## Keritot Daf 8a

###### Keritot 8a:1
[Keritot 8a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:1)

**גְּמָ׳** תַּנְיָא: אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לְבַת״ לְרַבּוֹת אוֹר שְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד.

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


###### Keritot 8a:2
[Keritot 8a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:2)

רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא הֲוָה שְׁכִיחַ קַמֵּיהּ דְּבַר קַפָּרָא, שַׁבְקֵיהּ וַאֲתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא. יוֹמָא חַד פְּגַע בֵּיהּ, בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ: זָב שֶׁרָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי, מָה בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים בְּדָבָר זֶה?

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


###### Keritot 8a:3
[Keritot 8a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:3)

טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּמַפֶּלֶת בַּלַּיְלָה מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״לְבַת״, אֲבָל זָב שֶׁרָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי – פָּטְרִי, דְּלָא מְיַיתְּרִי קְרָאֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

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


###### Keritot 8a:4
[Keritot 8a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּר קַפָּרָא: מָה בָּבְלִי אוֹמֵר בְּדָבָר זֶה? אִישְׁתִּיק רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא, לָא אֲמַר כְּלוּם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּר קַפָּרָא: צְרִיכִין לְדִבְרֵי עִיָּיא? נַחְזוֹר עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לְבַת״ – לְרַבּוֹת אוֹר שְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד.

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


###### Keritot 8a:5
[Keritot 8a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:5)

נֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: זָב שֶׁרָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי, תָּנֵי חֲדָא: מֵבִיא, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא. מַאי לַָאו תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּהָא דְּתַנְיָא מֵבִיא, קָסָבַר: לַיְלָה אֵין מְחוּסַּר זְמַן, וְהָדְתָנֵי אֵין מֵבִיא, קָסָבַר: לַיְלָה מְחוּסַּר זְמַן?

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


###### Keritot 8a:6
[Keritot 8a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:6)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר אַחָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי סָבְרִי לַיְלָה מְחוּסַּר זְמַן. וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא מֵבִיא – בְּזָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת, וְהָדְתַנְיָא אֵין מֵבִיא – בְּזָב בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת.

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


###### Keritot 8a:7
[Keritot 8a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:7)

זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דַּוְקָא רָאָה בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי, אֲבָל בִּימָמָא דִּשְׁבִיעִי, לָא. קָסָבַר: כׇּל רְאִיָּיה שֶׁסּוֹתֶרֶת – אֵין מְבִיאָה לִידֵי קׇרְבָּן.

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


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

אָמַר רָבָא: אַמַּאי אוֹקֵימְתַּאּ לְהָא דְּתַנְיָא אֵין מֵבִיא – בְּזָב בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת, לִיתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי, חֲמִשָּׁה מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל עֲבֵירוֹת הַרְבֵּה! – לָא פְּסִיקָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רָאָה אַחַת בַּלַּיְלָה וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּיּוֹם – מֵבִיא, שְׁתַּיִם בַּלַּיְלָה וְאַחַת בַּיּוֹם – אֵין מֵבִיא.

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


###### Keritot 8a:9
[Keritot 8a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:9)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תֵּדַע דְּאַחַת בַּלַּיְלָה וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּיּוֹם מֵבִיא, דְּהָא רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בְּעָלְמָא, וְאִילּוּ חָזֵי תַּרְתֵּין אַחְרָנְיָיתָא מִצְטָרְפִי לְהוּ.

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


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

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל זָב – חַזְיַיהּ בִּזְמַן חִיּוּבָא. אַחַת בַּלַּיְלָה, כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו בִּזְמַן חִיּוּבָא חַזְיַיהּ, אִי לָאו דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּמִצְטַרְפָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לָא תִּצְטְרֵף.

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


###### Keritot 8a:11
[Keritot 8a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:11)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לַיְלָה מְחוּסַּר זְמַן?

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


###### Keritot 8a:12
[Keritot 8a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:12)

וְהָאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: נִטְמָא בַּיּוֹם – מֵבִיא, בַּלַּיְלָה – אֵין מֵבִיא. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּלַּיְלָה – מֵבִיא!

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


###### Keritot 8a:13
[Keritot 8a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:13)

כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״שְׁתַּיִם בַּלַּיְלָה וְאַחַת בַּיּוֹם – אֵין מֵבִיא״, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר מְחוּסַּר זְמַן.

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


###### Keritot 8a:14
[Keritot 8a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:14)

לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר? פְּשִׁיטָא! רָאָה אַחַת בַּלַּיְלָה וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּיּוֹם אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו בִּזְמַן חִיּוּבָא קָחָזֵי לֵיהּ – לָא תִּצְטְרֵף, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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


###### Keritot 8a:15
[Keritot 8a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ סְפֵק חָמֵשׁ לֵידוֹת וּסְפֵק חָמֵשׁ זִיבוֹת – מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד וְאוֹכֶלֶת בִּזְבָחִים וְאֵין הַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה. חָמֵשׁ זִיבוֹת וַדָּאוֹת וְחָמֵשׁ לֵידוֹת וַדָּאוֹת – מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד וְאוֹכֶלֶת בִּזְבָחִים וְהַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה.

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


###### Keritot 8a:16
[Keritot 8a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:16)

מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָמְדוּ קִינִּין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּדִינַר זָהָב, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: הַמָּעוֹן הַזֶּה, לֹא אָלִין הַלַּיְלָה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בְּדִינָרִין (בַּסּוֹף) [כֶּסֶף!] נִכְנַס לְבֵית דִּין וְלִמֵּד: ״הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חָמֵשׁ לֵידוֹת וַדָּאוֹת חָמֵשׁ זִיבוֹת וַדָּאוֹת – מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד וְאוֹכֶלֶת בִּזְבָחִים וְאֵין הַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה״ וְעָמְדוּ קִינִּין בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא בְּרִבְעָתַיִם.

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


###### Keritot 8a:17
[Keritot 8a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:17)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חָמֵשׁ לֵידוֹת וַדַּאי חָמֵשׁ זִיבוֹת סָפֵק אוֹ חָמֵשׁ לֵידוֹת וַדַּאי וְחָמֵשׁ לֵידוֹת סָפֵק – מְבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי קִינִּין, אַחַת עַל הַוַּדַּאי וְאַחַת עַל הַסָּפֵק, שֶׁל וַדַּאי נֶאֱכֶלֶת וְהַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה, שֶׁל סָפֵק אֵין נֶאֱכֶלֶת וְאֵין הַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה.

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


###### Keritot 8a:18
[Keritot 8a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:18)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: עַל וַדַּאי תֹּאמַר: ״עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה״ וְתִפָּטֵר. שֶׁל סָפֵק, אִם יֵשׁ וַדַּאי בֵּינֵיהֶן, תֹּאמַר: ״עַל הַוַּדַּאי״ וְתִפָּטֵר, וְאִם לָאו, תֹּאמַר: ״עַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן״ וְתִפָּטֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: בֵּין עַל הַוַּדַּאי בֵּין עַל הַסָּפֵק, תֹּאמַר: ״עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן״ וְתִפָּטֵר.

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


###### Keritot 8a:19
[Keritot 8a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרַב פָּפָּא, אֵימָא לָךְ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי, דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי מְדַמֵּי לְהוֹן לְחַטָּאת, דְּמַאן דְּחַיָּיב חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי כּוּלְּהוֹן וְסוֹף מִכַּפַּר לֵיהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.

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


###### Keritot 8a:20
[Keritot 8a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:20)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְדַמֵּי לְהוֹן לִטְבִילוֹת, דְּמַאן דִּמְחַיַּיב חָמֵשׁ טְבִילוֹת, כֵּיוָן דְּטָבֵיל חֲדָא זִימְנָא אִיטְּהַר, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.

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


###### Keritot 8a:21
[Keritot 8a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/8a:21)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לְחַטָּאת מְדַמֵּי לְהוֹן, אַמַּאי שֶׁל סָפֵק תֹּאמַר: ״עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן״, וְתִפָּטֵר? אִילּוּ מַאן דִּמְחַיַּיב

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to** Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: **If** it **enters your mind** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri compares** the offerings of a woman after childbirth **to a sin offering, why** then, with regard to offerings brought **for** the **uncertain** obligation, **should she say:** I am bringing it **for** any **one of them, and she is exempt? If one who is obligated**