Parallel
כריתות 10:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
What is R. Judah's view with reference to uncleanness? Shall we say, R. Judah holds that the second birth is not taken into account only with regard to offerings, because it took place before the offering for the first birth was due, and consequently the second birth is not taken into account; but with reference to cleanness and uncleanness, I might say that the second birth is taken into account in that the period of impurity thereof interrupts [the period of cleanness of the first], and that the latter period is afterwards completed and the period of cleanness of the second birth commences thereafter? Or does R. Judah uphold his view only if it leads to greater stringency; but here, since it leads to greater leniency, he does not uphold his view? — Said R. Huna of Sura, Come and hear: For a woman after confinement, one may slaughter the Paschal Lamb and sprinkle the blood on the fortieth day after the birth of a male, and on the eightieth day after the birth of a girl? [Whereon it was asked,] Is she not still unclean? and R. Hisda answered: This is in accordance with R. Judah, who holds that the second birth is not taken into account. Now, if you assume that with reference to uncleanness R. Judah agrees that the second birth is taken into account, how can the Paschal Sacrifice be slaughtered for her on the fortieth day, seeing that even in the evening she will not be permitted to partake of it? You must, therefore, conclude that also with reference to cleanness and uncleanness does R. Judah hold that the second birth is not taken into account! — No, I may still maintain that with reference to cleanness and uncleanness R. Judah agrees that the second birth is taken into account, but that law refers to a Paschal Lamb that is offered in uncleanness. But is she then permitted to partake of it, have we not learnt: A Paschal Lamb that is offered in uncleanness may not be eaten by a :zab or a zabah, or by menstruant women or by a woman after confinement? — These may not eat if they have not immersed; the law, however, which states that one may slaughter and sprinkle for her refers to a woman who has immersed. If so, she is fit for the Paschal Lamb from the eighth day onward! — She is not fit from the eighth day onward, for it is held that a zab who immersed by day has still the status of a zab. If so, she is unfit even on the fortieth day! — No, on the fortieth day she is regarded fit, for it is held that a zab who lacks but offerings is not considered a zab. But what will be your answer according to Raba who holds that a zab who lacks but offerings is still considered a zab? — Said R. Ashi: Raba will interpret the law as referring to the fortieth day of the conception of a male and the eightieth day of the conception of a female, and as being in accordance with R. Ishmael who holds the limit for a male to be forty-one days and for a female eighty-one days. But is she not, after all, unclean as a menstruant woman? — It deals with a dry birth. If so, is the law not obvious? — I might have thought that the opening of the uterus cannot take place without discharge of blood; therefore he lets us know that the uterus can open without a discharge of blood. R. Shema'iah said, Come and hear: ‘Sixty’ may convey both a connected and a disconnected spell of time; therefore it is written ‘days’: as the day is a connected spell of time, so also the sixty days. With whom does this conform? Shall I say with the Rabbis? Surely, according to them, a disconnected spell of time is an impossibility! It must thus be in accordance with R. Judah; and since it is stated that the time must be connected, we are led to decide that he upholds his view only if it leads to greater stringency but not if it leads to greater leniency! — No,it may conform with the view of the Rabbis, but it refers to a woman who brought forth a male abortion within the eighty days of a female birth. But, then, after all, is it not so that the days of the first birth finish before those of the second and the Rabbis hold that the second birth is taken into account? According to the Rabbis the law can be realised in the case of a birth of twins, a female first and a male afterwards, and where the male was, e.g., born after twenty days of the period of cleanness had passed, so that she must keep of the days relating to the female birth seven days of impurity. The discussion, then, is thus: I might think that when twins are born, the female first and the male afterwards, the days of impurity of the latter cause an interruption so that the sixty-six days are counted disjointedly; therefore it is written ‘days’: as the day is a connected spell of time, so also the sixty days must be connected. Abaye said: Come and hear, ‘Thirty’ may convey both a connected and a disconnected spell of time, therefore it is written, ‘days’: as the day is a connected spell of time, so also the thirty days. With whom does this conform? Shall I say with the Rabbis? Surely, according to the Rabbis
—