Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 29, 2019 | 讻状讞 讘讗讘 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Keritot 8

One who miscarries on the 81st day after childbirth, is she obligated to bring two sacrifices or just one? Since one can’t sacrifice at night, is it as if she is not yet obligated to bring the first sacrifice and therefore she only brings one, or is it considered already day 81, just she can’t bring the sacrifice for technical reasons, and therefore she’d bring two sacrifices? If a woman is obligated in 5 zava sacrifices or 5 birth sacrifices or 5 sacrifices that there is uncertainty about whether or not she is obligated to bring them – does bringing one allow her to eat sacrificial meat? Is she obligated to bring all of them? What if she has certaincy about some and uncertaincy about others? Who is included in the list of those who need to bring a sacrifice to finish the atonement process?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讘转 诇专讘讜转 讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚

GEMARA: In continuation of the discussion of the mishna, it is taught in a baraita that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: The verse states: 鈥淎nd when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son or for a daughter鈥 (Leviticus 12:6). The entire clause: 鈥淔or a son or for a daughter,鈥 is superfluous and serves to include the night preceding the eighty-first day, i.e., if she has a miscarriage at that point she is obligated to bring another offering.

专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛讜讛 砖讻讬讞 拽诪讬讛 讚讘专 拽驻专讗 砖讘拽讬讛 讜讗转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 驻讙注 讘讬讛 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讝讘 砖专讗讛 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转 讘诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 诪讛 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讚讘专 讝讛

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Hoshaya would regularly study before bar Kappara. He then left him and came to study before Rabbi 岣yya. One day Rabbi Hoshaya encountered bar Kappara and raised the following dilemma before him: With regard to a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], who is obligated to bring an offering on the eighth day of his purification for three discharges, if he saw another three sightings, i.e., experienced an additional three discharges, on the night preceding the eighth day, what do Beit Hillel say about this matter? Must the zav bring a separate offering for this impurity as he would if he experienced the discharges on the eighth day?

讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘诪驻诇转 讘诇讬诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇讘转 讗讘诇 讝讘 砖专讗讛 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转 讘诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 驻讟专讬 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转专讬 拽专讗讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rabbi Hoshaya explains the sides of the dilemma: Is the reason for the ruling of Beit Hillel that a woman who miscarries on the night preceding the eighty-first day must bring an additional offering due to the derivation from the verse, as it is written: 鈥淔or a son or for a daughter鈥? But with regard to a zav who saw three sightings on the night preceding the eighth day, they deem him exempt, as in this case there are no superfluous verses from which one could derive this obligation. Or perhaps there is no difference between these halakhot, and just as a woman who miscarried on the night preceding the eighty-first day after childbirth must bring another offering, as it is the night preceding the day upon which she can bring her offering, a zav must likewise bring another offering for this impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 拽驻专讗 诪讛 讘讘诇讬 讗讜诪专 讘讚讘专 讝讛 讗讬砖转讬拽 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 拽驻专讗 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讚讘专讬 注讬讬讗 谞讞讝讜专 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讘转 诇专讘讜转 讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚

Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Hoshaya: What does the Babylonian, i.e., Rabbi 岣yya, who came from Babylonia, say about this matter? Rabbi Hoshaya was silent and did not say anything. Bar Kappara said to him: Do we require the statement of Iyya, i.e., 岣yya? Let us review the earlier ruling, as the baraita teaches that the verse that states: 鈥淔or a son or for a daughter鈥 (Leviticus 12:6), serves to include the night of the eighty-first day. This indicates that the halakha applies only in the case of a woman after childbirth.

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讝讘 砖专讗讛 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转 讘诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 转谞讬 讞讚讗 诪讘讬讗 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讘讬讗 拽住讘专 诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讜讛讚转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 拽住讘专 诇讬诇讛 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say this dilemma is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. With regard to a zav who saw three sightings on the night preceding the eighth day, it is taught in one baraita that he brings an additional offering, and it is taught in another baraita that he does not bring another offering. What, is it not the case that this is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? As, the tanna of this baraita who taught that he brings an additional offering holds that night is not considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived, and therefore it is as though the eighth day itself has begun; and the tanna of that baraita who taught that he does not bring another offering holds that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived, and consequently it is not yet time to sacrifice his first offering of a zav.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讬诇讛 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讘讬讗 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 讜讛讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转

Rav Huna bar A岣 said that Rabbi Elazar said: These tanna鈥檌m both hold that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived, and therefore a zav who experienced three discharges on the night preceding the eighth day does not bring another offering. And the ruling of this baraita, which taught that he brings an additional offering, is stated with regard to a zav who experienced two sightings. Since this zav has completed his purification process, as he is not obligated to bring an offering, these discharges constitute a new instance of ritual impurity. And the ruling of that baraita, which taught that he does not bring another offering, is stated with regard to a zav who had experienced three sightings. This zav must bring an offering, and the time for the offering has not yet arrived on the eighth night. Therefore, he is not obligated to bring another offering.

讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讜拽讗 专讗讛 讘诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 讗讘诇 讘讬诪诪讗 讚砖讘讬注讬 诇讗 拽住讘专 讻诇 专讗讬讬讛 砖住讜转专转 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讛 诇讬讚讬 拽专讘谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the ruling of that baraita is stated with regard to a zav who experienced two sightings, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? It is obvious that this is a new instance of ritual impurity. The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita teaches us: It is specifically if this zav saw a discharge on the night preceding the eighth day that he must bring an offering; but if he saw a discharge on the seventh day he is not obligated to bring an offering. This is because the tanna of this baraita holds: Any sighting of ziva that negates the days of purity, i.e., which causes the zav to have to count seven clean days afresh, does not bring him to the point of being liable to bring another offering.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转 诇讬转谞讬讬讛 讙讘讬 讞诪砖讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 注诇 注讘讬专讜转 讛专讘讛 诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讗讛 讗讞转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖转讬诐 讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗

Rava said: Why did you interpret that which is taught in the baraita, i.e., that he does not bring another offering, as stating a ruling with regard to a zav who experienced three sightings? If that is correct, let the tanna teach this example in the list that appears in a mishna from the next chapter (9a): There are five people who bring one offering for multiple transgressions, i.e., for violating the same transgression several times. The Gemara explains: The tanna did not include this case in that list because he could not state this halakha as a definitive ruling. As Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If the zav saw one discharge at night and then two on the eighth day, he brings an additional offering for these discharges. By contrast, if he saw two discharges at night and one in the day, he does not bring an additional offering.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讚注 讚讗讞转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖转讬诐 讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗 讚讛讗 专讗讬讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘注诇诪讗 讜讗讬诇讜 讞讝讬 转专转讬谉 讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 诇讛讜

Rav Yosef said: Know that if a zav saw one discharge at night and two in the day he brings an additional offering. This is because the first sighting of any zav is considered merely semen, since one who has a single discharge of ziva immerses on that day and is rendered ritually pure at sundown, like one who experiences a seminal emission. And yet if he sees two other discharges they combine with the first one to establish him as a zav and render him liable to bring an offering. The same applies in this case with regard to the eighth day.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 专讗讬讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖诇 讝讘 讞讝讬讬讛 讘讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讗讞转 讘诇讬诇讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讘讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讞讝讬讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗砖诪注讬谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诪爪讟专祝 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗 转爪讟专祝

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: Are the cases comparable? With regard to the first sighting of a zav, he saw it at a time of potential liability to bring an offering, which is why it combines with the next two discharges. By contrast, in a case where a zav sees one discharge at night preceding the eighth day, since he saw it when it was not the time of potential liability to bring an offering for the subsequent two sightings, as one who sees three discharges on the night preceding the eighth day does not bring an additional offering, were it not for the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan teaches us that it combines with the other two discharges I would say it does not combine with them.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬诇讛 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived, as indicated by his ruling that if a zav experienced two discharges at night and one in the daytime he does not bring an additional offering?

讜讛讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 谞讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讬诇讛 诪讘讬讗

But doesn鈥檛 岣zkiyya say that if a nazirite contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse and underwent the purification rites, after which he must bring an offering on the eighth day, and he again became ritually impure on the eighth day itself, he brings a second set of offerings. But if he became ritually impure on the night preceding the eighth day he does not bring an additional set of offerings, because he could not have brought the offering at night. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if the nazirite became ritually impure on the night preceding the eighth day, he brings a second set of offerings. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, night is not considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived.

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖转讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉

The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yo岣nan says that if a zav experienced two discharges at night and one on the eighth day he does not bring an additional offering, he spoke according to the statement of the one who says that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived. He himself maintains that even if a zav experienced all three discharges at night he must bring an additional offering.

诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 驻砖讬讟讗 专讗讛 讗讞转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖转讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讘讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 拽讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 转爪讟专祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara objects: If he spoke only according to the statement of the one who says that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived, it is obvious that no new offerings are required. What novelty did Rabbi Yo岣nan intend to express? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to teach the first case, of a zav who saw one discharge at night and two in the day. Lest you say: Since he saw the one at night when it was not the time of incurring liability to bring an offering, it should not combine with the other two discharges. Rabbi Yo岣nan therefore teaches us that the discharges do combine with each other.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 住驻拽 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜住驻拽 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 讜讚讗讜转 讜讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜讚讗讜转 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛

MISHNA: With regard to a woman who has in her case uncertainty concerning five births, and likewise a woman with regard to whom there is uncertainty concerning five irregular discharges of blood from the uterus [ziva], she brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her. If she experienced five definite discharges of a zava or five definite births, she brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are an obligation for her.

诪注砖讛 砖注诪讚讜 拽讬谞讬谉 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛诪注讜谉 讛讝讛 诇讗 讗诇讬谉 讛诇讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬讛讬讛 讘讚讬谞专讬谉 讘住讜祝 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诇诪讚 讛讗砖讛 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜讚讗讜转 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 讜讚讗讜转 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛 讜注诪讚讜 拽讬谞讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讘专讘注转讬诐

There was an incident where the price of nests, i.e., pairs of birds, stood in Jerusalem at one gold dinar, as the great demand for birds for the offerings of a woman after childbirth and a zava led to an increase in the price. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: I swear by this abode of the Divine Presence that I will not lie down tonight until the price of nests will be in silver dinars. Ultimately, he entered the court and taught: A woman who has in her case five definite discharges of a zava or five definite births brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her. And as a result, the price of the nests stood that day at one-quarter of a silver dinar, as the demand for nests decreased.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜讚讗讬 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 住驻拽 讗讜 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜讚讗讬 讜讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 住驻拽 诪讘讬讗讛 砖转讬 拽讬谞讬谉 讗讞转 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 讜讗讞转 注诇 讛住驻拽 砖诇 讜讚讗讬 谞讗讻诇转 讜讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛 砖诇 住驻拽 讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:10): If a woman has the obligations of five definite births and five uncertain discharges of a zava, or five definite births and five uncertain births, she brings two nests, one for the definite obligation and one for the uncertain obligation. That which she brought for the definite obligation is eaten by the priests, and the remaining offerings are an obligation for her. That which she brought for the uncertain obligation is not eaten, and the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 注诇 讜讚讗讬 转讗诪专 注诇 讛讗讞专讜谞讛 讜转驻讟专 砖诇 住驻拽 讗诐 讬砖 讜讚讗讬 讘讬谞讬讛谉 转讗诪专 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 讜转驻讟专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转讗诪专 注诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜转驻讟专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 讘讬谉 注诇 讛住驻拽 转讗诪专 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜转驻讟专

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: With regard to offerings brought for the definite obligation, she should say: I am bringing the offering for the last definite obligation, and she is exempt from bringing the rest of the offerings. The reason is so that she should not think that no atonement is required for the others. With regard to offerings brought for the uncertain obligation, if there is a definite obligation among the uncertain offerings she should say: I am bringing it for the definite obligation, and she is exempt from the rest. But if there is no definite obligation she should say: I am bringing the offering for any one of them, not necessarily for the last one, and she is exempt. Rabbi Akiva says: Whether she brings her offering for the definite obligation or whether she brings it for the uncertain obligation, she should say: I am bringing it for one of them, and she is exempt.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪讚诪讬 诇讛讜谉 诇讞讟讗转 讚诪讗谉 讚讞讬讬讘 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 讻讜诇讛讜谉 讜住讜祝 诪讻驻专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rav Pappa: I will say a statement to you in the name of Rava: With regard to these tanna鈥檌m, with regard to what matter do they disagree? Their disagreement is that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, who requires her to bring the offering for her definite obligation for the last definite obligation, compares the offerings of a woman after childbirth to a sin offering brought for a transgression. As, one who is liable to bring five sin offerings does not achieve atonement until he brings all of them, and only the offering that he brings at the end atones for him. Here too, it is no different, and therefore she achieves atonement and may consume sacrificial food only if she brings an offering for her last obligation.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讚诪讬 诇讛讜谉 诇讟讘讬诇讬谉 讚诪讗谉 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讞诪砖 讟讘讬诇讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚讟讘讬诇 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讗讬讟讛专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

And Rabbi Akiva compares the offerings of a woman after childbirth to immersions in a ritual bath. As with regard to one who is obligated to perform five immersions, once he has immersed one time he is purified. Here too, it is no different, and consequently as soon as she brings an offering for any of the obligations she is ritually pure and is permitted to partake of sacrificial food.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇讞讟讗转 诪讚诪讬 诇讛谉 讗诪讗讬 砖诇 住驻拽 转讗诪专 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜转驻讟专 讗讬诇讜 诪讗谉 讚诪讞讬讬讘

Rav Pappa said to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k: If it enters your mind that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri compares the offerings of a woman after childbirth to a sin offering, why then, with regard to offerings brought for the uncertain obligation, should she say: I am bringing it for any one of them, and she is exempt? If one who is obligated

讞诪砖 讗砖诪讜转 转诇讜讬讬谉 讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 讞讚 诪讬 诪讬驻讟专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘讞讟讗讜转 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘讗砖诪讜转

to bring five provisional guilt offerings, when he brings one offering is he exempt from bringing the rest? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that this is the principle: In any case where one鈥檚 transgressions are divided with regard to sin offerings, i.e., where one must bring a separate sin offering for each act when he becomes aware that he has sinned, they are likewise divided with regard to provisional guilt offerings, when there is uncertainty as to whether or not he sinned?

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讟讘讬诇讜转 诪讚诪讬 诇讛讜谉 讜讘讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇驻砖讬注讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 住讘专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻砖讬注讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻砖讬注讛

Rather, everyone agrees that we compare the sin offerings of a woman after childbirth and a zava to immersions, and therefore by Torah law it is sufficient for her to say: I am bringing it for one of them. And they disagree with regard to whether we are concerned for her negligence. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri maintains we are concerned for her negligence. In other words, if she says: I am bringing it for one of my obligations, if she gives birth in the following years she might think that she does not need to bring an offering for each birth, and she will neglect to bring an offering. By requiring her to declare: I am bringing the offering for the last definite obligation, the Sages thereby remind her that all her births require offerings. And Rabbi Akiva maintains we are not concerned for her negligence, and therefore it is sufficient for her to say: I am bringing the offering for one of them.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖砖

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 诪讞讜住专讬 讻驻专讛 讜讗专讘注讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注诇 讛讝讚讜谉 讻砖讜讙讙

MISHNA: There are four individuals whose halakhic status is defined as: Lacking atonement [khappara], which means they had been in a state of ritual impurity and underwent rituals to purify themselves, but since they have not yet brought the requisite atonement offering to complete the purification process, they may not partake of sacrificial meat. And there are also four individuals who bring an offering for an intentional transgression in the same manner as they do for an unwitting transgression.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讞讜住专讬 讻驻专讛 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛讬讜诇讚转 讜讛诪爪讜专注

And these are the four individuals who lack atonement: The man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], the woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava], the woman after childbirth, and the leper. In all four of these cases, although the individual has completed all of the other steps of the purification process, the process is not complete until the atonement offering has been brought.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讙专 诪讞讜住专 讻驻专讛 注讚 砖讬讝专讜拽 注诇讬讜 讛讚诐 谞讝讬专 诇讬讬谞讜 讜转讙诇讞转讜 讜讟讜诪讗转讜

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: A convert also lacks atonement, even after he has been circumcised and has immersed in a ritual bath, until the priest sprinkles the blood of his offering on the altar on his behalf. A nazirite also lacks atonement with regard to his permission for drinking wine, and cutting his hair, and his exposure to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, until his offerings are sacrificed.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讝讘 讜讝讘讛 讚诪谞讬 诇讛讜谉 讘转专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诇讜拽讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 讚讝讘 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讜谞住 讜讝讘讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐

GEMARA: The mishna lists four individuals whose status is defined as lacking atonement until their offering is brought: The zav, the zava, the woman after childbirth, and the leper. The Gemara asks: What is different about a zav and a zava, that the tanna decided to count them as two separate cases? The Gemara answers: They are different due to the fact that the impurity of a zav is distinct from that of a zava, as a zav does not become impure if he has a discharge by accident, i.e., due to a cause such as an illness or having consumed certain foods, whereas there is no such exemption in the case of a zava; and a zava, unlike a zav, does not become impure by three sightings of menstrual-type blood on one day like she becomes impure by sightings on three consecutive days.

讚转谞讬讗 诪讘砖专讜 讜诇讗 诪讞诪转 讗讜谞住讜 (讜诪讬 讟诪讗) [讜诪讬讟诪讗] 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 转诇讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗转 讛讝讻专 讘专讗讬讜转 讜讗转 讛谞拽讘讛 讘讬诪讬诐 讜讝讘讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淲hen any man has a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). The term 鈥渇rom his flesh鈥 teaches that the discharge is impure only if it is due to an internal cause, and not due to his accident. And furthermore, a zav becomes impure by three sightings of gonorrhea-like discharge on one day like he becomes impure by three such sightings on three consecutive days, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse links the impurity of the male, i.e., a zav, to the number of sightings on the same day or on consecutive days, and of the female zava to the number of consecutive days on which she experiences sightings of blood. And by contrast, a zava becomes impure if she has a discharge by accident, and does not become impure by three sightings on one day like she becomes impure by sightings on three consecutive days. Therefore, the mishna counts them as two separate cases.

诪爪讜专注 讜诪爪讜专注转 谞诪讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讟讜诪讗转谉 讚诪爪讜专注 讟注讜谉 驻专讬注讛 讜驻专讬诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讙讚讬讜 讬讛讬讜 驻专诪讬诐 讜专讗砖讜 讬讛讬讛 驻专讜注 讜讗住讜专 讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛

The Gemara objects: But the impurities of a male leper and a female leper are also distinct, as a male leper requires letting his hair grow wild and rending his garments, as it is written: 鈥淗is garments shall be rent and the hair of his head shall go wild鈥 (Leviticus 13:45), and he is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse.

讜诪爪讜专注转 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 驻专讬注讛 讜驻专讬诪讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬砖 讗砖讛 诪谞讬谉 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛爪专讜注 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖谞讬诐

And by contrast, a female leper does not require letting her hair grow wild and rending her garments, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淗e is a leprous man鈥 (Leviticus 13:44): I have derived only that a man can be a leper; from where do I derive that a woman can also be a leper? When the verse states: 鈥淎nd the leper in whom the mark is鈥 (Leviticus 13:45), without specifying a man, the verse teaches that there are two here, i.e., a man and a woman.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 谞转拽讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪注谞讬谉 砖诇 诪注诇讛 诇注谞讬谉 砖诇 诪讟讛 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻讜专注 讜驻讜专诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 驻讜专注转 讜驻讜专诪转 讜诪讜转专转 讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖讘 诪讞讜抓 诇讗讛诇讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诪讞讜抓 诇讗讛诇讛

The baraita asks: If so, why does the verse state: 鈥淎 leprous man鈥? The baraita answers: The verse removed it from the matter stated earlier, and applied it to the matter stated later: 鈥淗is garments shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go wild,鈥 to say that a man who is a leper lets his hair grow wild and rends his garments, but the woman who is a leper does not need to let her hair grow wild and does not rend her garments. And a female leper is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall dwell outside his tent for seven days鈥 (Leviticus 14:8), and not: Outside her tent.

讛诇讻讱 谞诪谞讬谞讛讜 讘转专讬谉 讝讘 讜讝讘讛 注讬拽专 讟讜诪讗转谉 讞诇讜拽讛 诪爪讜专注 讜诪爪讜专注转 讗讬谉 注讬拽专 讟讜诪讗转谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讛讗讬 讜讛讗讬 讻讙专讬住 讛讜讗

The Gemara now resumes stating its objection: Therefore, let us count the male and female leper as two separate cases, as the mishna does with regard to the zav and zava. Why does the mishna not do so? The Gemara explains: With regard to a zav and zava, they are treated as separate cases because the essence of their impurity is distinct, as the impurity of a zav is based on the number of sightings of discharge, whereas the impurity of a zava is based on the number of consecutive days on which she experiences sightings of menstrual-type blood. By contrast, with regard to a male leper and female leper, the essence of their impurity is not distinct, as in both this case of a male leper and that case of a female leper, the impurity is based on a leprous mark which is at least the area of a split bean.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讙专 诪讞讜住专 讻讜壮 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讙专 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讚注诐 讚诪讬砖专讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讙专 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗讻砖讜专讬 谞驻砖讬讛 诇诪讬注诇 讘拽讛诇

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: A convert also lacks atonement until the priest sprinkles the blood of his offering on the altar on his behalf. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the first tanna does not also teach a convert, i.e., why does the first tanna not include him in the list of individuals lacking atonement? The Gemara answers: When the first tanna teaches those individuals who lack atonement, he includes any matter where the atonement offering completes the process of purification and thereby permits the individual to partake of sacrificial meat. But when a convert brings his atonement offering, it is to qualify him to enter the congregation of Israel through marriage, not to permit him to partake of sacrificial meat.

讜谞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗讬砖转专讜讬讬 诇诪讬砖转讬 讬讬谉 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the first tanna also does not teach that a nazirite lacks atonement? The Gemara answers: Ultimately, as well, when a nazirite brings his offering, it is to permit him to drink non-sacred wine, not to permit him to partake of sacrificial meat.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚拽转谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇诪讬砖专讬 谞驻砖讬讛 谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 诇诪讬讞诇 注诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讘讟讛专讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara objects: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, who teaches a nazirite in the mishna鈥檚 list of those who lack atonement, because the nazirite brings his offering in order to permit himself to drink wine, let him also teach, i.e., include in the list, a ritually impure nazirite. The Gemara answers: A ritually pure nazirite brings an offering in order to render an action permitted, and therefore Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov considers him lacking atonement. By contrast, when a ritually impure nazirite brings his offering, it is not to render an action permitted, but rather to effect upon himself a new period of naziriteship in purity.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙专 诪注讜讻讘 诇讗讻讜诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 拽讬谞讜 讛讘讬讗 驻专讬讚讛 讗讞转 砖讞专讬转 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇注专讘 讻诇 讛拽讬谞讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讞讚 讞讟讗转 讜讗讞讚 注讜诇讛 讻讗谉 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诇讜转

搂 With regard to the atonement offering of a convert, the Sages taught in a baraita: A convert is precluded from partaking of sacrificial meat until he brings his bird nest, i.e., his offering of a pair of birds, either pigeons or doves. If he brought one young bird [perida] in the morning, he may partake of sacrificial meat in the evening, and may bring the second bird at a later time. Furthermore, with regard to all other cases in the Torah where bird nests are mandated as offerings, one of the birds is brought as a sin offering and the other one as a burnt offering; but here, in the case of the convert, both of them are burnt offerings.

讛讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讬爪讗 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讬爪讗 诪谞讞讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 拽谉 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇

The baraita continues: If, instead of birds, the convert brought a burnt offering from an animal as his obligatory offering, he has fulfilled his obligation, and if he brought a burnt offering and a peace offering, he has also fulfilled his obligation; but if he brought a meal offering and a peace offering, he has not fulfilled his obligation. This is because a bird nest was stated in the Torah only to be lenient for him. Therefore, if he voluntarily brought an animal, which is more expensive, as a burnt offering, he has fulfilled his obligation.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪谞讞讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讚诇讗 讬爪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 转注砖讜 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诪讛 讗转诐 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讗祝 讙专 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is different about a meal offering and peace offering, that if the convert brings these he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara answers: It is as it is written: 鈥淎nd if a stranger dwell with you, or whosoever may be among you, throughout your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord; as you do, so he shall do鈥 (Numbers 15:14). From this verse it is derived: Just as you brought a burnt offering and a peace offering when you entered the covenant on Mount Sinai, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings鈥 (Exodus 24:5), so too, a convert must bring a burnt offering and a peace offering.

讗诐 讻谉 讞讜讘转讜 讗讞转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 诇讗 转讬住讙讬 注诇讬讛 讘讙讜讜讬讛 讚讛讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 转注砖讜 讻谉 讬注砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 诇注讜祝 讗讬转专讘讬 诇注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara objects: If so, in a case where he brought one offering from an animal for his obligation, that should not be enough for him, as isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎s you do, so he shall do,鈥 which teaches that he must bring both a burnt offering and a peace offering? Why, then, does the baraita state that a single burnt offering from an animal is sufficient? Rav Pappa says: One can say that this is derived from an a fortiori inference: If a bird offering was included as an inexpensive way for a convert to fulfill his obligation, would the Torah not all the more so include a more expensive animal burnt offering?

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讞讛 谞诪讬 诪讬注讟 拽专讗 讻谉

The Gemara objects: If so, then even a meal offering should fulfill the convert鈥檚 obligation. The Gemara answers: The verse restricts the acceptable offerings, excluding a meal offering, as it states: 鈥淛ust as you do, so he shall do,鈥 meaning that he must not do less than that.

讜注讜祝 讛讬讻讗 讗讬转专讘讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讗砖专 转注砖讜 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诪讛 讗转诐 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讗祝 讛讜讗 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讻诐 讻讙专 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注讜祝 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖讛 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 诇讛壮 讗讬讝讛 讚讘专 砖讻讜诇讜 诇讛壮 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝

The Gemara asks: And where was a bird offering included as an option? The Gemara answers that this is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎s you do, so he shall do鈥 (Numbers 15:14): Just as you entered the covenant with a burnt offering and a peace offering, so too, a convert fulfills his obligation with a burnt offering and a peace offering, as it is stated: 鈥淎s you are, so shall the stranger be鈥 (Numbers 15:15). From where is it derived to include the option of the bird offering instead of an animal? The verse states: 鈥淎n offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:14). Which item is an offering that is entirely for the Lord? You must say: This is referring to a bird burnt offering, which is entirely consumed upon the altar.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Keritot 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 8

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讘转 诇专讘讜转 讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚

GEMARA: In continuation of the discussion of the mishna, it is taught in a baraita that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: The verse states: 鈥淎nd when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son or for a daughter鈥 (Leviticus 12:6). The entire clause: 鈥淔or a son or for a daughter,鈥 is superfluous and serves to include the night preceding the eighty-first day, i.e., if she has a miscarriage at that point she is obligated to bring another offering.

专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛讜讛 砖讻讬讞 拽诪讬讛 讚讘专 拽驻专讗 砖讘拽讬讛 讜讗转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 驻讙注 讘讬讛 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讝讘 砖专讗讛 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转 讘诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 诪讛 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讚讘专 讝讛

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Hoshaya would regularly study before bar Kappara. He then left him and came to study before Rabbi 岣yya. One day Rabbi Hoshaya encountered bar Kappara and raised the following dilemma before him: With regard to a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], who is obligated to bring an offering on the eighth day of his purification for three discharges, if he saw another three sightings, i.e., experienced an additional three discharges, on the night preceding the eighth day, what do Beit Hillel say about this matter? Must the zav bring a separate offering for this impurity as he would if he experienced the discharges on the eighth day?

讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘诪驻诇转 讘诇讬诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇讘转 讗讘诇 讝讘 砖专讗讛 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转 讘诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 驻讟专讬 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转专讬 拽专讗讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rabbi Hoshaya explains the sides of the dilemma: Is the reason for the ruling of Beit Hillel that a woman who miscarries on the night preceding the eighty-first day must bring an additional offering due to the derivation from the verse, as it is written: 鈥淔or a son or for a daughter鈥? But with regard to a zav who saw three sightings on the night preceding the eighth day, they deem him exempt, as in this case there are no superfluous verses from which one could derive this obligation. Or perhaps there is no difference between these halakhot, and just as a woman who miscarried on the night preceding the eighty-first day after childbirth must bring another offering, as it is the night preceding the day upon which she can bring her offering, a zav must likewise bring another offering for this impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 拽驻专讗 诪讛 讘讘诇讬 讗讜诪专 讘讚讘专 讝讛 讗讬砖转讬拽 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 拽驻专讗 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讚讘专讬 注讬讬讗 谞讞讝讜专 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讘转 诇专讘讜转 讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚

Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Hoshaya: What does the Babylonian, i.e., Rabbi 岣yya, who came from Babylonia, say about this matter? Rabbi Hoshaya was silent and did not say anything. Bar Kappara said to him: Do we require the statement of Iyya, i.e., 岣yya? Let us review the earlier ruling, as the baraita teaches that the verse that states: 鈥淔or a son or for a daughter鈥 (Leviticus 12:6), serves to include the night of the eighty-first day. This indicates that the halakha applies only in the case of a woman after childbirth.

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讝讘 砖专讗讛 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转 讘诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 转谞讬 讞讚讗 诪讘讬讗 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讘讬讗 拽住讘专 诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讜讛讚转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 拽住讘专 诇讬诇讛 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say this dilemma is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. With regard to a zav who saw three sightings on the night preceding the eighth day, it is taught in one baraita that he brings an additional offering, and it is taught in another baraita that he does not bring another offering. What, is it not the case that this is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? As, the tanna of this baraita who taught that he brings an additional offering holds that night is not considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived, and therefore it is as though the eighth day itself has begun; and the tanna of that baraita who taught that he does not bring another offering holds that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived, and consequently it is not yet time to sacrifice his first offering of a zav.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 住讘专讬 诇讬诇讛 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讘讬讗 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 讜讛讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转

Rav Huna bar A岣 said that Rabbi Elazar said: These tanna鈥檌m both hold that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived, and therefore a zav who experienced three discharges on the night preceding the eighth day does not bring another offering. And the ruling of this baraita, which taught that he brings an additional offering, is stated with regard to a zav who experienced two sightings. Since this zav has completed his purification process, as he is not obligated to bring an offering, these discharges constitute a new instance of ritual impurity. And the ruling of that baraita, which taught that he does not bring another offering, is stated with regard to a zav who had experienced three sightings. This zav must bring an offering, and the time for the offering has not yet arrived on the eighth night. Therefore, he is not obligated to bring another offering.

讝讘 讘注诇 砖转讬 专讗讬讜转 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讜拽讗 专讗讛 讘诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 讗讘诇 讘讬诪诪讗 讚砖讘讬注讬 诇讗 拽住讘专 讻诇 专讗讬讬讛 砖住讜转专转 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讛 诇讬讚讬 拽专讘谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the ruling of that baraita is stated with regard to a zav who experienced two sightings, what is the purpose of stating this halakha? It is obvious that this is a new instance of ritual impurity. The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita teaches us: It is specifically if this zav saw a discharge on the night preceding the eighth day that he must bring an offering; but if he saw a discharge on the seventh day he is not obligated to bring an offering. This is because the tanna of this baraita holds: Any sighting of ziva that negates the days of purity, i.e., which causes the zav to have to count seven clean days afresh, does not bring him to the point of being liable to bring another offering.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转 诇讬转谞讬讬讛 讙讘讬 讞诪砖讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 注诇 注讘讬专讜转 讛专讘讛 诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讗讛 讗讞转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖转讬诐 讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗

Rava said: Why did you interpret that which is taught in the baraita, i.e., that he does not bring another offering, as stating a ruling with regard to a zav who experienced three sightings? If that is correct, let the tanna teach this example in the list that appears in a mishna from the next chapter (9a): There are five people who bring one offering for multiple transgressions, i.e., for violating the same transgression several times. The Gemara explains: The tanna did not include this case in that list because he could not state this halakha as a definitive ruling. As Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If the zav saw one discharge at night and then two on the eighth day, he brings an additional offering for these discharges. By contrast, if he saw two discharges at night and one in the day, he does not bring an additional offering.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讚注 讚讗讞转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖转讬诐 讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗 讚讛讗 专讗讬讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘注诇诪讗 讜讗讬诇讜 讞讝讬 转专转讬谉 讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 诇讛讜

Rav Yosef said: Know that if a zav saw one discharge at night and two in the day he brings an additional offering. This is because the first sighting of any zav is considered merely semen, since one who has a single discharge of ziva immerses on that day and is rendered ritually pure at sundown, like one who experiences a seminal emission. And yet if he sees two other discharges they combine with the first one to establish him as a zav and render him liable to bring an offering. The same applies in this case with regard to the eighth day.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 专讗讬讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖诇 讝讘 讞讝讬讬讛 讘讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讗讞转 讘诇讬诇讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讘讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讞讝讬讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗砖诪注讬谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诪爪讟专祝 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗 转爪讟专祝

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: Are the cases comparable? With regard to the first sighting of a zav, he saw it at a time of potential liability to bring an offering, which is why it combines with the next two discharges. By contrast, in a case where a zav sees one discharge at night preceding the eighth day, since he saw it when it was not the time of potential liability to bring an offering for the subsequent two sightings, as one who sees three discharges on the night preceding the eighth day does not bring an additional offering, were it not for the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan teaches us that it combines with the other two discharges I would say it does not combine with them.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬诇讛 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived, as indicated by his ruling that if a zav experienced two discharges at night and one in the daytime he does not bring an additional offering?

讜讛讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 谞讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讬诇讛 诪讘讬讗

But doesn鈥檛 岣zkiyya say that if a nazirite contracted ritual impurity through contact with a corpse and underwent the purification rites, after which he must bring an offering on the eighth day, and he again became ritually impure on the eighth day itself, he brings a second set of offerings. But if he became ritually impure on the night preceding the eighth day he does not bring an additional set of offerings, because he could not have brought the offering at night. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if the nazirite became ritually impure on the night preceding the eighth day, he brings a second set of offerings. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, night is not considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived.

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖转讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讞转 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉

The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yo岣nan says that if a zav experienced two discharges at night and one on the eighth day he does not bring an additional offering, he spoke according to the statement of the one who says that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived. He himself maintains that even if a zav experienced all three discharges at night he must bring an additional offering.

诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 驻砖讬讟讗 专讗讛 讗讞转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖转讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讘讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讗 拽讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 转爪讟专祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara objects: If he spoke only according to the statement of the one who says that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived, it is obvious that no new offerings are required. What novelty did Rabbi Yo岣nan intend to express? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to teach the first case, of a zav who saw one discharge at night and two in the day. Lest you say: Since he saw the one at night when it was not the time of incurring liability to bring an offering, it should not combine with the other two discharges. Rabbi Yo岣nan therefore teaches us that the discharges do combine with each other.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 住驻拽 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜住驻拽 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 讜讚讗讜转 讜讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜讚讗讜转 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛

MISHNA: With regard to a woman who has in her case uncertainty concerning five births, and likewise a woman with regard to whom there is uncertainty concerning five irregular discharges of blood from the uterus [ziva], she brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her. If she experienced five definite discharges of a zava or five definite births, she brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are an obligation for her.

诪注砖讛 砖注诪讚讜 拽讬谞讬谉 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛诪注讜谉 讛讝讛 诇讗 讗诇讬谉 讛诇讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬讛讬讛 讘讚讬谞专讬谉 讘住讜祝 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诇诪讚 讛讗砖讛 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜讚讗讜转 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 讜讚讗讜转 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛 讜注诪讚讜 拽讬谞讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讘专讘注转讬诐

There was an incident where the price of nests, i.e., pairs of birds, stood in Jerusalem at one gold dinar, as the great demand for birds for the offerings of a woman after childbirth and a zava led to an increase in the price. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: I swear by this abode of the Divine Presence that I will not lie down tonight until the price of nests will be in silver dinars. Ultimately, he entered the court and taught: A woman who has in her case five definite discharges of a zava or five definite births brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her. And as a result, the price of the nests stood that day at one-quarter of a silver dinar, as the demand for nests decreased.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜讚讗讬 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 住驻拽 讗讜 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜讚讗讬 讜讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 住驻拽 诪讘讬讗讛 砖转讬 拽讬谞讬谉 讗讞转 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 讜讗讞转 注诇 讛住驻拽 砖诇 讜讚讗讬 谞讗讻诇转 讜讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛 砖诇 住驻拽 讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:10): If a woman has the obligations of five definite births and five uncertain discharges of a zava, or five definite births and five uncertain births, she brings two nests, one for the definite obligation and one for the uncertain obligation. That which she brought for the definite obligation is eaten by the priests, and the remaining offerings are an obligation for her. That which she brought for the uncertain obligation is not eaten, and the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 注诇 讜讚讗讬 转讗诪专 注诇 讛讗讞专讜谞讛 讜转驻讟专 砖诇 住驻拽 讗诐 讬砖 讜讚讗讬 讘讬谞讬讛谉 转讗诪专 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 讜转驻讟专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转讗诪专 注诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜转驻讟专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 注诇 讛讜讚讗讬 讘讬谉 注诇 讛住驻拽 转讗诪专 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜转驻讟专

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: With regard to offerings brought for the definite obligation, she should say: I am bringing the offering for the last definite obligation, and she is exempt from bringing the rest of the offerings. The reason is so that she should not think that no atonement is required for the others. With regard to offerings brought for the uncertain obligation, if there is a definite obligation among the uncertain offerings she should say: I am bringing it for the definite obligation, and she is exempt from the rest. But if there is no definite obligation she should say: I am bringing the offering for any one of them, not necessarily for the last one, and she is exempt. Rabbi Akiva says: Whether she brings her offering for the definite obligation or whether she brings it for the uncertain obligation, she should say: I am bringing it for one of them, and she is exempt.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪讚诪讬 诇讛讜谉 诇讞讟讗转 讚诪讗谉 讚讞讬讬讘 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 讻讜诇讛讜谉 讜住讜祝 诪讻驻专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rav Pappa: I will say a statement to you in the name of Rava: With regard to these tanna鈥檌m, with regard to what matter do they disagree? Their disagreement is that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, who requires her to bring the offering for her definite obligation for the last definite obligation, compares the offerings of a woman after childbirth to a sin offering brought for a transgression. As, one who is liable to bring five sin offerings does not achieve atonement until he brings all of them, and only the offering that he brings at the end atones for him. Here too, it is no different, and therefore she achieves atonement and may consume sacrificial food only if she brings an offering for her last obligation.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讚诪讬 诇讛讜谉 诇讟讘讬诇讬谉 讚诪讗谉 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讞诪砖 讟讘讬诇讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚讟讘讬诇 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讗讬讟讛专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

And Rabbi Akiva compares the offerings of a woman after childbirth to immersions in a ritual bath. As with regard to one who is obligated to perform five immersions, once he has immersed one time he is purified. Here too, it is no different, and consequently as soon as she brings an offering for any of the obligations she is ritually pure and is permitted to partake of sacrificial food.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇讞讟讗转 诪讚诪讬 诇讛谉 讗诪讗讬 砖诇 住驻拽 转讗诪专 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜转驻讟专 讗讬诇讜 诪讗谉 讚诪讞讬讬讘

Rav Pappa said to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k: If it enters your mind that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri compares the offerings of a woman after childbirth to a sin offering, why then, with regard to offerings brought for the uncertain obligation, should she say: I am bringing it for any one of them, and she is exempt? If one who is obligated

讞诪砖 讗砖诪讜转 转诇讜讬讬谉 讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 讞讚 诪讬 诪讬驻讟专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘讞讟讗讜转 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘讗砖诪讜转

to bring five provisional guilt offerings, when he brings one offering is he exempt from bringing the rest? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that this is the principle: In any case where one鈥檚 transgressions are divided with regard to sin offerings, i.e., where one must bring a separate sin offering for each act when he becomes aware that he has sinned, they are likewise divided with regard to provisional guilt offerings, when there is uncertainty as to whether or not he sinned?

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讟讘讬诇讜转 诪讚诪讬 诇讛讜谉 讜讘讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇驻砖讬注讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 住讘专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻砖讬注讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻砖讬注讛

Rather, everyone agrees that we compare the sin offerings of a woman after childbirth and a zava to immersions, and therefore by Torah law it is sufficient for her to say: I am bringing it for one of them. And they disagree with regard to whether we are concerned for her negligence. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri maintains we are concerned for her negligence. In other words, if she says: I am bringing it for one of my obligations, if she gives birth in the following years she might think that she does not need to bring an offering for each birth, and she will neglect to bring an offering. By requiring her to declare: I am bringing the offering for the last definite obligation, the Sages thereby remind her that all her births require offerings. And Rabbi Akiva maintains we are not concerned for her negligence, and therefore it is sufficient for her to say: I am bringing the offering for one of them.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖砖

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 诪讞讜住专讬 讻驻专讛 讜讗专讘注讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注诇 讛讝讚讜谉 讻砖讜讙讙

MISHNA: There are four individuals whose halakhic status is defined as: Lacking atonement [khappara], which means they had been in a state of ritual impurity and underwent rituals to purify themselves, but since they have not yet brought the requisite atonement offering to complete the purification process, they may not partake of sacrificial meat. And there are also four individuals who bring an offering for an intentional transgression in the same manner as they do for an unwitting transgression.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讞讜住专讬 讻驻专讛 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛讬讜诇讚转 讜讛诪爪讜专注

And these are the four individuals who lack atonement: The man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], the woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava], the woman after childbirth, and the leper. In all four of these cases, although the individual has completed all of the other steps of the purification process, the process is not complete until the atonement offering has been brought.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讙专 诪讞讜住专 讻驻专讛 注讚 砖讬讝专讜拽 注诇讬讜 讛讚诐 谞讝讬专 诇讬讬谞讜 讜转讙诇讞转讜 讜讟讜诪讗转讜

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: A convert also lacks atonement, even after he has been circumcised and has immersed in a ritual bath, until the priest sprinkles the blood of his offering on the altar on his behalf. A nazirite also lacks atonement with regard to his permission for drinking wine, and cutting his hair, and his exposure to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, until his offerings are sacrificed.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讝讘 讜讝讘讛 讚诪谞讬 诇讛讜谉 讘转专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诇讜拽讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 讚讝讘 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讜谞住 讜讝讘讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐

GEMARA: The mishna lists four individuals whose status is defined as lacking atonement until their offering is brought: The zav, the zava, the woman after childbirth, and the leper. The Gemara asks: What is different about a zav and a zava, that the tanna decided to count them as two separate cases? The Gemara answers: They are different due to the fact that the impurity of a zav is distinct from that of a zava, as a zav does not become impure if he has a discharge by accident, i.e., due to a cause such as an illness or having consumed certain foods, whereas there is no such exemption in the case of a zava; and a zava, unlike a zav, does not become impure by three sightings of menstrual-type blood on one day like she becomes impure by sightings on three consecutive days.

讚转谞讬讗 诪讘砖专讜 讜诇讗 诪讞诪转 讗讜谞住讜 (讜诪讬 讟诪讗) [讜诪讬讟诪讗] 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 转诇讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗转 讛讝讻专 讘专讗讬讜转 讜讗转 讛谞拽讘讛 讘讬诪讬诐 讜讝讘讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淲hen any man has a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). The term 鈥渇rom his flesh鈥 teaches that the discharge is impure only if it is due to an internal cause, and not due to his accident. And furthermore, a zav becomes impure by three sightings of gonorrhea-like discharge on one day like he becomes impure by three such sightings on three consecutive days, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse links the impurity of the male, i.e., a zav, to the number of sightings on the same day or on consecutive days, and of the female zava to the number of consecutive days on which she experiences sightings of blood. And by contrast, a zava becomes impure if she has a discharge by accident, and does not become impure by three sightings on one day like she becomes impure by sightings on three consecutive days. Therefore, the mishna counts them as two separate cases.

诪爪讜专注 讜诪爪讜专注转 谞诪讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讟讜诪讗转谉 讚诪爪讜专注 讟注讜谉 驻专讬注讛 讜驻专讬诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讙讚讬讜 讬讛讬讜 驻专诪讬诐 讜专讗砖讜 讬讛讬讛 驻专讜注 讜讗住讜专 讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛

The Gemara objects: But the impurities of a male leper and a female leper are also distinct, as a male leper requires letting his hair grow wild and rending his garments, as it is written: 鈥淗is garments shall be rent and the hair of his head shall go wild鈥 (Leviticus 13:45), and he is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse.

讜诪爪讜专注转 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 驻专讬注讛 讜驻专讬诪讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬砖 讗砖讛 诪谞讬谉 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛爪专讜注 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖谞讬诐

And by contrast, a female leper does not require letting her hair grow wild and rending her garments, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淗e is a leprous man鈥 (Leviticus 13:44): I have derived only that a man can be a leper; from where do I derive that a woman can also be a leper? When the verse states: 鈥淎nd the leper in whom the mark is鈥 (Leviticus 13:45), without specifying a man, the verse teaches that there are two here, i.e., a man and a woman.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 谞转拽讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪注谞讬谉 砖诇 诪注诇讛 诇注谞讬谉 砖诇 诪讟讛 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻讜专注 讜驻讜专诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 驻讜专注转 讜驻讜专诪转 讜诪讜转专转 讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖讘 诪讞讜抓 诇讗讛诇讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诪讞讜抓 诇讗讛诇讛

The baraita asks: If so, why does the verse state: 鈥淎 leprous man鈥? The baraita answers: The verse removed it from the matter stated earlier, and applied it to the matter stated later: 鈥淗is garments shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go wild,鈥 to say that a man who is a leper lets his hair grow wild and rends his garments, but the woman who is a leper does not need to let her hair grow wild and does not rend her garments. And a female leper is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall dwell outside his tent for seven days鈥 (Leviticus 14:8), and not: Outside her tent.

讛诇讻讱 谞诪谞讬谞讛讜 讘转专讬谉 讝讘 讜讝讘讛 注讬拽专 讟讜诪讗转谉 讞诇讜拽讛 诪爪讜专注 讜诪爪讜专注转 讗讬谉 注讬拽专 讟讜诪讗转谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讛讗讬 讜讛讗讬 讻讙专讬住 讛讜讗

The Gemara now resumes stating its objection: Therefore, let us count the male and female leper as two separate cases, as the mishna does with regard to the zav and zava. Why does the mishna not do so? The Gemara explains: With regard to a zav and zava, they are treated as separate cases because the essence of their impurity is distinct, as the impurity of a zav is based on the number of sightings of discharge, whereas the impurity of a zava is based on the number of consecutive days on which she experiences sightings of menstrual-type blood. By contrast, with regard to a male leper and female leper, the essence of their impurity is not distinct, as in both this case of a male leper and that case of a female leper, the impurity is based on a leprous mark which is at least the area of a split bean.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讙专 诪讞讜住专 讻讜壮 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讙专 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讚注诐 讚诪讬砖专讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讙专 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗讻砖讜专讬 谞驻砖讬讛 诇诪讬注诇 讘拽讛诇

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: A convert also lacks atonement until the priest sprinkles the blood of his offering on the altar on his behalf. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the first tanna does not also teach a convert, i.e., why does the first tanna not include him in the list of individuals lacking atonement? The Gemara answers: When the first tanna teaches those individuals who lack atonement, he includes any matter where the atonement offering completes the process of purification and thereby permits the individual to partake of sacrificial meat. But when a convert brings his atonement offering, it is to qualify him to enter the congregation of Israel through marriage, not to permit him to partake of sacrificial meat.

讜谞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗讬砖转专讜讬讬 诇诪讬砖转讬 讬讬谉 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the first tanna also does not teach that a nazirite lacks atonement? The Gemara answers: Ultimately, as well, when a nazirite brings his offering, it is to permit him to drink non-sacred wine, not to permit him to partake of sacrificial meat.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚拽转谞讬 谞讝讬专 诇诪讬砖专讬 谞驻砖讬讛 谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 诇诪讬讞诇 注诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讘讟讛专讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara objects: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, who teaches a nazirite in the mishna鈥檚 list of those who lack atonement, because the nazirite brings his offering in order to permit himself to drink wine, let him also teach, i.e., include in the list, a ritually impure nazirite. The Gemara answers: A ritually pure nazirite brings an offering in order to render an action permitted, and therefore Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov considers him lacking atonement. By contrast, when a ritually impure nazirite brings his offering, it is not to render an action permitted, but rather to effect upon himself a new period of naziriteship in purity.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙专 诪注讜讻讘 诇讗讻讜诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 拽讬谞讜 讛讘讬讗 驻专讬讚讛 讗讞转 砖讞专讬转 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇注专讘 讻诇 讛拽讬谞讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讞讚 讞讟讗转 讜讗讞讚 注讜诇讛 讻讗谉 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诇讜转

搂 With regard to the atonement offering of a convert, the Sages taught in a baraita: A convert is precluded from partaking of sacrificial meat until he brings his bird nest, i.e., his offering of a pair of birds, either pigeons or doves. If he brought one young bird [perida] in the morning, he may partake of sacrificial meat in the evening, and may bring the second bird at a later time. Furthermore, with regard to all other cases in the Torah where bird nests are mandated as offerings, one of the birds is brought as a sin offering and the other one as a burnt offering; but here, in the case of the convert, both of them are burnt offerings.

讛讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讬爪讗 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讬爪讗 诪谞讞讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 拽谉 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇

The baraita continues: If, instead of birds, the convert brought a burnt offering from an animal as his obligatory offering, he has fulfilled his obligation, and if he brought a burnt offering and a peace offering, he has also fulfilled his obligation; but if he brought a meal offering and a peace offering, he has not fulfilled his obligation. This is because a bird nest was stated in the Torah only to be lenient for him. Therefore, if he voluntarily brought an animal, which is more expensive, as a burnt offering, he has fulfilled his obligation.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪谞讞讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讚诇讗 讬爪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 转注砖讜 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诪讛 讗转诐 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讗祝 讙专 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is different about a meal offering and peace offering, that if the convert brings these he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara answers: It is as it is written: 鈥淎nd if a stranger dwell with you, or whosoever may be among you, throughout your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord; as you do, so he shall do鈥 (Numbers 15:14). From this verse it is derived: Just as you brought a burnt offering and a peace offering when you entered the covenant on Mount Sinai, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings鈥 (Exodus 24:5), so too, a convert must bring a burnt offering and a peace offering.

讗诐 讻谉 讞讜讘转讜 讗讞转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 诇讗 转讬住讙讬 注诇讬讛 讘讙讜讜讬讛 讚讛讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 转注砖讜 讻谉 讬注砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 诇注讜祝 讗讬转专讘讬 诇注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara objects: If so, in a case where he brought one offering from an animal for his obligation, that should not be enough for him, as isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎s you do, so he shall do,鈥 which teaches that he must bring both a burnt offering and a peace offering? Why, then, does the baraita state that a single burnt offering from an animal is sufficient? Rav Pappa says: One can say that this is derived from an a fortiori inference: If a bird offering was included as an inexpensive way for a convert to fulfill his obligation, would the Torah not all the more so include a more expensive animal burnt offering?

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讞讛 谞诪讬 诪讬注讟 拽专讗 讻谉

The Gemara objects: If so, then even a meal offering should fulfill the convert鈥檚 obligation. The Gemara answers: The verse restricts the acceptable offerings, excluding a meal offering, as it states: 鈥淛ust as you do, so he shall do,鈥 meaning that he must not do less than that.

讜注讜祝 讛讬讻讗 讗讬转专讘讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讗砖专 转注砖讜 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诪讛 讗转诐 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讗祝 讛讜讗 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讻诐 讻讙专 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注讜祝 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖讛 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 诇讛壮 讗讬讝讛 讚讘专 砖讻讜诇讜 诇讛壮 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝

The Gemara asks: And where was a bird offering included as an option? The Gemara answers that this is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎s you do, so he shall do鈥 (Numbers 15:14): Just as you entered the covenant with a burnt offering and a peace offering, so too, a convert fulfills his obligation with a burnt offering and a peace offering, as it is stated: 鈥淎s you are, so shall the stranger be鈥 (Numbers 15:15). From where is it derived to include the option of the bird offering instead of an animal? The verse states: 鈥淎n offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:14). Which item is an offering that is entirely for the Lord? You must say: This is referring to a bird burnt offering, which is entirely consumed upon the altar.

Scroll To Top