Parallel
כריתות 8
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
GEMARA. It has been taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: Lo, it says, ‘or for a daughter’, to include the eve of the eighty-first day. R. Hoshaia was a frequent visitor to Bar Kappara; he then left him and joined R. Hiyya. One day he met [Bar Kappara] and asked him: If a zab had three [new] issues during the night of the eighth day, what would be the view of Beth Hillel in this case? Is the reason of Beth Hillel in the case of an abortion on the night [of the eighty-first day] because it is written, ‘or for a daughter’, but in the case of a zab there will be no sacrifice, since there is no superfluous text in connection therewith; or perhaps there is no difference [between these two cases]? — Replied to him Bar Kappara: What did the Babylonian say in this matter? R. Hoshaia was silent and said nothing. Then Bar Kappara said to him: ‘We have still to depend upon the words of Iyya! Let us return to that which has been said before. ‘Lo, it says, or for a daughter, to include the eve of the eighty-first day’. Are we to say that this is a point of dispute between Tannaim? If a zab had three issues in the night of the eighth day, one [Baraitha] teaches, He has to bring an offering, whereas another [Baraitha] teaches, He is exempted. Now, do they not differ in the following: The one which teaches that he is liable holds that the night does not render a period wanting in time; and the one which teaches that he is exempt holds that the night renders a period wanting in time! — Said R. Huna b. Aha in the name of R. Eleazar: These Tannaim [indeed] hold that the night renders a period wanting in time, but the one which teaches that he is liable, deals with a zab of two issues, and the one which teaches that he is exempt deals with a zab of three issues. But need the case of a zab of two issues be stated? — This is what we are informed: Only when he perceives [three issues] on the night of the eighth day; but if on the day of the seventh,he is not liable; for he holds that an issue which disturbs [the period of cleanness] does not render one liable to an offering. Said Raba: You have explained the teaching that one is exempted from an offering as referring to a zab of three issues; why then has this law not been stated in conjunction with the [Mishnah]: ‘Five who bring one sacrifice for many transgressions’? — Because this law is not absolute; for R. Johanan said: If he perceived one issue in the night and two during the day, he is liable; two in the night and one during the day, he is not liable. Said R. Joseph: You can prove that one is liable if one [was perceived] by night and two during the day, for the first issue is regarded as a mere discharge of semen, and yet if two more issues are perceived, they combine one with the other. [Against this] said R. Shesheth son of R. Idi: What argument is this? The first issue of a zab took place at a time fit for offerings, but in the instance of ‘one by night’, where the issue was at a time not fit for offerings, had not R. Johanan taught us that they combine with one another, I would have thought that they do not combine. But does R. Johanan hold that the night renders a period wanting in time? Did not Hezekiah say: If he [the nazirite] became unclean during the eighth day, he has to bring a [second] offering; if on the night [of the eighth day], he does not bring [an offering]; while R. Johanan holds, Even on the night [of the eighth day] he has to bring? — When R. Johanan said if [he perceived] two by night and one during the day he has to bring [an offering], it was according to him who holds [that the night] renders a period wanting in time. But according to him is not this obvious? — [The case] of one by night and two during the day was necessary [to be mentioned]; for I might have thought, since the one issue was not at a time fit for offerings, there is no combination. Therefore we are told [that this is not so]. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN HAD FIVE DOUBTFUL BIRTHS OR FIVE DOUBTFUL ISSUES, SHE NEED BRING BUT ONE OFFERING, AND MAY THEN PARTAKE OF SACRIFICIAL FLESH, AND SHE IS NOT BOUND TO BRING THE OTHER [OFFERINGS]. IF SHE HAD FIVE CERTAIN ISSUES, OR FIVE CERTAIN BIRTHS, SHE BRINGS ONE OFFERING AND MAY THEN PARTAKE OF SACRIFICIAL FLESH; BUT IT IS STILL HER DUTY TO BRING THE OTHER OFFERINGS. IT ONCE HAPPENED IN JERUSALEM THAT THE PRICE OF A PAIR OF DOVES ROSE TO A GOLDEN DENAR. SAID R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL, BY THIS SANCTUARY, I SHALL NOT GO TO SLEEP TO-NIGHT BEFORE THEY COST BUT A [SILVER] DENAR! THEN HE ENTERED THE BETH DIN AND TAUGHT: IF A WOMAN HAD FIVE CERTAIN BIRTHS OR FIVE CERTAIN ISSUES SHE NEED BRING BUT ONE OFFERING, AND MAY THEN PARTAKE OF SACRIFICIAL FLESH, AND SHE IS NOT BOUND TO BRING THE OTHER [OFFERINGS]. THEREUPON THE PRICE OF A PAIR OF BIRDS STOOD AT A QUARTER OF A [SILVER] DENAR EACH. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If she had five certain births and five doubtful ones, or five certain issues and five doubtful ones, she brings two pairs of birds, one for the certain and one for the doubtful cases. The one offered for the certain cases may be eaten, and it is still incumbent upon her to bring the remaining offerings; that offered for the doubtful cases is not eaten, and the woman is not bound to bring any more offerings. R. Johanan b. Nuri said: For the certain cases she shall say, The offering is for the last occurrence, and she will be exempted; but for the doubtful cases, if there is a certain one among them, she shall say that the offering is for the one that is not in doubt, and she is exempted; if not, she says that the offering is for any one of the occurrences and she is exempted. R. Akiba said: Both in the instance of the certain cases and in that of the doubtful ones she shall say that the offering is for any one of the occurrences and she is exempted. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to R. Papa: I shall tell you in the name of Raba in which point these Tannaim differ: R. Johanan b. Nuri compares these instances to those of sin-offerings: Just as when one is liable to five sin-offerings, he is not atoned for before all have been offered, the same is the ruling in our case. R. Akiba on the other hand compares them to immersions; for if one requires five immersions, as soon as he has immersed once he is clean; the same is the ruling in our case. Said R. Papa to him: If it was to be assumed that R. Johanan b. Nuri compared our instances to those of sin-offerings, why does he maintain that for doubtful cases she shall say the offering is for any one of them, and she is exempted? Suppose one was liable
—
to five suspensive guilt-offerings, would he indeed be exempted if he offered only one? Has it not been taught: This is the general rule: Whenever there is a division with regard to sin-offerings, there is also a division with reference to guilt-offerings? — In fact, both compare our instances to that of immersion, and they differ as to whether we apprehend negligence. R. Johanan b. Nuri holds, It might lead to negligence; R. Akiba holds, We do not apprehend negligence. MISHNAH. THERE ARE FOUR PERSONS WHO REQUIRE A CEREMONY OF ATONEMENT, AND FOUR WHO BRING A SACRIFICE FOR WILFUL AS WELL AS FOR INADVERTENT TRANSGRESSION. THE FOLLOWING ARE THOSE WHO REQUIRE A CEREMONY OF ATONEMENT: THE ZAB, THE ZABAH, THE WOMAN AFTER CONFINEMENT AND THE LEPER. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID, ALSO A PROSELYTE IS REGARDED AS A PERSON WHO STILL REQUIRES A CEREMONY OF ATONEMENT UNTIL THE BLOOD HAS BEEN SPRINKLED FOR HIM; THE SAME APPLIES TO THE NAZIRITE WITH REFERENCE TO WINE, HAIRCUTTING AND UNCLEANNESS. GEMARA. Why are zab and zabah enumerated as two separate instances? Apparently because they differ as to their uncleanness: for the zab is not unclean through discharge by accident, and the zabah is not rendered unclean through issues but through days; for it has been taught: Out of his flesh, but not by accident. A man is also unclean through issues as well as through days, as it has been taught: The text has made the uncleanness of the male dependent upon discharge and that of the female upon days. A zabah on the other hand is unclean through issue by accident and is not unclean through issue as through days. Now are not the leprous man and the leprous woman also different with regard to their uncleanness? For the leprous man is required to rend his clothes and to let his hair grow loose, as it is written: His clothes shall be rent and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he is forbidden marital intercourse; while the leprous woman is not required to rend her clothes and to let her hair grow loose, as it has been taught: I know only the law concerning a man, whence do I know its application to a woman? When the text reads, and the leper, both are included. Wherefore then is ‘man’ mentioned? The Writ removed him from the [application of the] earlier passage to the latter one, to teach us that only a man is required to rend his clothes and to let his hair grow loose, but not a woman. Also the woman is permitted marital intercourse, as it is written: And he shall dwell outside his tent seven days, but not [she] outside her tent. Why then have they not been enumerated as two separate instances? — The zab and the zabah are essentially different with regard to the source of uncleanness; whereas the leprous man and the leprous woman are not essentially different in their source of uncleanness, for the standard size of both is a bean. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID, ALSO A PROSELYTE IS REGARDED AS A PERSON WHO STILL REQUIRES etc. And why has the first Tanna not mentioned the proselyte? — He mentions only instances where the offering is to effect the permission of eating consecrated things, while in the case of the proselyte the offering is brought in order to qualify him to enter the congregation. And why has he not mentioned the nazirite? After all, when the nazirite brings an offering it is in order that he may be permitted to drink unconsecrated wine. And R. Eliezer, who has mentioned the nazirite in reference to his qualification, why has he not stated also the instance of the unclean nazirite? — The latter offers his sacrifice only to qualify for naziriteship in cleanness. Our Rabbis have taught: A proselyte is prevented from partaking of consecrated things before he has offered his sacrificial birds. If he has offered one single pigeon in the morning, he is permitted to partake of consecrated things in the evening. All sacrifices of birds consist of one sin-offering and one burnt-offering; in this case both are burnt-offerings. If he has offered his obligatory sacrifice from the cattle, he has done his duty; if he has offered a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, he has done his duty; if a meal — and a peace-offering he has not fulfilled his duty. The prescription of birds as sacrifices is, as it were, to be regarded only as a rule towards greater leniency. Now, why do not a meal- and a peace-offering exempt him from his duty? Apparently because it is written: As ye do, so he shall do; As ye [Israelites] offer a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, so shall also the proselyte offer a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. Similarly then it should not suffice for him to offer his obligatory sacrifice from the cattle, because it is written: ‘As ye do, so he shall do’? — Said R. papa. Argue thus: As he is included regarding the offering of a bird, should he not the more so be included regarding the burnt-offering of the cattle? If so, a meal-offering should also exempt him! — The text has excluded it by the word ‘so’. And whence do we know that he is included regarding the offering of a bird? — For our Rabbis taught: [It is written.] ‘As ye do, so shall he do’: As ye offer a burnt- and a peace-offering, so shall also he offer a burnt- and a peace-offering, as it is indeed confirmed in the text, As ye are, so shall the stranger be. Whence do we know that he is included concerning the offering of a bird? It is written, An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord, which is the offering that is wholly unto the Lord? You must say, This is the burnt-offering of the bird.35
—