Keritot 9

Keritot 9

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֵּן״.

The baraita continues: One might have thought that I include as an option even a meal offering, which would not be entirely consumed on the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “So he shall do,” to exclude a meal offering.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְעָשָׂה אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ לַה׳״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי כֹּל שֶׁעוֹלֶה לָאִשִּׁים, אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״ – מָה אַתֶּם מִינֵי דָמִים, אַף הֵם מִינֵי דָמִים.

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whoever 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” (Numbers 15:14).From this verse I would derive that he fulfills his obligation with any offering that is brought on the fire of the altar, even a meal offering. Therefore, to negate that interpretation, the verse states: “As you do, so he shall do,” which teaches that just as you entered the covenant with types of offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the altar, so too must they, converts, bring types of offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the altar.

אִי מָה אַתֶּם עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים, אַף הֵם עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כָּכֶם כַּגֵּר יִהְיֶה״ – לָכֶם הִקַּשְׁתִּיו, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר, לְקׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיכֶם.

The baraita continues: If so, why not derive similarly: Just as you entered the covenant with a burnt offering and a peace offering, so too, they must enter the covenant with a burnt offering and a peace offering? How is it derived that a convert may fulfill his obligation with a single burnt offering from an animal? The baraita answers that the verse states: “As you are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord” (Numbers 15:15). This serves to emphasize: I compared him to you in order to derive that just like you, he too must bring types of offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the altar, but I did not extend this comparison to another matter, i.e., to insist that his offerings must be identical to all of your offerings.

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כָּכֶם״ – כַּאֲבוֹתֵיכֶם, מָה אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם לֹא נִכְנְסוּ לַבְּרִית אֶלָּא בְּמִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת דָּם – אַף הֵם לֹא יִכָּנְסוּ לַבְּרִית אֶלָּא בְּמִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת דָּמִים.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The offering of a convert is derived from the verse: “As you are, so shall the stranger be” (Numbers 15:15), which means as your ancestors were: Just as your ancestors entered the covenant only through circumcision and immersion in a ritual bath and the sprinkling of blood on the altar, so too they may enter the covenant only through circumcision and immersion and the sprinkling of some blood, which requires at least a bird offering.

לְהָבִיא פְּרִידָה אַחַת – אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ. לֹא אָמְרוּ קֵן אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עָלָיו.

The baraita adds: And it is impossible to bring only one young bird as an offering, as we have not found an offering of a single bird anywhere in the entire Torah. Consequently, if the requirement for the sprinkling of blood is fulfilled with a bird offering, the convert must bring at least two birds. By contrast, if he chooses he may bring a single animal as a burnt offering, because a bird nest was stated in the Torah only in order to be lenient for him.

וְלָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּתוֹרִים: ״וְהִקְרִיב״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי הָאוֹמֵר: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלַת הָעוֹף״ לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי פְרִידִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״ – אֲפִילּוּ פְּרִידָה אַחַת! – חוֹבָה מִיהָא לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן.

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement: And is it true that we have not found an offering of an individual bird anywhere in the Torah? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a bird sacrificed as a burnt offering: “And the priest shall sacrifice it” (Leviticus 1:15). Why must the verse state this? Since it is stated about doves: “And he shall sacrifice his offering of doves” (Leviticus 1:14), in the plural, I might derive from here that the one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a bird as a burnt offering, shall not bring less than two young birds. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall sacrifice it” (Leviticus 1:15), in the singular, to teach that one may bring a gift offering of even one single young bird. The Gemara responds: In any event, we have not found an obligatory offering of just one bird.

וְהָאִיכָּא יוֹלֶדֶת, דְּמַתְיָא בֶּן יוֹנָה אוֹ תוֹר לְחַטָּאת! – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא כֶּבֶשׂ בַּהֲדַהּ.

The Gemara challenges this assertion as well: But isn’t there the offering of a woman after childbirth, who brings a single pigeon or dove as a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6)? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, because in that case there is a lamb with it as part of her offerings; the bird is not brought as a complete offering by itself.

אָמַר מָר: מָה אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם לֹא נִכְנְסוּ לַבְּרִית אֶלָּא כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא מִילָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי מוּלִים הָיוּ כׇּל הָעָם הַיּוֹצְאִים״, אִי נָמֵי מֵהָכָא: ״וְאֶעֱבוֹר עָלַיִךְ וָאֶרְאֵךְ מִתְבּוֹסֶסֶת בְּדָמָיִךְ וָאוֹמַר לָךְ בְּדָמַיִךְ חֲיִי וְגוֹ׳״.

The Gemara returns to the main part of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement. The Master said: Just as your ancestors entered the covenant only through circumcision, immersion in a ritual bath, and the sprinkling of blood, converts must do the same. The Gemara objects: Granted, they underwent circumcision prior to entering the covenant, as it is written: “For all the nation that left Egypt was circumcised” (Joshua 5:5). Alternatively, it may be derived from here, a verse describing the redemption from Egypt: “And when I passed by you, and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said unto you: In your blood, live; and I said unto you: In your blood, live” (Ezekiel 16:6). The Sages interpret the double mention of blood in this verse as referring to the blood of the Paschal offering and the blood of circumcision.

הַרְצָאַת דָּמִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. אֶלָּא טְבִילָה מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה חֲצִי הַדָּם וְיִזְרוֹק עַל הָעָם״ – וְאֵין הַזָּאָה בְּלֹא טְבִילָה.

The Gemara continues: And granted as well, they entered the covenant through the sprinkling of blood, as it is written: “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, and they sacrificed burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings” (Exodus 24:5). The Gemara asks: But from where do we derive that immersion in a ritual bath was also part of the process of entering the covenant? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And Moses took half the blood…and sprinkled it on the people” (Exodus 24:6–8), and there is no sprinkling of sacrificial blood without immersion.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הָאִידָּנָא דְּלֵיכָּא קׇרְבָּן לָא נְקַבֵּל גֵּרִים! אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: ״וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּכֶם גֵּר אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכְכֶם וְגוֹ׳״.

The Gemara objects: If that is so, that these three rituals are required by Torah law for a convert to enter the congregation, then now, in our time, when there are no offerings, we not should have the ability to accept converts. In response, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says that the verse states: “And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever may be among you, throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:14). This teaches that converts may be accepted throughout the generations, even when there is no Temple and sacrificial offerings are therefore impossible.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גֵּר בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה – צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ רוֹבַע לְקִינּוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כְּבָר נִמְנָה (עָלָיו) [עָלֶיהָ] רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי וּבִטְּלָהּ, מִפְּנֵי הַתַּקָּלָה. אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר גֵּרְשׁוֹם אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

§ With regard to the offerings of a convert, the Sages taught in a baraita: A convert in the present time is required to set aside a quarter of a dinar for his bird nest, so that when the Temple is rebuilt he can purchase the offering with this money. Rabbi Shimon says: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai already assembled a panel of Sages who voted and nullified this ordinance, due to a potential mishap. If one would inadvertently use such money, he would be liable for the misuse of consecrated property. Rav Idi bar Gershom says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that a convert should not set aside money for the purchase of offerings.

וְאִיכָּא דְמַתְנֵי לַהּ עַל הָדָא, דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב מוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת לְעַצְמוֹ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחוּלּוֹ שֶׁל מוֹעֵד.

The Gemara comments: And there are those who teach this statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava with regard to this case, as the Sages taught in a baraita: A gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav] is permitted to perform labor on Shabbat for himself in the same manner that a Jew is permitted to perform labor on the intermediate days of a Festival, i.e., only for matters that, if unattended, will result in significant loss.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב עוֹשֶׂה בַּשַּׁבָּת לְעַצְמוֹ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בַּחוֹל. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב וְאֶחָד עֶבֶד וְאָמָה הַתּוֹשָׁבִים עוֹשִׂין מְלָאכָה בַּשַּׁבָּת לְעַצְמָן כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בַּחוֹל.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva says: A ger toshav may perform labor on Shabbat in the same manner that a Jew is permitted to perform labor on a Festival, i.e., only for the purpose of preparing food. Rabbi Yosei says: A ger toshav may perform labor on Shabbat for himself in the same manner that a Jew is permitted to perform labor on a weekday. Rabbi Shimon says: Both a ger toshav and a resident male or female slave may perform labor on Shabbat for themselves in the same manner that a Jew may perform labor on a weekday. According to this tradition, it is in relation to this baraita that Rav Adda bar Ahava said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין עַל הַזָּדוֹן כַּשּׁוֹגֵג: הַבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה, וְנָזִיר שֶׁנִּטְמָא, וּשְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת, וּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן.

MISHNA: These individuals bring an offering for an intentional transgression in the same manner as they do for an unwitting transgression: One who engages in intercourse with an espoused maidservant, who is liable to bring a guilt offering (see Leviticus 19:20–22); and a nazirite who became ritually impure, who is required to bring a sheep as a guilt offering and two doves or two pigeons, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering (see Numbers 6:9–12); and one who falsely takes the oath of testimony, asserting that he does not have any testimony to provide on a given issue (see Leviticus 5:1); and one who falsely takes the oath on a deposit, asserting that an item belonging to another is not in his possession (see Leviticus 5:21–26).

חֲמִשָּׁה מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל עֲבֵירוֹת הַרְבֵּה, וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל עֲבֵירוֹת הַרְבֵּה: הַבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה בִּיאוֹת הַרְבֵּה, וְנָזִיר שֶׁנִּטְמָא טוּמְאוֹת הַרְבֵּה.

There are five individuals who bring one offering for several transgressions, i.e., for violating the same transgression several times; and there are five individuals who bring a sliding-scale offering, which is determined based on the financial status of the sinner. These are the five individuals who bring one offering for several transgressions: First, one who engages in several acts of intercourse with an espoused maidservant, and second, a nazirite who became ritually impure due to several instances of contact with ritual impurity.

גְּמָ׳ הַבָּא עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה, מְנָלַן?

gemara The mishna teaches that one who engages in intercourse with an espoused maidservant brings an offering for an intentional transgression as he does for an unwitting transgression. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this?

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמֵּבִיא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל עֲבֵירוֹת הַרְבֵּה. ״בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם… וְנִסְלַח לוֹ מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא״ – לַעֲשׂוֹת שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד.

As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he has sinned” (Leviticus 19:22). The superfluous phrase: That he has sinned, teaches that he brings one offering for several transgressions. Furthermore, the verse concludes: “With the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he has sinned; and he shall be forgiven for his sin that he has sinned.” The second occurrence of the phrase “that he has sinned” serves to render the halakha with regard to an unwitting transgression the same as it is with regard to an intentional transgression, that one brings a guilt offering in either case.

נָזִיר שֶׁנִּטְמָא, מְנָלַן?

§ The mishna teaches: A nazirite who became ritually impure brings an offering for an intentional transgression as he does for an unwitting transgression. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this?

דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מֵת עָלָיו בְּפֶתַע פִּתְאוֹם״, ״פֶּתַע״ – זֶה שׁוֹגֵג, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אִם בְּפֶתַע בְּלֹא אֵיבָה הֲדָפוֹ״, ״פִּתְאוֹם״ – זֶה אוֹנֶס, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ פִּתְאֹם אֶל מֹשֶׁה״.

The Gemara answers: It is as it is written with regard to a nazirite: “And if any man die unexpectedly [befeta], suddenly [pitom] beside him” (Numbers 6:9). When the verse states: “Unexpectedly,” this is referring to an unwitting transgression, and similarly, it states: “But if he thrust him unexpectedly without enmity” (Numbers 35:22). And when the verse states: “Suddenly,” this is referring to circumstances beyond his control, and similarly, it states: “And the Lord spoke suddenly to Moses, and to Aaron, and to Miriam: Come out you three to the Tent of Meeting. And they three came out” (Numbers 12:4). The Lord’s speech came to them suddenly, in a manner that was beyond their control.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״פִּתְאוֹם״ – זֶה מֵזִיד, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״עָרוּם רָאָה רָעָה וְנִסְתָּר וּפְתָאִים עָבְרוּ וְנֶעֱנָשׁוּ״.

It is taught in another baraita: “Suddenly”; this is referring to an intentional transgression, and similarly the verse states: “A prudent man sees the evil, and hides himself; but the thoughtless pass on, and are punished” (Proverbs 22:3). The tanna interprets the expression “the thoughtless [peta’im]” as related to the word “suddenly [pitom],” and one can be punished, as the thoughtless are punished in the verse, but only for an intentional transgression.

נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״פִּתְאוֹם״, דְּמַשְׁמַע שׁוֹגֵג, וּמַשְׁמַע מֵזִיד, וּמַשְׁמַע אוֹנֶס. מֵזִיד וְאוֹנֶס – כְּדַאֲמַרַן, וּמַשְׁמַע נָמֵי שׁוֹגֵג, דִּכְתִיב: ״פֶּתִי יַאֲמִין לְכׇל דָּבָר״, וְלָא נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״פֶּתַע״!

The Gemara objects: Let the verse write simply: “Suddenly [pitom],” as this term indicates unwitting transgression, and it also indicates intentional transgression, and it also indicates transgression due to circumstances beyond his control. The Gemara elaborates: “Suddenly” indicates intentional transgression and transgression due to circumstances beyond his control, as the tanna said in the baraitot earlier; and it also indicates unwitting transgression, as it is written: “The thoughtless one [peti] believes every word” (Proverbs 14:15), and because he is misinformed, his transgression is unwitting. And if so, let the verse not write: Unexpected [peta].

אִי כְּתַב קְרָא ״פִּתְאוֹם״, דְּמַשְׁמַע שׁוֹגֵג וּמַשְׁמַע מֵזִיד וּמַשְׁמַע אוֹנֶס, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כִּי מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן – בְּשׁוֹגֵג, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵי אַתּוֹרָה כּוּלַּהּ, אֲבָל אוֹנֶס וּמֵזִיד אֵימָא לָא,

The Gemara explains: If the verse had written only “suddenly,” which indicates unwitting transgression, and also indicates intentional transgression, and also indicates transgression due to circumstances beyond his control, I would say: When a nazirite brings an offering, it is in a situation where he transgressed unwittingly, as is the case for all mitzvot in the entire Torah, that one is generally liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression; but for a transgression due to circumstances beyond his control or an intentional transgression, I would say the nazirite is not liable to bring an offering.

כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״פֶּתַע״, דְּשׁוֹגֵג הוּא, לְגַלּוֹיֵי עֲלֵיהּ דְּפִתְאוֹם דְּאוֹנֶס וּמֵזִיד הוּא, דַּאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי חַיֵּיב רַחֲמָנָא.

Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: Unexpected, which is a term that indicates unwitting transgression, in order to reveal about the word “suddenly” that it is a term that indicates transgression due to circumstances beyond his control or intentional transgression. Consequently, it teaches that even in this case the Merciful One rendered him liable to bring an offering.

שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת, מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּכוּלָּן נֶאֱמַר ״וְנֶעְלַם״, כָּאן לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״וְנֶעְלַם״ – לְחַיֵּיב עַל הַשּׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד.

§ The mishna teaches that one who falsely takes the oath of testimony brings an offering for an intentional transgression in the same manner as he does for an unwitting transgression. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to all those who are liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, it is stated: “And it be hid from him” (see Leviticus 5:2–4). But here, with regard to the oath of testimony (Leviticus 5:1), it is not stated: And it be hid from him. This omission serves to render him liable for an unwitting transgression in the same manner as an intentional transgression.

שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן, מְנָלַן? יָלֵיף ״תֶּחְטָא״ ״תֶּחְטָא״ מִשְּׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת.

The mishna teaches that one who falsely takes the oath on a deposit brings an offering for an intentional transgression as he does for an unwitting transgression. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: The tanna derives it from a verbal analogy between the term “shall sin,” stated with regard to an oath on a deposit (Leviticus 5:21), and the term “shall sin,” stated with regard to the oath of testimony (Leviticus 5:1). It is derived from this verbal analogy that just as in the case of the oath of testimony one is liable for committing an intentional transgression in the same manner as an unwitting transgression, the same applies to the oath on a deposit.

חֲמִשָּׁה מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל עֲבֵירוֹת הַרְבֵּה. קָתָנֵי: הַבָּא עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה בִּיאוֹת הַרְבֵּה. מְנָלַן?

§ The mishna teaches: There are five individuals who bring one offering for several transgressions, i.e., for violating the same transgression several times. Among them, the tanna teaches: One who engages in several acts of intercourse with an espoused maidservant. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha?

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמֵּבִיא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל עֲבֵירוֹת הַרְבֵּה. ״בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם וְנִסְלַח לוֹ מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא״ – לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵזִיד כְּשׁוֹגֵג.

The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he has sinned” (Leviticus 19:22). The superfluous phrase “that he has sinned” teaches that he brings one offering for several transgressions. Furthermore, the verse concludes: “With the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he has sinned; and he shall be forgiven for his sin that he has sinned.” The second instance of the phrase “that he has sinned” serves to render the halakha with regard to an intentional transgression the same as it is with regard to an unwitting transgression, that one brings a guilt offering in either case.

וְהָא קְרָא, כִּי כְּתִיב – בְּמֵזִיד כְּתִיב! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: לַעֲשׂוֹת שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד.

The Gemara objects: But when this verse is written, it is written with regard to an intentional transgression, as the verse states: “There shall be an inspection” (Leviticus 19:20), which indicates a punishment of lashes, and lashes are given only for an intentional transgression. The Gemara responds: Rather, say that the language of the baraita should be reversed, as follows: The phrase “that he has sinned” renders the halakha with regard to an unwitting transgression to be the same as it is with regard to an intentional transgression.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא טִירְנָאָה מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַבָּא עַל חָמֵשׁ שְׁפָחוֹת חֲרוּפוֹת בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, מַהוּ? חַיָּיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַיָּיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

Rabbi Ḥanina of Tirna’a raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one engages in intercourse with five espoused maidservants [shefaḥot ḥarufot] in one lapse of awareness, meaning that he was not informed of the prohibition in between his unwitting transgressions, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring an offering for each and every one, or is he liable to bring only one offering? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: He is liable to bring an offering for each and every one.

מַאי שְׁנָא מֵחֲמִשָּׁ[ה] הֶעְלֵמוֹת בְּשִׁפְחָה אַחַת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: (אֵין) שִׁפְחָה אַחַת [אֵין] גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין, חָמֵשׁ שְׁפָחוֹת גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין.

Rabbi Ḥanina asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is different about this instance compared to the case of five lapses of awareness with regard to one espoused maidservant, when he brings only one offering, as stated in the mishna? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: In a case of multiple transgressions with one espoused maidservant, there are not separate bodies, as he committed multiple transgressions with the same individual. By contrast, in a case of separate transgressions with five espoused maidservants, there are five separate bodies, and therefore each one requires a separate offering.

וּמְנָלַן דְּגַבֵּי שִׁפְחָה גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו אָמְרַתְּ גַּבֵּי עֲרָיוֹת ״וְאִשָּׁה״ – לְחַלֵּק עַל כׇּל אִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה? גַּבֵּי שִׁפְחָה נָמֵי כְּתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת אִשָּׁה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע

Rabbi Ḥanina further asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: And from where do we derive that there is halakhic significance to the separate bodies in the case of an espoused maidservant? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Did you not state with regard to those with whom relations are forbidden that when the verse states: “And you shall not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness” (Leviticus 18:19), this serves to require separate offerings for each and every woman with whom one committed unwitting transgressions? With regard to an espoused maidservant it is also similarly written: “And if a man lies carnally with a woman,

וְהִיא שִׁפְחָה״ – לְחַלֵּק עַל כׇּל שִׁפְחָה וְשִׁפְחָה.

and she is a maidservant designated to a man” (Leviticus 19:20). This verse likewise serves to require separate offerings for each and every espoused maidservant.

נָזִיר שֶׁנִּטְמָא טוּמְאוֹת הַרְבֵּה. מַאן תַּנָּא?

§ The mishna teaches: A nazirite who became ritually impure with several instances of contact with ritual impurity brings one offering for several transgressions. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that taught this?

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: נְזִירוּת דְּטׇהֳרָה מִשְּׁבִיעִי הוּא דְּחָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ. וּמַשְׁכַּחַת לַהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי, וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי, וְכֵיוָן דְּלֹא יָצָא שָׁעָה הָרְאוּיָה לְהַקְרִיב בָּהּ קׇרְבָּן – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד.

Rav Ḥisda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A new naziriteship of purity, which is required of a nazirite who became ritually impure, takes effect from the seventh day of the nazirite’s purification. And therefore, you find that the nazirite brings one offering for several transgressions in a case where he became impure on the seventh day of his purification, was pure for seven days, and again became impure on the seventh day of his purification. And since for each case where he became impure the appropriate time to sacrifice an offering, i.e., the eighth day of his purification, had not yet emerged, he is liable to bring only one offering.

דְּאִי רַבִּי, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי: נְזִירוּת דְּטׇהֳרָה עַד שְׁמִינִי לָא חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ, אִי דְּנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי – כּוּלַּהּ טוּמְאָה אֲרִיכְתָּא הִיא,

Rav Ḥisda explains: The mishna must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as if it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then it is not possible for a nazirite to bring one offering for several transgressions, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A new naziriteship of purity does not take effect until a nazirite’s eighth day of purification. If there was a case where a nazirite became impure on the seventh day of his purification, was pure for seven days, and then became impure again on the seventh day of his purification, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that is all one long period of impurity, as the new term of naziriteship has not yet begun, and therefore the nazirite brings one offering for the entire period.

אִי דְּנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁמִינִי וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁמִינִי, כֵּיוָן דְּיָצָאת שָׁעָה שֶׁרְאוּיָיה לְהַקְרִיב קׇרְבָּן – מְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינָּה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

And if there was a case where a nazirite became impure on the eighth day of his purification, was pure for seven days, and then again became impure on the eighth day of his purification, then since the appropriate time to sacrifice an offering had emerged, he is obligated to bring an offering for each and every time he became impure. Rav Ḥisda concludes: Rather, conclude from it that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

וּמַאי דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְקִדַּשׁ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא״ – בְּיוֹם הֲבָאַת קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.

The Gemara clarifies: And what is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a nazirite who begins a new naziriteship of purity after having become impure: “And on the eighth day he shall bring two doves or two pigeons…And the priest shall prepare one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of the dead; and he shall sanctify his head on that day” (Numbers 6:10–11). This teaches that the new term of naziriteship begins on the day of the bringing of his offerings, which is the eighth day of his purification. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּיוֹם תִּגְלַחְתּוֹ.

By contrast, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The verse means that the new term of naziriteship begins on the day of his shaving, i.e., the seventh day of his purification.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ עַל יְדֵי אֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה וּמְצוֹרָע שֶׁנִּתְנַגַּע נְגָעִים הַרְבֵּה,

MISHNA: The mishna continues to list the five situations in which one offering is brought to atone for several transgressions: Third, one who issues a warning to his wife declaring himself jealous with regard to several different men with whom he suspects her of committing adultery, and forbidding her to be alone with them. If the wife was then found separately in seclusion with each of the men, he brings her to the Temple with one single meal offering of jealousy. And fourth, a leper who was afflicted with several instances of leprosy, meaning that he was purified from his leprosy, and before he brought his offerings, he suffered a relapse of the leprosy. When he is finally purified, he brings only one set of offerings.

הֵבִיא צִיפֳּרִין וְנִתְנַגֵּעַ – לֹא עָלוּ לוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ.

If a leper brought the two requisite birds on the first day of his purification (see Leviticus 14:4–7), and prior to bringing his offerings on the eighth day of his purification he was afflicted with a relapse of leprosy, those birds do not satisfy his obligation until he brings his sin offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: Until he brings his guilt offering.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַקְּנָאוֹת״ – תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְקִנּוּיִין הַרְבֵּה.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a man issues a warning to his wife with regard to several different men, and the wife violates the warning and is secluded with each of them, he brings one meal offering of jealousy. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that it is as it is written: “This is the law of jealousies, when a wife, being under her husband, goes aside, and is defiled” (Numbers 5:29). The plural form of the word “jealousies,” teaches that one law, meaning one sacrificial offering, can suffice for several jealousies, i.e., different warnings.

מְצוֹרָע שֶׁנִּתְנַגֵּעַ נְגָעִים הַרְבֵּה כּוּ׳. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמְּצוֹרָע״ – תּוֹרָה אַחַת לִמְצוֹרָעִים הַרְבֵּה.

The mishna teaches that a leper who was afflicted with several instances of leprosy brings one single offering. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that it is as it is written: “This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his purification” (Leviticus 14:2). The term “the law” teaches that one law, meaning one sacrificial offering, can suffice for several lepers, i.e., for several instances of leprosy in the same individual.

הֵבִיא צִיפֳּרִין וְנִתְנַגֵּעַ – לֹא עָלוּ לוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ.

§ The mishna teaches: If a leper brought the two birds on the first day of his purification, and prior to bringing his offerings on the eighth day of his purification he was afflicted with a relapse of leprosy, those birds do not satisfy his obligation until he brings his sin offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: Until he brings his guilt offering. This apparently means that when he is healed from the relapse of his leprosy, he must bring additional birds to fulfill the obligation generated by the first instance of leprosy.

וְהָאָמְרַתְּ: אֵין מֵבִיא אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד! חַסּוֹרֵי מִחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הֵבִיא צִיפֳּרִין וְנִתְנַגֵּעַ – אֵין מֵבִיא אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד. וּלְאַקְבּוֹעֵי בַּעֲנִיּוּת וּבַעֲשִׁירוּת – לָא מִיקְּבַע, עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא חַטָּאת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ.

The Gemara challenges this assumption: But didn’t you say in the mishna that he brings only one set of offerings for several instances of leprosy? The Gemara answers: The text of the mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: In the case of a leper who was afflicted with several instances of leprosy and was subsequently purified from his leprosy, if he brought the two birds, and was then afflicted with a relapse of leprosy, he brings only one set of offerings. But with regard to establishing whether a leper has a status of poverty or of affluence in order to determine whether he brings a poor man’s offering or a rich man’s offering (see Leviticus, chapter 14), that is not established until he brings his sin offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: The leper’s status of poverty or affluence is not established until he brings his guilt offering.

תְּנַן הָתָם: מְצוֹרָע שֶׁהֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ וְהֶעֱשִׁיר – הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר חַטָּאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר אָשָׁם. תַּנְיָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן, יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר צִיפֳּרִין.

The Gemara cites a dispute that supports this interpretation: We learned in a mishna there (Nega’im 14:11): In a case of a leper who was poor when he brought his guilt offering and then became wealthy before bringing the other offerings, all differences in offerings between a leper with the status of a rich man or a poor man follow his status at the time he brought his sin offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda says: It all follows his status at the time he brought his guilt offering. The Gemara cites an additional opinion: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: It all follows his status at the time he brought the two birds.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ – ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא תַשִּׂיג יָדוֹ בְּטׇהֳרָתוֹ״, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: דָּבָר הַמְכַפְּרוֹ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: דָּבָר הַמַּכְשִׁירוֹ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: דָּבָר הַגּוֹרֵם לוֹ טׇהֳרָה, וּמַאי נִינְהוּ? צִיפֳּרִין.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: All three of them interpreted the same verse to arrive at their respective opinions: “This is the law of he who has the mark of leprosy, whose means do not suffice for that which pertains to his purification” (Leviticus 14:32). Rabbi Shimon holds that the term “his purification” is referring to the matter that atones for his sin, i.e., the sin offering. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is referring to the matter that renders him fit to consume sacrificial meat, which is the guilt offering. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says that it is referring to the matter that causes him to return to a state of purity. And what are these? The birds.

מַתְנִי׳ הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּלְדָה וְלָדוֹת הַרְבֵּה, וְהִפִּילָה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים נְקֵבָה, חָזְרָה וְהִפִּילָה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים נְקֵבָה,

MISHNA: The mishna continues with the last of the five situations in which one offering is brought to atone for several transgressions: A woman who gave birth to several offspring. This is a case where a woman gave birth to a daughter, after which she is ritually impure for fourteen days and then enters a period of sixty-six days of ritual purity, even if she experiences uterine bleeding. Nevertheless, during this interim period, she is still somewhat impure, and it is therefore prohibited for her to enter the Temple or to partake of consecrated food, and at the end of the period she must bring an offering. And during those days of ritual purity, she became pregnant again and then miscarried a female fetus within the eighty days, and then became pregnant again and miscarried another female fetus within eighty days of the first miscarriage. In this situation, when she ultimately completes her process of purification, she brings one single offering for all the births and miscarriages.

וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת תְּאוֹמִים,

And a similar halakha applies to a woman who miscarries multiple fetuses from a single pregnancy at different points in time, miscarrying each fetus before completing the purification period of forty days for a male or eighty days for a female for the previous fetus. When she finally completes her process of purification, she brings one single offering for all of the miscarriages.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְבִיאָה עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה עַל הַשֵּׁנִי. מְבִיאָה עַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וְאֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה עַל הָרְבִיעִי.

Rabbi Yehuda says: In these cases, a single offering does not suffice for all the births or miscarriages. Rather, she brings an offering for the first birth or miscarriage and does not bring an offering for the second miscarriage, as it took place before the completion of the purification period for the first. She then brings an offering for the third miscarriage and does not bring an offering for the fourth fetus, as it was miscarried before the completion of the purification period for the third fetus.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָלַן? דְּתָנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַיּוֹלֶדֶת לַזָּכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמְּבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל וְלָדוֹת הַרְבֵּה. יָכוֹל אַף עַל הַלֵּידָה וְעַל הַזִּיבָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת״.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a woman who gave birth to several offspring brings a single offering. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara explains: As the tanna taught a baraita before Rav Sheshet with regard to the verse: “This is the law for the woman who bears a child, whether a male or a female” (Leviticus 12:7). This teaches that she brings one offering for several offspring. One might have thought that she brings one single offering even in a case where she becomes purified simultaneously both for a birth and for an irregular discharge of blood from the uterus [ziva]. Therefore, the verse states: “This,” to exclude such a case.

קָתָנֵי: יָכוֹל עַל הַלֵּידָה וְעַל הַזִּיבָה אֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אָכְלָה דָּם וְיָלְדָה, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין מְבִיאָה אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד?

The Gemara challenges the assumption that was refuted by the textual derivation: The tanna teaches: One might have thought that even in a case where she completes her purification at the same time for a birth and for ziva, she should bring only one offering. If that is so, then in a case where she consumed blood unintentionally, and is therefore liable to bring a sin offering, and she also gave birth, might one also have thought that she should bring only one offering? That is illogical, as these offerings are two completely different obligations. So too, the offerings after childbirth and ziva are two separate obligations.

אֵימָא הָכִי: יָכוֹל עַל הַלֵּידָה שֶׁלִּפְנֵי מְלֹאת וְעַל הַלֵּידָה שֶׁלְּאַחַר מְלֹאת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת״.

The Gemara explains: Rather, say that this is what the tanna taught: One might have thought that she should bring only one offering for a birth that occurred before the completion of the term, i.e., the first birth, and for a birth that occurred after the completion of the purification period for the first one. Therefore, the verse states: “This,” to negate that assumption.

הִפִּילָה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים כּוּ׳. כְּשֶׁתִּמְּצֵי לוֹמַר לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – וָלָד רִאשׁוֹן גּוֹרֵם וּמִוָּלָד רִאשׁוֹן מוֹנָה. לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים – וָלָד שֵׁנִי גּוֹרֵם וּמִוָּלָד שֵׁנִי מוֹנָה.

§ The mishna teaches that in a case of a woman who miscarried within the eighty-day purification period of a previous miscarriage, and then miscarried a third time within the eighty-day purification period for the second miscarriage, the first tanna says that she brings a single offering for all of them, and Rabbi Yehuda says that she must bring a separate offering for the third miscarriage, as it took place after the completion of the purification period for the first one. The Gemara states: When you analyze the matter you will find that one should say that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the first fetus is the one that causes the obligation of the offering, and she therefore counts the purification period from the birth or miscarriage of the first fetus; and according to the Rabbis, it is the second fetus that causes the obligation of the offering, and she counts the purification period from the birth or miscarriage of the second fetus.

כְּשֶׁתִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר? פְּשִׁיטָא, הָכִי אִיתָא! מַפֶּלֶת תְּאוֹמִים אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא בְּמַפֶּלֶת תְּאוֹמִים מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבָּנַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary to state that when you analyze the matter you will find that one should say that according to Rabbi Yehuda the first fetus causes the obligation and according to the Rabbis it is the second fetus which causes the obligation? This is obvious, as it is stated explicitly. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the Gemara to say this with regard to the case of a woman who miscarries multiple fetuses from the same pregnancy. It might enter your mind to say that in a case of a woman who miscarries multiple fetuses from the same pregnancy, Rabbi Yehuda concedes to the Rabbis that as the fetuses were in the womb together, their births are deemed a single event, and therefore the woman counts eighty days from the miscarriage of the second fetus. Consequently, the Gemara teaches us that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis even in this case.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ:

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: