Keritot 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

Regarding a shifḥa as well, it is written: “who lies with a woman with an emission of semen

and she is a maidservant”

and we expound from “and she is a maidservant

—to divide liability for each and every maidservant!

We learned in the Mishna:

“A nazirite who became impure with many impurities.”

This passage was explained above, on 2b.

And we explain:

Who is the tanna

who taught this Mishna?

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

who said: The naziriteship of purity

which the impure nazirite observes after becoming pure

takes effect

from

the seventh

day of his purification from his impurity,

it 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

he again

became impure on

that same day, which was the

seventh

day of his purification. He again became pure,

and again became impure on the seventh day

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

And since he did not reach

the

time fit for bringing an offering

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 were Rabbi, since Rabbi said: The naziriteship of purity does not take effect upon him until the eighth day,

the law of the Mishna could not be found!

For

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

it is all one prolonged impurity!

And

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

then

since the time fit for bringing an offering had passed—

he is liable for each and every one!

Rather, is it not so? Learn from it—

It is Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda!

And we explain:

And what are Rabbi’s view and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda’s view?

As it was taught:

Regarding an impure nazirite who became pure, counted seven days for his purification, and had the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days, it is stated:

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

“On the day he brings his offerings”; this is the statement of Rabbi.

That is, he begins counting his naziriteship of purity 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, when he shaves; naziriteship of purity begins on that day.

Mishna:

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

“One who warns his wife concerning many men,

warning 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 can give her the bitter waters, as required in the case of a woman suspected of adultery, and he brings a meal-offering on her behalf, it suffices for him to bring one meal-offering for all those men with whom he warned her not to seclude herself.

The purification procedure of a leper who has recovered from his leprosy is as follows: He takes two birds and performs with them the procedure written in the passage concerning the leper; he immerses, but is still not pure, and must count seven days. On the seventh day he immerses, and he is then pure with regard to non-sacred matters. The following day, the eighth day, he brings his offerings, and from then onward he is permitted to partake of consecrated items.

The offerings of a leper consist of three animals: two lambs, one as an ola and one as a guilt-offering, and one ewe as a sin-offering. But if he is poor and cannot afford to purchase three lambs, he brings two birds, one as an ola and one as a sin-offering, and a lamb as a guilt-offering.

“And a leper who was afflicted with many afflictions,

meaning that after recovering from his first affliction and counting seven days, before he managed to bring his offerings, 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 procedure, and then again

was afflicted—

they do not count for him

as fulfilling 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 .

This law applies

until he brings his sin-offering!

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

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If he was afflicted

until he brings his guilt-offering,

then, despite having brought his sin-offering, he must bring other birds again for the first affliction. [According to the Gemara’s conclusion, the Mishna is explained in a different manner.]

Gemara:

And we explain:

From where do we derive

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

For it is written

in the passage concerning a woman suspected of adultery:

“This is the law of jealousies.”

And we expound:

One law for many jealousies,

meaning that the procedure written concerning the woman suspected of adultery is performed only once for them all, including the fact 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 derive

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:

“If 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 object:

But you said

at the beginning:

“He brings only one offering,”

which indicates that all the afflictions are regarded as one prolonged leprosy. Why, then, must he bring separate birds for each affliction? And we answer:

The Mishna is incomplete, and this is what it teaches

in the Mishna

a.

If he brought birds and was afflicted,

and then

brought birds and was afflicted, he brings only one offering

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

b.

But with regard to establishing his status as poor or wealthy,

establishing whether the leper is poor or wealthy with regard to his obligation to bring offerings—

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

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

If he was wealthy at the time of sacrificing the sin-offering and offered an animal as his sin-offering, he also offers the ola from an animal, even if he became poor at the time of sacrificing the ola.

And this is the explanation of the Mishna: The birds

“do not count for him” because the time at which the birds are brought does not establish his status,

“until he brings his sin-offering.” If he was poor when he brought the birds and subsequently became wealthy, he brings the offerings of a wealthy person, and vice versa.

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

For the time of sacrificing the guilt-offering—the first offering sacrificed among the leper’s offerings—establishes his status. If he was poor then, he brings the ola and sin-offering from birds, even if he is wealthy when he sacrifices the ola and sin-offering, and vice versa.

We learned there

in tractate Negaim:

“A leper

who is poor

who set aside his offering,

a poor person’s offering, and

then became wealthy—

everything follows

the

sin-offering,

according to his status at the time of sacrificing the sin-offering—

the statement 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: “Who cannot afford the requisite offering for his purification,”

meaning that he was poor at the time of his purification.

Rabbi Shimon holds:

This word “purification” refers to

the matter that effects his atonement,

namely, the sin-offering, which we find effects atonement for other transgressions.

Rabbi Yehuda holds: The matter that renders him fit,

namely, the guilt-offering, whose blood is placed on the thumbs and toes of the leper, thereby permitting him to partake of consecrated items .

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds: It refers to “the matter that causes him to become pure.” And what is that? The birds!

For they initiate the purification, as blood from the slaughtered bird is sprinkled upon him.

Mishna:

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.”

The Mishna explains how this is possible: 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 her offerings, and now she miscarried again,

a female

[the Mishna specifies 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 fluid and there is no obligation to bring an offering for it. Therefore, it is impossible to incur the obligation of a woman after childbirth for a fetus born during the days of purity following the birth of a male. In the case of a female, however, this is possible. For example, she immersed two weeks after giving birth, conceived again, and miscarried after forty days—that is, after fifty-four days from the first birth.]

She miscarried again, 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,”

meaning that she was pregnant with three fetuses—even if they were male—and miscarried the first after forty days from the beginning of the pregnancy, while the second remained longer and she miscarried it within forty days, during the days of purity following the first miscarriage, and miscarried the third within forty days of the second miscarriage: She brings one offering for all of them.

Rabbi Yehuda says [he disagrees both with regard to the law of the offspring and with regard to the law of twins]: She

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 an offering for the second,

which she miscarried within the eighty-day period following the first in the case of many offspring, or within the days of purity following the male in the case of twins.

But she

brings an offering 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 period following the first; therefore, only the third is considered a new birth.

And she does not bring an offering for the fourth,

since it emerged within the period following the third, which we regarded as a birth [in the case of twins, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees when the third emerged after the days of purity following the first].

Gemara:

And we explain:

From where do we derive

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 who gives birth, whether to a male or a female,”

and we expound the word “law,” which implies many—

This teaches that she brings one offering for many offspring!

One might have thought that even for the birth and for a discharge

she should bring only one offering?

The verse states: “This,”

in the singular, teaching that she brings one offering for the discharge separately and one for the birth separately.

It teaches [as in: “The master said”]:

as in: “The master said”]:

“One might have thought that even for the birth and for the discharge.”

And we object: How could one have said that she brings one offering for both, such that a verse is needed to exclude this?

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

to a child, or

ate blood and gave birth,

would you

likewise

say

that she brings only one offering

for the forbidden fat and the birth, or for the blood and the birth? Birth and discharge are likewise two distinct matters!

And we answer:

Say this instead: Could it even refer to the birth before the completion of the term

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

and to the birth after the completion of the term

of the days of purity, that she brings one offering?

The verse states: “This”

which indicates that for one birth she brings one offering, whereas for two births she brings two offerings. This is referring to a case such as this, in which the second birth occurred after the completion of the term.

We learned in the Mishna:

She miscarried within the eighty days.

And we say:

If you wish to say

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

According to Rabbi Yehuda—

the first offspring determines

the obligation to bring the offering,

and from the first offspring she counts

eighty days. The second, which was born before the completion of the term for the first, is exempt from an offering. Therefore, it is not considered at all. Consequently, the third, which was born after eighty days from the first, is liable to bring an offering.

According to the Sages: the second offspring

[that is, the last one]

determines

the matter, and it is on its account that they are liable to bring an offering, whereas the first is exempt from an offering.

And

therefore

from the second offspring she counts

which is the determining one. Consequently, she is exempt for all of them, since each one was born within eighty days of the preceding one.

And we challenge what was said:

“If you wish to say.”

What does this teach us? After all,

it is obvious that this is so,

as this is the reasoning of each of them.

And we answer:

It was necessary for him to teach us the case of a woman who miscarried twins

to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda also disputes the matter in that case. For

it might have entered your mind to say that in the case of a woman who miscarried twins, Rabbi Yehuda agrees with the Sages.

Since they were conceived at the same time, all the births would be considered one extended birth, and all of them would be exempt by virtue of one offering —

it teaches us

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