כריתות 9:2 — Soncino English Talmud

that is a bondmaid, etc., to enjoin separate offerings for each handmaid. A NAZIRITE WHO BECAME UNCLEAN SEVERAL TIMES. Whose view does this represent? — Said R. Hisda, That of R. Jose son of R. Judah who holds that the naziriteship of cleanness counts from the seventh day, and the instance of our Mishnah is realised if he became unclean on the seventh day and then again on the seventh; since the time for the offering was not reached, he is liable only to one sacrifice. [How can the instance of the Mishnah be realised] according to Rabbi who holds that the naziriteship of cleanness does not count before the eighth day? If he became unclean on the seventh day and again on the [following] seventh day, is this not one long period of uncleanness? If he became unclean on the eighth day and again on the [following] eighth day, since the time of the offering has been reached, he should be liable to an offering for each uncleanness? It is thus proved that the Mishnah is in accordance with R. Jose son of R. Judah. And where do we find R. Jose's view? — It has been taught: And he shall hallow his head that same day, refers to the day on which the sacrifices are offered; thus the words of Rabbi. R. Jose son of R. Judah says, On the day of the cutting of his hair. MISHNAH. ONE WHO WARNS HIS WIFE IN REGARD TO SEVERAL MEN, AND A LEPER WHO HAS CONTRACTED A LEP ROUS DISEASE SEVERAL TIMES. IF HE HAS OFFERED THE BIRDS AND THEN BECOMES LEPROUS AGAIN, THEY DO NOT COUNT FOR HIM UNTIL HE HAS OFFERED HIS SIN-OFFERING. R. JUDAH SAYS, UNTIL HE HAS OFFERED HIS GUILT-OFFERING. GEMARA. Whence do we know the law concerning this? — It is written: This is the law concerning jealousies: One law for several warnings. A LEPER WHO HAS CONTRACTED A LEPROUS DISEASE SEVERAL TIMES. Whence do we know this? — It is written: This is the law of the leper: one law for several cases of leprosy. IF HE HAS OFFERED THE BIRDS AND THEN BECOMES LEPROUS AGAIN, THEY DO NOT COUNT FOR HIM UNTIL HE HAS OFFERED HIS SIN-OFFERING. R. JUDAH SAYS: UNTIL HE HAS OFFERED HIS GUILT-OFFERING. But did you not say he offers only one sacrifice? — The text is incomplete, and should read thus: If he has offered the birds and then becomes leprous again, he offers but one set of sacrifices. The decision whether the sacrifices be those of the poor person or of the rich person is not taken until the sin-offering is brought. R. Judah says: Until the guilt-offering is brought. We have learnt there: If a leper became rich after he had offered his guilt-offering, you go by his pecuniary status at the time of the offering of the sin-offering. Thus R. Simeon. R. Judah says: At the time of the offering of the guilt-offering. It has been taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob says, At the time of the offering of the birds. Said Rab Judah in the name of Rab: All the three [Rabbis] derive their respective views from the same passage, Whose means suffice not for that which pertaineth to his cleansing. R. Simeon holds: The offering that effects atonement [is decisive]; R. Judah holds: That which effects his qualification [to partake of holy things]; R. Eliezer b. Jacob holds: That which effects cleanness, namely, the birds. MISHNAH. A WOMAN WHO HAS UNDERGONE SEVERAL CONFINEMENTS, E.G., IF SHE PRODUCED A FEMALE ABORTION WITHIN EIGHTY DAYS OF THE BIRTH OF A GIRL, AND THEN SHE PRODUCED AGAIN A FEMALE ABORTION WITHIN EIGHTY DAYS OF THE FIRST; OR IF SHE PRODUCED A MULTIPLE OF ABORTIONS. R. JUDAH SAYS: SHE BRINGS AN OFFERING FOR THE FIRST BIRTH AND NOT FOR THE SECOND, FOR THE THIRD AGAIN BUT NOT FOR THE FOURTH. GEMARA. Whence do we know this? — A Tanna recited before R. Shesheth: This is the law for her that beareth, whether a male or a female, teaches that she offers but one offering for several births. I might perhaps assume then that also for a birth and a discharge of gonorrhea only one offering is brought, therefore it is written, ‘this’. It states, ‘I might perhaps assume then that also for a birth and a discharge of gonorrhea only one offering is brought’. If so, she should also bring but one offering if she ate blood and gave birth to a child? — Read thus: I might assume that she also brings but one offering [for two births if] one was before the period of cleanness had expired and the other after it had expired; therefore it is written, ‘this’. IF SHE PRODUCED WITHIN EIGHTY DAYS etc. If you will assume that according to R. Judah the first birth causes the offering, and the period of uncleanness is counted from the first birth, then according to the Rabbis the second birth causes the offering and the second, because there is no period of cleanness attached to the latter, since it fell within the period of cleanness of the first. An offering has therefore to be brought for the third birth which covers also the fourth that took place within the former's period of cleanness. period of uncleanness is counted from the second birth. You say, ‘If you will assume’; is it not obvious? — It has to be stated for the sake of its inclusion of the instance of the ‘multiple of abortions’. I might have thought that in the case of the multiple of abortions R. Judah agrees with the Rabbis; therefore we are informed [that it is not so]. The following query was put forward:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵃnote:Lev. XIX, 20.
^ᵇnote:A nazirite who becomes unclean has to count seven clean days and bring an offering on the eighth day. He has then to observe again his vow of naziriteship for the period stipulated, which is called the naziriteship of cleanness. According to R. Jose the new period commences on the seventh day. If the nazirite becomes unclean again on this day, it is considered a new state of uncleanness and yet he is liable only to one sacrifice because the offering is due only on the eighth. At the end of another spell of seven days he will then bring one sacrifice for two different occurrences of uncleanness.
^ᶜnote:The Mishnah would then not be justified in regarding this as a case where one offering is brought for several separate transgressions or occurrences.
^ᵈnote:I.e., the offering became due for the first uncleanness and thus designated for it.
^ᵉnote:Num. VI, 11. I.e., he shall commence the new period of naziriteship, as the text continues, And he shall consecrate unto the Lord the days of his naziriteship.
^ᶠnote:I.e., the eighth day; v. Num. VI, 10.
^ᵍnote:I.e., the seventh day; v. ibid v. 9.
^ʰnote:This is a continuation of the enumeration in the previous Mishnah of laws where one is liable to one sacrifice for several transgressions.
^ⁱnote:Not to have any relations with certain men; cf. Sot. 2a.
^ʲnote:Cf. Num. V, 15f. The jealous husband brings a meal-offering of barley.
^ᵏnote:A leper when declared healed and clean by the priest, offers two birds, cf. Lev. XIV, 4-7, and after seven days other offerings, cf. v. 10ff. If before the offering of the latter sacrifices he contracts again a leprous disease, he is not liable to new sacrifices.
^ˡnote:After the seven days he offers three sacrifices: a sin-, a guilt- and a burnt-offering. For the explanation of this passage v. infra Gemara.
^ᵐnote:With reference to the first instance in the Mishnah.
^ⁿnote:Num. V, 29. The use of the plural implies this law.
^ᵒnote:Lev. XIV, 2. The article is regarded as superfluous, and is taken to have been used for the sake of this implication.
^ᵖnote:While the text of the Mishnah seems to imply that he has to offer birds again.
^ᵠnote:The rich person brings three lambs as his sacrifices; the poor person offers a lamb as a guilt-offering and then two pigeons or turtle-doves, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering.
^ʳnote:I.e., it is the pecuniary position of the leper at the time of the offering of the sin-offering that is decisive, and not at the time of the offering of the birds.
^ˢnote:Neg. XIV, 11.
^ᵗnote:The sin- and burnt-offering are offered after the guilt-offering.
^ᵘnote:I.e., in spite of the fact that he is rich now, he offers but pigeons for the sin- and burnt-offerings, since he was poor at the moment when the guilt-offering was brought.
^ᵛnote:Lev. XIV, 32. ‘To his cleansing’ is taken to indicate that the moment of cleansing is decisive, and the three scholars differ as to what is meant by this cleansing: cleansing of sins, cleansing of the impediment to partake of holy things, or that which introduces the ceremony of purification.
^ʷnote:Viz., the smearing of the blood of the guilt-offering upon the thumb.
^ˣnote:This, too, is a continuation of the enumeration in the second Mishnah of this chapter of laws where one is liable to one sacrifice for several transgressions.
^ʸnote:Cf. Lev. XII, 5. After the birth of a girl the woman counts eighty days of cleanness and offers then a sacrifice. The abortion within this period is thus covered by the sacrifice for the first birth.
^ᶻnote:Lit. ‘twins’. Each abortion was brought forth before the period of cleanness for the previous abortion had expired.
^ᵃᵃnote:An abortion involves a sacrifice only if it takes place at least forty days after the conception. The first abortion took place within eighty days of the proper birth, but the second must of necessity have taken place after that period. It is therefore not covered by the offering brought for the proper birth. The third birth, i.e., the second abortion, cannot be regarded as exempted on account of the fact that it took place within eighty days of the
^ᵃᵇnote:Lev. XII, 7. The text is taken to suggest that there is one law, i.e., one offering, for several instances.
^ᵃᶜnote:Which preceded the birth.
^ᵃᵈnote:‘This’ is restrictive: only in the instance of births is the allowance regarding the offering made.
^ᵃᵉnote:Viz., that according to your assumption, one offering should suffice for two instances that are not connected one with the other. The argument is then led ad absurdum.
^ᵃᶠnote:Or rather, if the second birth took place after the period of cleanness of the first.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., whenever a birth takes place within the period of cleanness of another, in which case one sacrifice is offered for both, it is the first for which the offering is brought and the second is merely covered by it. The period of cleanness is counted from the first birth, so that there is no such period provided for the second; v. p. 73. n. 8.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., the anonymous view of the Mishnah which maintains that she is liable only to one sacrifice for all the four births, holding that whenever a birth takes place within the period of cleanness of another, it is the second for which the offering is brought while the first becomes exempted owing to the fact that its period of cleanness was interrupted. In the instance of the Mishnah, therefore, the second birth takes the place of the first, the third the place of the second, etc. ad infinitum, and the offering is brought for the last of the sequence of births. cf. also Mishnah 7b.
^ᵃⁱnote:And therefore superfluous.