Commento su Keritot 1:8

שלשים ושש כריתות – to someone who transgresses willfully without warning [by two witnesses]

There are in the Torah thirty-six [transgressions which are punishable with] karet:
When one has intercourse with his mother,
His father's wife;
Or his daughter-in-law;
When a man has intercourse with a male,
Or with a beast,
Or when a woman brings a beast upon herself;
When one has intercourse with a woman and her daughter;
Or with a married woman;
Or with his sister;
Or with his father's sister;
Or his mother's sister;
Or his wife's sister;
Or his brother's wife;
Or the wife of his father's brother;
Or with a menstruating woman;
One who blasphemes [the Lord];
One who worships idols;
Or dedicates his children to Molech;
Or has a ba’al ov;
Or desecrates the Shabbat;
When an unclean person eats of sacred food;
Or when one enters the precincts of the Temple in an unclean state;
When one eats forbidden fat,
Or blood;
Notar;
Or piggul;
When one slaughters
Or offers up [a consecrated animal] outside [the Temple];
One who eats anything leavened on Pesah;
One who eats
Or works on Yom Kippur;
One who compounds the oil [of anointing];
Or compounds incense;
Or uses [unlawfully] oil of anointing;
And [when one transgresses the laws of] the pesah,
And circumcision from among positive commandments.
Keritot opens with a list of thirty-six transactions for which one is liable karet if one commits the transgression intentionally, but without prior warning.
This is not really the place to explain each of these transgressions. Rather I will give brief biblical references for each and explain anything that I feel is a bit more complicated.
I have merely duplicated each section below for ease of reference. Sorry if this is a bit long…
1) When one has intercourse with his mother; Leviticus 18:7.
2) His father's wife; ibid: 8.
3) Or his daughter-in-law; ibid: 15.
4) When a man has intercourse with a male: ibid: 22.
5) Or with a beast: ibid: 23.
6) Or when a woman brings a beast upon herself: ibid.
7) When one has intercourse with a woman and her daughter: ibid: 17.
8) Or with a married woman: ibid: 20.
9) Or with his sister; ibid: 9.
10) Or with his father's sister: ibid: 12.
11) Or his mother's sister: ibid: 13.
12) Or his wife's sister: ibid: 18.
13) Or his brother's wife: ibid: 16.
14) Or the wife of his father's brother: ibid: 14.
15) Or with a menstruating woman; ibid: 19.
16) One who blasphemes [the Lord]: Numbers 15:30.
17) One who worships idols: No shortage of references in the Tanakh.
18) Or dedicates his children to Molech; Leviticus 18:21.
19) Or has a ba’al ov; Leviticus 19:31.
20) Or desecrates the Shabbat: Many references, see for instance, Exodus 31:24.
21) When an unclean person eats of sacred food: Leviticus 7:20.
22) Or when one enters the precincts of the Temple in an unclean state:Numbers 19:13.
23) When one eats forbidden fat: Leviticus 7:25.
24) Or blood; ibid, 27.
25) Notar: Leviticus 19: 6-8.
26) Or piggul; Leviticus 7:18.
27) When one slaughters: Leviticus 17:4.
28) Or offers up [a consecrated animal] outside [the Temple]; ibid, 8-9.
29) One who eats anything leavened on Pesah; Exodus 12:19.
30) One who eats:
31) Or works on Yom Kippur; Leviticus 23:28-30 (this and the previous transgression).
32) One who compounds the oil [of anointing]; Exodus 30: 32-33.
33) Or compounds incense; Exodus 30: 37-38.
34) Or uses [unlawfully] oil of anointing; ibid, 32-33.
35) And the pesah: Deuteronomy 16: 2; Numbers 9:13.
36) And circumcision are positive commandments: Leviticus 12:3; Genesis 17:14.

הבא על אשה ובתה – or the daughter of her daughter or the daughter of her son is within this [general category], and similarly, his daughter and the daughter of his daughter and the daughter of his son, his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law and the mother of his father-in-law, all are within this [general category].

והעובד עבודה זרה – like the manner of their worship, or one who slaughters a sacrifice, or one who offers incense or offers a libation and prostrates oneself, even if it is not the manner of their worship as such.

בעל אוב – and the soothsayer/charmer is included within this [general category], for both were mentioned in one negative [commandment], and the Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] took [the term] אוב/necromancy, which is the first one [mentioned] in Scripture.

והמחלל את השבת – with one of the forty-minus-one primary forms of work and their derivatives.

נותר – holy things after their time has passed.

פגול – Holy things that he thought to consume them outside of their [appropriate] time [period] or outside of their [appropriate] place.

השוחט – [he who slaughters] holy things outside [of the Temple court] is liable, even though he had not offered them up, as it written (Leviticus 17:4): “and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, [before the LORD’s Tabernacle;] bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood, that man shall be cut off [from among his people].”

ומעלה – Is also by extirpation, as it is written (Leviticus 17:8-9): “[Say to them further: If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them] offers a burnt offering or a sacrifice, (9) and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” but if he slaughtered it and offered it unwittingly, he is liable for two sin-offerings.

והמפטם את שמן המשחה – with the weight of the frankincense and in the measurement of the oil, like that which Moses did in the wilderness. But he made it to anoint with it. But when one pounds spices for practice or to transmit it to the community, he is not liable.

והמפטם את הקטורת – eleven ingredients of incense – if he took from each one of them according to its determined weight in the words of the Sages, and mixed them in the manner that they would mix the incense that they offer in the Temple, he would be liable for extirpation. And he would make it in order to smell it. But if he did it just for practice or to transmit it to the community, he is exempt.

והסך בשמן המשחה – that Moses did, that was not for the needs of the priesthood and the kingship, he is liable. For they would not give from that oil other lthan upon the head of the High Priest, and even if he was the son of the High Priest, they would anoint him with the same soil that Moses made in the wilderness. And from it, we anoint the kings of the House of David. But we don’t anoint the king the son of a king, if there had not been there a disagreement, like he anointed Solomon because of the dispute with Adoniyah, or Joash because of the dispute with Ataliah and Yehoahaz because of Yehoyakim his brother who was older than him. But the anointing of the priests occurs when they pour from the oil on his head and anoint between his eyebrows like the Greek KI. But the anointing of the kings is like a crown.

הפסח והמילה במצות עשה – and they have extirpation, but there is no sacrifice for their inadvertent [transgression]. But all of these are negative commandments, and they are liable for a sacrifice for their inadvertent transgression, but the sacrifice is not other than for a negative commandment. For concerning the sacrifice, it is written (Leviticus 4:22): “who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the LORD his God ought not to be done.”

ועל שגגתן חטאת – an inadvertent [act] that we are liable for it a sin-offering, as, for example, a person who comes upon one of those forbidden on account of consanguinity thinking that she is his wife, and/or the person who practices idol worship by prostrating to it, thinking that the Torah forbad [only] slaughtering of a sacrifice, offering incense and the act of libation, but not prostration, and/or a person who violates the Sabbath thinking that it was a weekday, and similarly, anything similar to this that he knows the essence of the prohibition but that this act that he was doing was hidden from him [that it is forbidden]. But the person who says that it is completely permitted, that uproots the body, as for example, who states that there is no Shabbat in the Torah, that idolatry is not forbidden in the Torah, this one is not acting inadvertently, but rather he is the victim of an accident/is the victim of an unavoidable accident and he is exempt [from a sin offering].

Introduction Today’s mishnah refers to the list of transgressions in yesterday’s mishnah.

לא הודע (it is not made known, conscious) – as, for example, two olives, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate; [and/or] his wife and his his sister are with him in bed and he has comes upon one of them [for sexual relations] and he doesn’t know upon which of them he came.

For these [transgressions] one is liable to karet if committed intentionally, and if committed unwittingly to a hatat. One who commits any of the transgressions listed in mishnah is liable for karet if done intentionally and a hatat (a sin-offering) if done unwittingly.

אשם תלוי (uncertain guilt offering) – because he comes on a doubt, which is called, an uncertain guilt offering, that suspends and protects him from the suffering/trials, and does not atone, but if became known to him afterwards with certainty that he had sinned, he brings the regular sin-offering.

If there is a doubt whether he had committed the transgression to an asham talui, except in the case of one who defiled the Temple or its consecrated things, for in that case one is liable in this case to a sliding-scale sacrifice, the words of Rabbi Meir. If he does not know whether he committed the transgression (see the introduction), then he brings an “asham talui” (a type of guilt-offering, see the introduction). This is true for all of the sins in mishnah one, except for defiling the Temple or its consecrated things, for in that case a person brings a sliding scale sacrifice (see Leviticus 5:2ff). For a sliding scale sacrifice a rich person brings an animal, a poor person brings a bird and a very poor person brings grain.

המטמא מקדש וקדשיו – that he enters into the Temple when he is [ritually] impure or [as a Kohen] eats Holy Things while in a state of impurity.

But the sages say: also the blasphemer [is an exception], as it says: “You shall have one law for one that acts in error” (Numbers 15:29), this excludes the blasphemer who performs no action. The sages hold that there is another exception to who brings a hatat and an asham talui, and that is the blasphemer. When it comes to the hatat, the Torah states, “You shall have one law for one that acts in error.” The midrashic implication is that in order to be liable for a hatat you must perform an action. Since the blasphemer doesn’t do anything, but merely speaks, he does not bring a hatat or an asham talui.

מפני שהוא בעולה ויורד (sliding-scale offering – for entering the Temple or partaking of sacrifices while ritually impure) – but the guilt offering does not come other than a matter where its willful violation is [punishable] by extirpation and its inadvertent [sin] is through a fixed sin-offering, but this, since his inadvertent act is with a sliding scale offering (i.e., the rich bring a a sacrifice from the sheep and the poor brings either two doves or two pigeons – see Leviticus 5:2-11), there isn’t through his lack of awareness a guilt offering.

אף המגדף – we don’t bring on his inadvertent sin a sin offering, and on his not being aware, also, he is not liable for a guilt offering, for the Merciful stated regarding a sin-offering (Numbers 15:29): “[You shall have one law for him] that does anything unwittingly,” except for one who blasphemes, which does not have an action. And the Halakah is according to the Sages.

כמין בהמה חיה ועוף – since it was stated about them – a creation like mankind. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

Introduction According to Leviticus 12:6, after a woman gives birth and then undergoes a period of purification, she must bring two offerings. The first is a lamb, offered as an olah, and the second is a bird for a hatat. The remainder of our chapter deals with various scenarios in which a woman would bring a hatat and either eat it or not.

סנדל (a flat fish-shaped abortion -see Tractate Niddah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4) – it is offspring but its form is hollowed out/reduce in size. And the language/word סנדל – it is hated and thin/sparse. Such is what I found. But my teachers/Rabbis explained that it is a piece of meat/flesh that is made like the form of a sandal and regularly comes with offspring.

Some women [after childbirth] bring an offering which is eaten; some bring one which is not eaten, and some bring no offering at all. This is an introduction to the following four mishnayot.

שליא (after-birth/placenta) – for there is no afterbirth without the offspring.

These bring an offering which is eaten: In the cases which follow, despite the fact that the woman has not given birth to a live child, she must still bring a sacrifice and the sacrifice can be eaten. The significance of the sacrifice being edible is that it implies that she is fully obligated to bring the sacrifice. As we shall see in mishnah four, in cases of doubt concerning whether she is obligated or not, she brings the sacrifice but it is not eaten.

שפיר מרוקם (and if the fetus was articulated – see Tractate Niddah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3a – to form the limbs of the embryo) – the hide that the offspring is articulated in, that has within it the form of small limbs. For since it was made like the egg-shell, it is called שפיר .

If a woman miscarries a fetus which has the shape of beast, or a wild animal or a bird, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the sages say: only if it has a human shape. According to Rabbi Meir, if the miscarried fetus has the shape of a living being, even an animal, she must bring the sacrifice and the sacrifice is eaten. The other sages hold that the fetus must have a human shape for her to eat the sacrifice. This is the same dispute that we saw in Bekhorot 8:1.

וכן שפחה שהפילה – for you might think I would say, that when we say that all commandments that a woman is obligated for [to perform], a slave is obligated for it [as well], these words [refer to] commandments that are equivalent for a man and a woman, but there is among women those who give birth [to offspring] but they are not found among men, I could say that a maidservant is not liable, therefore, it was taught, “and similarly, a maidservant who aborts [brings an offering and it is eaten].”

Or if a woman miscarries a sandal-like fetus or a placenta or a fully formed fetus, or one that comes out in pieces. A sandal like fetus is considered to be human enough for it to count as a human miscarriage, which makes the woman liable for a sacrifice that can be eaten. If a woman miscarries a placenta, the assumption is that she also miscarried a fetus and somehow it was missed. A fully formed fetus or one that is cut up in pieces also count as births.

Similarly, if a female slave miscarries, she brings an offering which is eaten. A female slave is liable to observe the same commandments that a Jewish woman is liable to observe. Therefore, if she gives birth, the same rules that apply to the Jewish woman apply to her.

ואין ידוע מה הפילה – it it is the form of a human being, and she is obligated but if it is [in the form of] fish or locusts and she is exempt. She brings a sacrifice of two turtle-doves – one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering. On that of the sin-offering, she stipulates/makes a condition and states: if I gave birth to a species which is an obligation [to bring an offering], this will be for my obligation, and if not, let the burnt offering be a free-will donation. But regarding the sin-offering, she cannot make a stipulation/condition, for the sin-offering is not a free-will offering, and she brings it with doubt. But it is not consumed [by the priests] for perhaps she does not have an obligation to bring a sacrifice, and the pinching of the bird’s neck is like a mere carrion. But because of non-sacred things in the Temple

Introduction In today’s mishnah we learn of cases in which a woman brings a sacrifice but the sacrifice is not eaten. In all of these cases there is doubt whether she is liable for a sacrifice: therefore she brings (just in case she was liable) but the sacrifice cannot be eaten (in case she was not liable).

The following bring an offering which is not eaten:
A woman who miscarries but does not know what the miscarriage was, If she doesn’t know whether the form of the fetus which she miscarried is something over which one must bring a childbirth sacrifice (see yesterday’s mishnah) or not, then she brings a sacrifice but it is not eaten.

Or if two women who have a miscarriage, one of a kind which did not render her liable [to an offering], and the other of a kind that does render her liable [to an offering]. In this case two women miscarry; one miscarries a fetus that renders her liable for a sacrifice and one miscarries something that does not render her liable. However, the women don’t know who miscarried what (I know this sounds really absurd). Both women are in the category mentioned in section one (doubtful whether they are liable), and therefore both bring a sacrifice and neither sacrifice may be eaten.

ואחת מין חובה – flat-fish shaped abortion or an afterbirth/placenta, and it is not known which obligatory species she had aborted, Everyone brings two turgtle-doves and it is not eaten.

Rabbi Yose said: When is this so? This applies only if one went towards the east and the other towards the west, but if both remained together they bring [together] one offering which is eaten. Rabbi Yose modifies what was stated in section two. That ruling applies only to a case where two women gave their sacrifices to a priest and he is not sure which of the sacrifices came from the woman who was really liable. If they are not around to ask them who gave birth to what, then neither sacrifice can be eaten. However, if they remain together, then together the two of them can bring one sacrifice and stipulate that it is brought on behalf of the woman who is actually obligated.

אימתי – it is not eaten.

בזמן שהלכו – when they brought the couple of sacrificial birds to the Kohen and went on their way, and they are not able to designate/stipulate, but if both of them stand as one, they bring one sin-offering and make the stipulation/designation between them, “behold this one is mine [and your part is forgiven/renounced].” But if you are the one who is liable [to bring the sacrifices], “behold it is yours [and my part is forgiven/renounced],” and that sin-offering is offered and consumed [by the priest]. For especially, the sin offering that comes as a result of a sin, the condition/stipulation does not take effect for it, as it is written (Leviticus 4:28): “or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge, but here, when the women bring a sacrifice to be permitted in the eating of Holy Things, that can bring it and make the stipulation/designation. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

גנינים (an abortion filed with lumps of a fleshy substance – see also Tractate Niddah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 2 and 3) – variegated colors. But I heard, like worms.

Introduction Today’s mishnah lists women who do not bring a childbirth sacrifice.

המפלת יום ארבעים – until they will pass forty of her pregnancy, it is mere water.

The following do not bring a sacrifice:
A woman who discharges a sac filled with water or with blood or with pieces of flesh; This sac is not considered to be evidence that the woman gave birth, and therefore she does not bring a sacrifice.

ר' שמעון מחייב ביוצא דופן (a fetus extracted by means of the caesarean section) – as it is written (Leviticus 12:5): “If she bears a female/ואם נקבה תלד ,” it should have been written – “if she is a female [offspring],” but there increased for her another birth, and what is it? A fetus extracted by means of caesarean section. But the first Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] held that, Scripture stated (Leviticus 12:2): “When a woman at childbirth bears (or alternatively, ‘brings forth seed),” until she gives birth from the place where the woman is first [to release her egg].”

Or if the miscarriage was in the shape of fish, locust, unclean animals or reptiles; These shapes are not indicative of a human fetus and therefore she does not bring a sacrifice. We should note that there might be some ideology in effect here. In mishnah two Rabbi Meir said that a woman who gives birth to a fetus in the shape of a beast, wild animal or bird is obligated. These were all kosher animals. They are also the animals that require shekhitah (slaughtering) in order to be eaten. Today’s mishnah refers to living things that are either of a lower form (fish and locusts) or are not kosher (unclean animals and reptiles). Perhaps it is an ideological statement of Rabbi Meir that dictates that humans look like the former, kosher animals of a higher form, but not the latter.

Or if it was extracted by means of a caesarean section. Rabbi Shimon declares her liable [to an offering] in the case of a caesarean section. According to the rabbis, the fetus is not considered to come into existence until the fortieth day. A woman who miscarries before that point is considered to have discharged a sac full of water and she is not liable for a sacrifice.

According to the first opinion, a child born through caesarean section does not make his/her mother liable to bring a sacrifice because this is not really “birth.” However, Rabbi Shimon holds that she is liable.

המפלת לאור שמונה ואחד – that she gave birth to a female, but the night of the eighty-first day that she was fit/worthy on the morrow to bring her atonement for the abortion.

Introduction According to Leviticus 12:5-6, on the eighty-first day after giving birth to a girl a woman brings a sacrifice. Our mishnah discusses a case where on the eve of the eighty-first day the woman has a miscarriage. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate whether she must bring a sacrifice. Note that the debate is specifically concerning this night. All agree that if she miscarried earlier she is not liable. It seems that the sacrifice brought for the previous birth will cover the subsequent miscarriage as well. And all hold that if she miscarries on the eighty-first day, she is liable for a sacrifice, because the first sacrifice cannot cover the miscarriage. The debate is only over a woman who miscarries the night before.

בית שמאי פוטרים מן הקרבן – from the second birth. Even though it is after the completion (i.e., of the sixty-six days, following fourteen days of ritual impurity – see Leviticus 12:5-6), for since it is night, and the appropriate time for the sacrifice had not ended for the sacrifice, for the night is wanting (i.e., too early) for a sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 7:38): “[with which the LORD charged Moses on Mount Sinai,] when (literally, on the day – as opposed to the night) He commanded [that the Israelites present their offerings to the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai],” therefore, regarding the matter of sacrifice is is considered like it is within the completion [of the period].

If a woman miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day: Bet Shammai say: she is exempted from an offering. But Bet Hillel say: she is liable. These are the positions of the two houses; they will be explained below.

מאי שנא אור לשמונים מיום שונים ואחד – for certainly, she is liable for the sacrifice on the non-viable birth/premature fetus that she aborted according to the opinions of all, for since it is after the purification of the period [following pregnancy], she aborted.

Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: what is the difference between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to [blood] uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? If a woman has a bloody discharge for the first 80 days after giving birth to a girl, the blood is pure. However, if she discharges blood on the 81st day, even at night, the blood is impure. Since the night of the 81st day is reckoned with the next day in terms of blood impurity, Bet Hillel reasons that the same must be true with regard to a sacrifice. If she miscarries on the night of the 81st day, she must bring a sacrifice, just as she would if she miscarried the next morning.

אם שוה לו לטומאה – for you certainly admit that at the setting of the sun of the eightieth day, her days of purification had ended, and if she saw [blood] on the night of the eighty-first day, she is ritually impure.

Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you said this in the case where she miscarries on the eighty-first day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you say this where she miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, where it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Bet Shammai responds that there is a difference between a woman who miscarries on the 81st day and one who miscarries the night before. On the morning of the 81st day she can bring a sacrifice for the previous child. Therefore, when she miscarries she must bring a new sacrifice for the miscarriage. The first sacrifice cannot cover the miscarriage. However, if she miscarries at night, she had not yet arrived at a time when she could bring the sacrifice for the first child, because sacrifices cannot be offered at night. Therefore, she does not bring a sacrifice for the miscarriage.

הדמים אינם מוכיחים – and the blood that you state if it is equivalent to it in ritual uncleanness, it is not a proof, for the abortion within the purification, her blood is ritually impure because of the birth, and she is not liable for a second sacrifice because all that comes within the period of purification is considered as if it comes with the first birth and in that the School of Hillel admits [to the correctness of the view of] the School of Shammai].

Bet Hillel said to them: the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat shall prove it, where it did not take place at a time when she was fit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Bet Hillel responds that in certain cases a woman might miscarry on the 81st day, but not be able to bring her sacrifice for the previous child. This would happen if the 81st day fell on Shabbat. Nevertheless, despite the fact that she cannot yet bring her previous sacrifice, all agree that she is liable for another sacrifice for the miscarriage. The same is true, according to Bet Hillel, if she miscarries on the night of the 81st.

Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you says this of the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat for although it is not fit for offerings of an individual, it is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this concerning a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? Bet Shammai says that night and Shabbat are not comparable. At night, no sacrifices may be offered, whereas on Shabbat, although individual sacrifices, such as those brought by the childbearing woman, cannot be offered, communal sacrifices such as the tamid and musaf can be. This rejects Bet Hillel’s proof in section four.

As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for if she aborted within the period of cleanness the blood is unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering. The sensitive reader will note that Bet Shammai has still not answered Bet Hillel’s proof found in section two: the comparison between blood impurity and the sacrifice. Bet Shammai says that the two issues are different, as can be seen by the case of a woman who aborts during the first 80 days of blood purity after having given birth to a girl. While bloody discharge that comes as a result of the first birth is pure during this period, blood that is a result of a new miscarriage during this period is impure. Nevertheless, all agree that if she miscarries during this time, she is not liable for a sacrifice. Bet Shammai argue that the same is true of a woman who miscarries on the night of the 81st at this point any blood is impure because the 80 days of purity are up, but if she miscarries she is still exempt.

חמשה ספיקי זיבות – doubtful gonorrhea/flux (for a female) , as such example, she claims that she saw three [consecutive] days and does not know if it was during he days of her menstrual cycle or during the days of her flux, she brings a sacrifice which is not consumed. Doubtful miscarriage is, for example, when she aborted and did not know what she aborted. If she has upon her five doubtful fluxes or five doubtful abortions [she brings one sacrifice].

If a woman had five doubtful genital discharges or five doubtful births, she needs to bring only one offering, and she may eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. There are two situations that are described here. 1) A woman had genital discharge for three consecutive days once a month for five months and she doesn’t know if these occurred during her menstrual cycle, in which case she was not a “zavah” and does not need to bring a sacrifice, or not during her menstrual cycle and she is a zavah does need to bring a sacrifice. 2) She had five miscarriages and she doesn’t know whether what she miscarried counts as a birth and she must bring a sacrifice or doesn’t count as a birth and she does not bring a sacrifice. In both of these cases, the woman might be liable for as many as five sacrifices (each consisting of an olah and a hatat) or she might not be liable at all. The rule in this case is that she needs to bring only one sacrifice and then she can eat any sacrificial meat, as is always the case when a woman brings a sacrifice for being a zavah or for giving birth. While she can, if she wants, bring four more sacrifices, she need not do so.

מביאה קרבן אחד – a sin=offering of a fowl that is brought for a doubt.

If a woman had five certain births, or five certain genital discharges, she brings one offering and may then eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is liable to bring the other offerings. However, if she had five certain cases of genital discharge or five certain births, then she must bring all five sacrifices. After she brings the first sacrifice she can already resume eating sacrifices.

ואוכלת בזבחים – for his sacrifice comes o purify her, for it is like a ritual immersion, for if a woman had been defiled with several defilements, one ritual immersion counts for all of them, even this sacrifice is similar.

It once happened in Jerusalem that the price of a pair of doves rose to a golden denar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: By this sanctuary, I shall not go to sleep tonight before they cost but a [silver] denar! Then he entered the court and taught: if a woman had five certain births or five certain genital discharges she needs to bring only one offering, and she may then eat sacrifices, and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. Thereupon the price of a pair of birds stood at a quarter of a [silver] denar each. This section contains a fascinating story. Because of the previous halakhah that demanded that a woman bring a sacrifice for every certain birth or certain genital discharge, the price of the birds used for the sacrifices went all the way up to a golden denar for a pair. A golden denar is the equivalent of 25 silver denars. Market forces were working in favor of those selling the birds and would have discouraged women from bringing the sacrifices that they so frequently had to bring. To combat this, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel boldly changed the halakhah so that a woman would have to bring only one sacrifice, even if she had had five certain births or discharges. This new halakhah immediately brought the price down to ¼ of a denar. The actions of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel are one of the clearest examples of a rabbi adapting the halakhah to fit the needs of the Jews of his time. The halakhah to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel is not supposed to be something that is simply too costly to fulfill. When he saw that the cost of sacrifices was becoming prohibitive, he didn’t refrain and simply say, “What can I do? That’s what the law demands.” Rather he acted to ensure that what the law did demand was something that people could reasonably observe.

ואין השאר עליה חובה – the Sages did not require her to bring them, for even the one [sacrifice], with difficulty, they permitted to offer a doubtful pinching of an unconsecrated bird’s neck to the altar, but rather if this is not the case, she doesn’t have a remedy to become purified with Holy Things.

חמש לידות ודאות או חמש זיבות ודאות מביאה קרבן אחד אוכלת בזבחים – as has been explained.

והשאר עלהי חובה – as is taught in a Baraita, it is possible that she brings [a sacrifice] on the birth that is before the completion and/or on the birth that is after the completion (of the eighty days), one sacrifice for both, the inference teaches us (Leviticus 12:7): “Such are the rituals concerning her who bears a child. [male or female].”

קינין – two nests, that is four turtle-doves.

בדיני זהב – with two golden [denars]. Each nest is a golden denar.

המעון הזה – this is an oath [taken by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel]..

נכנס לבית דין ולימד וכו' – even though it was lenient in Torah law. But he taught a thing that was not Halakha, because of (Psalms 119:126): “It is a time to act for the LORD, [for they have violated Your teaching],” he did so. For where it not for this, they would not find it, and they would prevent the poor from bringing even one [sacrifice], and they would eat Holy Things in a physical state of ritual impurity.

ברבעתים = two nests for two-quarters of a silver Denar. And a gold Denar is twenty-five silver Denars.