Keritot

GEMARA. It has been taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: Lo, it says, ‘or for a daughter’,1 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,2 what would be the view of Beth Hillel in this case?3 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 Babylonian4 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!5 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;6 and the one which teaches that he is exempt holds that the night renders a period wanting in time!7 — 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,8 and the one which teaches that he is exempt deals with a zab of three issues.9 But need the case of a zab of two issues be stated?10 — 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]11 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’?12 — Because this law is not absolute;13 for R. Johanan said: If he perceived one issue in the night14 and two during the day,15 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,16 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?17 Did not Hezekiah say:18 If he [the nazirite] became unclean during the eighth day,19 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?20 — 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 BIRTHS21 OR FIVE DOUBTFUL ISSUES,22 SHE NEED BRING BUT ONE OFFERING,23 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 DOVES24 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,25 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,26 and she will be exempted; but for the doubtful cases, if there is a certain one among them,27 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;28 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 not clear. offering of a sacrifice, and there is only a night intervening, the period may be regarded as accomplished. The new issues therefore involve a new offering. new offering is therefore required. Yet in the case of the abortions dealt with in our Mishnah there is liability in the view of Beth Hillel to a new set of offerings, on account of the text, ‘or for a daughter’. he perceives three issues, these render him liable to an offering. offering. perceived on the eighth day, the issue of the previous night combines with these, and he is liable to a new offering. count again his period of naziriteship. does not require offerings, or outside that period; v. Lev. XV, 25. sacrificial flesh. i.e. four birds, cost two golden denars, thus one golden denar (i.e. twenty-five silver denars) the pair. lead to misunderstanding in that on future similar occasions the woman would assume that offerings were not essential.