## Keritot Daf 10a

###### Keritot 10a:1
[Keritot 10a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:1)

בְּטוּמְאָה מָה לִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה? מִי אָמְרִינַן: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וָלָד שֵׁנִי כְּמַאן דְּלֵיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן קׇרְבָּן, כֵּיוָן דְּלֹא יָצְאָה שָׁעָה שֶׁרְאוּיָה לְהַקְרִיב בָּהּ קׇרְבָּן, הוֹאִיל וְכֵן – וָלָד שֵׁנִי כְּמַאן דְּלֵיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה וְטׇהֳרָה, אֵימָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּמַאן דְּאִיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי, וּמַפְסְקָא טוּמְאָה דְּשֵׁנִי, וּמְמַלֵּא יוֹמֵי טׇהֳרָה דְּרִאשׁוֹן וַהֲדַר (מוֹנֶה) [מָנֵי לֵיהּ] יוֹמֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Concerning ritual impurity, what does Rabbi Yehuda say? Do we say** that **Rabbi Yehuda says** that the **second offspring is** considered **as though it does not** exist **only with regard to the matter of an offering?** In other words, **since the time** in **which** it was **possible to sacrifice an offering** for the second fetus **had not** yet **emerged, since that is so,** the **second offspring is** considered **as though it does not** exist. **But concerning the matter of ritual impurity and purity,** we **say** that **he holds** that it is considered **as something that does** exist, **and** accordingly, the days of **impurity** brought on **by** the **second** birth **interrupt** the days of purity following the first birth. The woman must therefore observe the days of impurity for the second birth, **and** afterward **she completes the days of purity for** the **first** birth, **and then counts the days of purity** brought on **by the second** fetus.


###### Keritot 10a:2
[Keritot 10a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:2)

אוֹ דִלְמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה חוּמְרָא הוּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא – קוּלָּא הוּא, וְקוּלָּא לֵית לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps, according to Rabbi Yehuda,** the second offspring is considered as though it exists only where **there is a stringency** that results from that definition. **But here,** if the woman would complete the days of purity of the first birth after the days of impurity of the second, **this is a leniency,** as she is deemed pure even if she sees blood during these days, **and** therefore, perhaps Rabbi Yehuda **does not hold** that the offspring is considered existent where this results in **a leniency.**


###### Keritot 10a:3
[Keritot 10a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:3)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא מִסּוּרָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: יוֹלֶדֶת, שׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עָלֶיהָ בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים לַזָּכָר וּבְיוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים לַנְּקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna from Sura said: Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: In the case of **a woman after childbirth, one slaughters** the Paschal offering **and sprinkles** its blood **on her account** on the fourteenth of Nisan, if this occurs **on** the **fortieth day** after giving birth **to a male or on** the **eightieth day** after giving birth **to a female.** Although she is still impure at the time of the sacrifice, she will be able to partake of the Paschal offering on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan.


###### Keritot 10a:4
[Keritot 10a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:4)

עַד כָּאן? טְמֵאָה הִיא! וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: וָלָד שֵׁנִי כְּמַאן דְּלֵיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages challenged this *baraita*: **Is that so?** But **she is** still **impure** on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, and she may not partake of sacrificial meat until she brings her offering on the forty-first day for a male or the eighty-first day for a female. **And Rav Ḥisda said** in response: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that the **second offspring is deemed as though it does not** exist. The *baraita* is dealing with a case where the woman gave birth to two male offspring on two consecutive days, and the fourteenth of Nisan occurred on the fortieth day after the birth of the second offspring, which is the forty-first day following the birth of the first.


###### Keritot 10a:5
[Keritot 10a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:5)

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּטוּמְאָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וָלָד שֵׁנִי כְּמַאן דְּאִיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי, הֵיכִי שָׁחֲטִינַן עֲלַהּ בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים? לְאוּרְתָּא נָמֵי לָא מָצְיָא אָכְלָה! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינָּה: לְטׇהֳרָה וּלְטוּמְאָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וָלָד שֵׁנִי כְּמַאן דְּלֵיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **concerning impurity, Rabbi Yehuda holds** that the **second offspring is** considered **as though it is** extant, which means that the days of purity following the first birth are delayed by the second birth and the mother does not become pure until the second term is complete, **how may one slaughter** the Paschal offering **on her account on the fortieth day?** After all, **in the evening** of the fifteenth **she also may not eat** the Paschal offering, because only forty days will have passed from the time of the second birth, and she would still be impure. **Rather,** must one **not conclude from** it that **concerning ritual purity and impurity, Rabbi Yehuda holds** that the **second offspring is** considered **as** though **it does not** exist?


###### Keritot 10a:6
[Keritot 10a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:6)

לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: לְטוּמְאָה וּלְטׇהֳרָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּוָלָד שֵׁנִי כְּמַאן דְּאִיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי, וְכִי תַנְיָא הַהִיא – בְּפֶסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Actually, I** could **say to you:** Even **concerning impurity and purity, Rabbi Yehuda holds that** the **second offspring is considered as something that does** exist; **and when that** *baraita* **is taught,** it is dealing with a case of a woman who gave birth to one child, and it is referring to a case **of a Paschal offering that is brought in impurity.** When the majority of a community is impure, the Paschal offering is brought even in impurity.


###### Keritot 10a:7
[Keritot 10a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:7)

וּמִי אָכְלָה? וְהָתְנַן: פֶּסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה, לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זָבִים וְזָבוֹת, נִדּוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **And** in that case, **does she partake** of it, as the *baraita* suggests? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Pesaḥim* 95b): With regard to **a Paschal offering brought in impurity, men who experience a gonorrhea-like discharge [*zavim*], women who experience a discharge of uterine blood after their menstrual periods [*zavot*], menstruating women, and women after childbirth may not partake of it?**


###### Keritot 10a:8
[Keritot 10a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:8)

הָהִיא, לָא אָכְלָן כִּי לָא טְבִילָן. כִּי תַּנְיָא הַהִיא דְּשׁוֹחֲטִין וְזוֹרְקִין עָלֶיהָ, דְּהָא טָבְלָה. אִי הָכִי, מִשְּׁמִינִי דִּילַיהּ הוּא דְּחַזְיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: In **that** case, **they do not partake** of it **because they did not immerse** themselves in a ritual bath. But **when that** mishna **is taught, that one slaughters** the Paschal offering **and sprinkles** its blood **on her account,** the reason is **that she** had already **immersed** herself on the eighth day after giving birth. The Gemara objects: **If that is so,** then **it is from** the **eighth** day following **his** birth **that** she **is fit** to eat a Paschal offering brought in impurity, and there is no reason for the *baraita* to specify that the offering is slaughtered on the fortieth day.


###### Keritot 10a:9
[Keritot 10a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:9)

מִשְּׁמִינִי לָא חַזְיָא, קָסָבַר: טְבוּל יוֹם דְּזָב – כְּזָב דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Actually, she **is not fit from** the **eighth day,** because the *tanna* **maintains** that **a *zav* who immersed that day** and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed **is considered** to have the status **of a *zav*** and may not partake of a Paschal offering brought in ritual impurity. Similarly, a woman who immerses after giving birth is considered like one who immersed that day, and therefore she cannot partake of sacrificial meat until the end of the forty-day period.


###### Keritot 10a:10
[Keritot 10a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:10)

אִי הָכִי, בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים נָמֵי לָא חַזְיָא! לָאיֵי, בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים חַזְיָא, קָסָבַר: מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב – לָאו כְּזָב דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If that is so,** then **on** the **fortieth day she is also not fit** to eat the Paschal offering. The Gemara explains: This is **not so; on** the **fortieth day she is fit** to partake of the Paschal offering after nightfall, because the *tanna* **holds** that **a *zav*** who has immersed himself and waited for nightfall but is **lacking atonement,** i.e., he has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, **is not considered** to have the status **of a *zav*.** Therefore, after completing the purification period, the woman may partake of the offering, despite the fact that she has not yet brought her atonement offering.


###### Keritot 10a:11
[Keritot 10a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:11)

וּלְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר מְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים דְּזָב כְּזָב דָּמֵי, הָא מַתְנִייתָא הֵיכִי מְתָרֵץ לַהּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: רָבָא מְתָרֵץ לַהּ בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים לִיצִירַת זָכָר וּבְיוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים לִיצִירַת נְקֵבָה, וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לְזָכָר אַרְבָּעִים וְאֶחָד, לִנְקֵבָה שְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to Rava, who says** that **a *zav* who** is **lacking atonement is considered** to have the status **of a *zav*, how does he resolve** the problem in **this *baraita*? Rav Ashi said** that **Rava resolves it** as follows: The *baraita* is not referring to the fortieth day after the birth of a male, but to a miscarriage that occurred on the **fortieth day after the conception of a male, or** the **eightieth day after the conception of a female. And it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, who says** that it takes **forty-one** days **for a male** fetus to be formed, and **eighty-one** days **for a female** fetus to be formed. Since the miscarriage occurred before the forty-first or eighty-first day, it does not render the woman impure with the impurity of childbirth, and therefore she may partake of the Paschal offering.


###### Keritot 10a:12
[Keritot 10a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:12)

סוֹף סוֹף, תִּיפּוֹק לִי דִּטְמֵאָה הִיא מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה! – בְּלֵידָה יַבִּישְׁתָּא. אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִפְתִיחַת הַקֶּבֶר בְּלֹא דָּם, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֶפְשָׁר לִפְתִיחַת הַקֶּבֶר בְּלֹא דָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: But **ultimately,** one should **conclude that she is impure because** she has the status of **a menstruating woman.** The Gemara explains: The mishna was stated **with regard to** the case of **a dry birth,** in which no blood was expelled, and therefore no impurity imparted. The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** then **what** is the purpose **of stating it?** The ruling in such a case is obvious. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state it, **lest you say** that it is **impossible for the womb to open without blood** being expelled. The *tanna* therefore **teaches us that it is possible for the womb to open without blood** being expelled. Accordingly, Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion with regard to the impurity of a second birth cannot be deduced from this mishna.


###### Keritot 10a:13
[Keritot 10a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמַעְיָה, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״שִׁשִּׁים״, יָכוֹל בֵּין רְצוּפִין בֵּין מְפוּזָּרִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יוֹם״, מָה יוֹם רָצוּף – אַף שִׁשִּׁים כּוּלָּן רְצוּפִין. מַנִּי? אִלֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, מִי אִית [לְהוּ] לְרַבָּנַן מְפוּזָּרִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shemaya said: Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to a woman who gave birth to a female: “And she shall continue in the blood of purification **sixty** days and six days” (Leviticus 12:5). One **might** have thought that she counts the days **whether they are continuous or dispersed.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “Sixty **days** and six days,” to teach that **just as a day is a continuous** time period, **so too all sixty** days **are continuous.** And **whose** opinion is this? **If we say** it is the opinion of **the Rabbis,** that cannot be correct, as **are the Rabbis of** the opinion that it is possible for a woman who gave birth to count **dispersed** days? This is not the case, as the Rabbis count the days of purification from the second birth.


###### Keritot 10a:14
[Keritot 10a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:14)

אֶלָּא לָאו רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, וּמִדְּקָא יָהֵיב לַהּ שִׁשִּׁים רְצוּפִים בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, שְׁמַע מִינָּה חוּמְרָא אִית לֵיהּ, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קוּלָּא לֵית לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda? And from** the fact that **he prescribes for her sixty continuous days** to be counted **together, conclude from it** that **Rabbi Yehuda maintains** that the second offspring is considered extant only where **a stringency** results, but where **a leniency** results, in that she continues counting the days of purity of the first birth after completing the days of impurity for the second birth, **he does not maintain** that the second offspring is considered as though it exists.


###### Keritot 10a:15
[Keritot 10a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:15)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן הִיא. וְהָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן – לְיוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים שֶׁל נְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **No, actually,** the *baraita* **is** stated in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis. And what are we dealing with here?** We are dealing **with a woman who gives birth to a male within** the **eighty-**day period following the birth **of a female,** so that the forty-day period for the male is entirely subsumed within the purification period for the female. In such a case, even the Rabbis would maintain that the second birth does not interrupt the term following the first. She would observe the seven days of impurity for the male, and then complete the days of purity for the female. Consequently, the verse teaches that the sixty-six days of purity following the first birth are observed continuously, and there is no need to observe additional days due to the intervening days of impurity.


###### Keritot 10a:16
[Keritot 10a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:16)

סוֹף סוֹף, שָׁלְמִין יוֹמֵי דְּקַדְמָאָה, וְעַד כָּאן דְּבָתְרָאָה לָא שָׁלְמִין, דְּהָא רַבָּנַן לְוָלָד שֵׁנִי מָנוּ! אֶלָּא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ לְרַבָּנַן – בְּיוֹלֶדֶת תְּאוֹמִים, נְקֵבָה קַדְמָיְיתָא וְזָכָר בָּתְרָאָה, וּכְגוֹן דִּילֵידְתֵּיהּ לְזָכָר בָּתְרָאָה בְּעֶשְׂרִים לְיוֹמֵי טׇהֳרָה, דְּבָעֲיָא מִינְקָט לֵיהּ שִׁבְעָה יוֹמֵי טוּמְאָה דְּלֵידָה (תאומים נקבה),

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: But **ultimately,** this scenario is impossible; the reason is that **the days of the first** birth **are completed while the days of the latter** birth **are not completed, as the Rabbis count the days following the second birth,** and therefore the term relating to the first birth is abandoned. The Gemara offers a different explanation of the *baraita*: **Rather, you find** a case of counting dispersed days **according to the Rabbis** in a case **where a woman gives birth to twins, first a female and then a male, and for example, she gives birth to the latter** offspring, the **male, on** the **twentieth** day **of** the **days** of **purity** for the female, **as she is required to observe for him seven days of impurity for birth.**


###### Keritot 10a:17
[Keritot 10a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:17)

וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: יָכוֹל הֵיכָא דְּיָלְדָה תְּאוֹמִים, נְקֵבָה מֵעִיקָּרָא וְזָכָר לְבַסּוֹף, תַּפְסֵיק טוּמְאָה דְּלֵידָה בְּמִיצְעֵי, וְנִימְנֵי לַהּ שִׁשָּׁה וְשִׁשִּׁים מְפוּזָּרִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יוֹם״, מָה יוֹם כּוּלּוֹ רָצוּף – אַף שִׁשִּׁים כּוּלָּם רְצוּפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And this** is what the *baraita* **is saying:** One **might** have thought that **where she gave birth to twins, a female initially and a male afterward,** that the **impurity of** the second **birth interrupts** the term following the first birth **in the middle, and she counts sixty-six dispersed days.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “Sixty **days** and six days,” to teach that **just as a day is an entirely continuous** time period, **so too all sixty** days **are** to be **continuous.** Since the *baraita* could be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, no proof can be inferred with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


###### Keritot 10a:18
[Keritot 10a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/10a:18)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״שְׁלֹשִׁים״ – יָכוֹל בֵּין רְצוּפִין בֵּין מְפוּזָּרִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יוֹם״, מָה יוֹם כּוּלּוֹ רָצוּף – אַף שְׁלֹשִׁים רְצוּפִין. מַנִּי הָא? אִלֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, וּמִי אִית לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita* which discusses a woman who gave birth to a male. The verse states: “And she shall continue in the blood of purification three days and **thirty** days” (Leviticus 12:4). One **might** have thought that she counts the days **whether they are continuous or dispersed.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “Three **days** and thirty days,” to teach that **just as a day is an entirely continuous** time period, **so too** all **thirty** days **are** to be **continuous.** And **whose** opinion is this? **If we say** it is **the Rabbis,** that cannot be correct, as **are the Rabbis of** the opinion that