth separately.

It teaches [

as in: “The master said”]:

“One might [think] that also for the birth and for the discharge.”

And we challenge: how could it have been said that she should bring one offering for both, so that a verse is needed to exclude this?

If that is so, if she ate forbidden fat and gave birth

to a child, or

ate blood and gave birth,

would

so too

you say

that she brings only one offering

for the forbidden fat and the birth, or for the blood and the birth?! Here too, birth and discharge are two different matters!

And we answer:

Let us say this: Could it be that even for the birth before the completion—

that is, the first birth [Rashi, Niddah 40a]],

and for the birth after the completion,

she brings one offering for the days of purity?

Scripture says, “this,”

which implies that for one birth she brings one offering, and for two births she brings two offerings! And this is in such a case that the second birth was after the completion.

We learned in the Mishna:

“She miscarried within eighty.”

And we say:

“If you wish to say” [that is, this is the explanation of the matter]:

[that is, this is the explanation of the matter]:

According to the words of Rabbi Yehuda—

the first offspring causes

the bringing of the offering,

and from the first offspring she counts

eighty days. And the second, which is within the completion of the first, is exempt from an offering. Therefore, it is not considered at all. And if so, the third, which was born after eighty from the first, is obligated in an offering.

According to the words of the Sages: the second offspring [that is, the last one]

[that is, the last one]

causes,

for which they are obligated in an offering, while the first is exempt from an offering.

And

therefore

from the second offspring she counts,

since it is the essential one; therefore, she is exempt concerning all of them, since each one is within eighty days of its predecessor .

And we object concerning that which we said,

“If you wish to say.”

For what does it teach us? Is it not

obvious, that this is so,

that this is the reasoning of each of them?

And we answer:

A miscarriage of twins was necessary for him to teach us,

that Rabbi Yehuda also disputes in that case. For

it might have entered your mind to say that in a miscarriage of twins Rabbi Yehuda agrees with the Sages.

Since their conception was at one time, all the births are considered one long birth, and all of them will be exempted by one offering —

it teaches us

that Rabbi Yehuda also disputes in the case of twins and obligates two offerings.