Keritot

What is R. Judah's view with reference to uncleanness?1 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 impurity2 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;3 but here,4 since it leads to greater leniency,5 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?6 [Whereon it was asked,] Is she not still unclean?7 and R. Hisda answered: This is in accordance with R. Judah, who holds that the second birth is not taken into account.8 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.9 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?10 — 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.11 If so,12 she is fit for the Paschal Lamb from the eighth day onward!13 — 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.14 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 offerings15 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,16 and as being in accordance with R. Ishmael who holds17 the limit for a male to be forty-one days and for a female eighty-one days.18 But is she not, after all, unclean as a menstruant woman?19 — It deals with a dry birth.20 If so, is the law not obvious? — I might have thought that the opening of the uterus cannot take place without discharge of blood;21 therefore he lets us know that the uterus can open without a discharge of blood. R. Shema'iah said, Come and hear: ‘Sixty’22 may convey both a connected and a disconnected23 spell of time; therefore it is written ‘days’:24 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!25 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!26 — 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.27 But, then, after all, is it not so that the days of the first birth finish before those of the second28 and the Rabbis hold that the second birth is taken into account?29 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,30 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 interruption31 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.32 Abaye said: Come and hear, ‘Thirty’33 may convey both a connected and a disconnected spell of time,34 therefore it is written, ‘days’:35 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 second birth or not. regarded as unclean; cf. Lev. XII, 2 and 5. is thus the forty-first day of the first. On this day she may join the Passover celebration, because the time is due for the offerings which will effect her purification, although they have not been offered yet. The Paschal Lamb is consumed in the evening and the offerings of purification may still be offered. This holds good only according to R. Judah, who says the second birth is not taken into account, for according to the Sages it being the fortieth day of the second birth she would still be unfit for the Paschal Lamb. for the unclean people. With this reply we depart from R. Hisda's interpretation. the required spell of time has not passed, he is, according to this view, still unclean. Similarly, if the woman has immersed after the eighth day and has to wait for the completion of the forty days in order to offer the sacrifice, she is still regarded as unfit for sacred things. considered fit for the Paschal Lamb on the fortieth day. took place forty or eighty days respectively after the conception. She is permitted to join the Passover celebration because the embryo is considered too immature to cause uncleanness. Paschal Lamb? hidden. of a female. used in the singular implies that the period is to be like one day. is regarded as annulled and a new period is to start. According to R. Judah on the other hand the period of the first birth still holds good. in the query. the eighty days of the female. In this case even the Rabbis admit that the second, shorter period of cleanness does not abolish the first, longer one, which is to be resumed. The text conveys that the seven days of impurity caused by the abortion are not to be made up after the eighty days have passed. not allowed to her husband. As the embryo must be at least forty days old, the abortion cannot have taken place before the fifty-fourth day after the birth of the female, so that the forty days of the second birth must of necessity end after the eighty days of the first. be regarded as an example of a disjointed period of eighty days, mentioned in the statement quoted. abolished by that of the second, since the latter finishes before the former. first birth woman is indeed unclean during these seven days. male. second supersede seven of the days of cleanness of the first birth. If we said that these seven days are to be made up, we should find the period of cleanness of the first birth disconnected. The text lets us know that the seven days are not to be made up.