(8a:1)גמ׳ תניא אמרו להן ב"ה לב"ש הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא יב, ו) לבת לרבות אור שמונים ואחד
(8a:1)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.
(8a:2)ר' הושעיא הוה שכיח קמיה דבר קפרא שבקיה ואתא קמיה דרבי חייא יומא חד פגע ביה בעא מיניה זב שראה ג' ראיות בליל ח' מה ב"ה אומרים בדבר זה
(8a:2)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?
(8a:3)טעמייהו דב"ה במפלת בלילה משום דכתיב לבת אבל זב שראה ג' ראיות בליל ח' פטרי דלא מייתרי קראי או דלמא לא שנא
(8a:3)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.
(8a:4)א"ל בר קפרא מה בבלי אומר בדבר זה אישתיק רבי הושעיא לא אמר כלום א"ל בר קפרא צריכין לדברי עייא נחזור על הראשונות הרי הוא אומר לבת לרבות אור שמונים ואחד
(8a:4)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.
(8a:5)נימא כתנאי זב שראה ג' ראיות בליל ח' תני חדא מביא ותניא אידך אינו מביא מאי לאו תנאי היא דהא דתניא מביא קסבר לילה אין מחוסר זמן והדתני אין מביא קסבר לילה מחוסר זמן
(8a:5)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.
(8a:6)אמר רב הונא בר אחא א"ר אלעזר הני תנאי סברי לילה מחוסר זמן והא דתניא מביא בזב בעל ב' ראיות והדתניא אין מביא בזב בעל ג' ראיות
(8a:6)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.
(8a:7)זב בעל ב' ראיות מאי למימרא הא קמ"ל דוקא ראה בליל ח' אבל ביממא דז' לא קסבר כל ראייה שסותרת אין מביאה לידי קרבן
(8a:7)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.
(8a:8)אמר רבא אמאי אוקימתא להא דתניא אין מביא בזב בעל ג' ראיות ליתנייה גבי חמשה מביאין קרבן אחד על עבירות הרבה לא פסיקא דא"ר יוחנן ראה אחת בלילה וב' ביום מביא ב' בלילה ואחת ביום אין מביא
(8a:8)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.
(8a:9)אמר רב יוסף תדע דאחת בלילה וב' ביום מביא דהא ראייה ראשונה שכבת זרע בעלמא ואילו חזי תרתין אחרנייתא מצטרפי להו
(8a:9)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.
(8a:10)אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי מידי איריא ראייה ראשונה של זב חזייה בזמן חיובא אחת בלילה כיון דלאו בזמן חיובא חזייה אי לאו דאשמעינן רבי יוחנן דמצטרף ה"א לא תצטרף
(8a:10)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.
(8a:11)ומי א"ר יוחנן לילה מחוסר זמן
(8a:11)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?
(8a:12)והאמר חזקיה נטמא ביום מביא בלילה אין מביא ור' יוחנן אמר אפי' בלילה מביא
(8a:12)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.
(8a:13)כי קא"ר יוחנן ב' בלילה ואחת ביום אין מביא לדברי האומר מחוסר זמן
(8a:13)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.
(8a:14)לדברי האומר פשיטא ראה אחת בלילה וב' ביום איצטריכא ליה מהו דתימא כיון דלאו בזמן חיובא קחזי ליה לא תצטרף קמ"ל:
(8a:14)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.
(8a:15)מתני׳ האשה שיש עליה ספק ה' לידות וספק ה' זיבות מביאה קרבן אחד ואוכלת בזבחים ואין השאר עליה חובה ה' זיבות ודאות וה' לידות ודאות מביאה קרבן אחד ואוכלת בזבחים והשאר עליה חובה
(8a:15)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.
(8a:16)מעשה שעמדו קינין בירושלים בדינר זהב אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל המעון הזה לא אלין הלילה עד שיהיה בדינרין בסוף נכנס לב"ד ולמד האשה שיש עליה ה' לידות ודאות ה' זיבות ודאות מביאה קרבן אחד ואוכלת בזבחים ואין השאר עליה חובה ועמדו קינין ביום ההוא ברבעתים:
(8a:16)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.
(8a:17)גמ׳ ת"ר ה' לידות ודאי ה' זיבות ספק או ה' לידות ודאי וה' לידות ספק מביאה ב' קינין אחת על הודאי ואחת על הספק של ודאי נאכלת והשאר עליה חובה של ספק אין נאכלת ואין השאר עליה חובה
(8a:17)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.
(8a:18)ר' יוחנן בן נורי אומר על ודאי תאמר על האחרונה ותפטר של ספק אם יש ודאי ביניהן תאמר על הודאי ותפטר ואם לאו תאמר על אחד מהן ותפטר ר"ע אומר בין על הודאי בין על הספק תאמר על אחת מהן ותפטר
(8a:18)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.
(8a:19)א"ל רב נחמן בר יצחק לרב פפא אימא לך משמיה דרבא הני תנאי במאי פליגי דר' יוחנן בן נורי מדמי להון לחטאת דמאן דחייב ה' חטאות עד דמייתי כולהון וסוף מכפר ליה ה"נ ל"ש
(8a:19)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.
(8a:20)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.
(8a:21)א"ל רב פפא אי ס"ד ר' יוחנן בן נורי לחטאת מדמי להן אמאי של ספק תאמר על אחת מהן ותפטר אילו מאן דמחייב
(8a:21)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
(8b:1)חמש אשמות תלויין כי מייתי חד מי מיפטר והתניא זה הכלל כל שחלוקין בחטאות חלוקין באשמות
(8b:1)to bring five provisional guilt offerings, when he brings one offering is he exempt from bringing the rest? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that this is the principle: In any case where one’s transgressions are divided with regard to sin offerings, i.e., where one must bring a separate sin offering for each act when he becomes aware that he has sinned, they are likewise divided with regard to provisional guilt offerings, when there is uncertainty as to whether or not he sinned?
(8b:2)אלא דכולי עלמא לטבילות מדמי להון ובחוששין לפשיעה קמיפלגי רבי יוחנן בן נורי סבר חיישינן לפשיעה ורבי עקיבא סבר לא חיישינן לפשיעה:
(8b:2)Rather, everyone agrees that we compare the sin offerings of a woman after childbirth and a zava to immersions, and therefore by Torah law it is sufficient for her to say: I am bringing it for one of them. And they disagree with regard to whether we are concerned for her negligence. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri maintains we are concerned for her negligence. In other words, if she says: I am bringing it for one of my obligations, if she gives birth in the following years she might think that she does not need to bring an offering for each birth, and she will neglect to bring an offering. By requiring her to declare: I am bringing the offering for the last definite obligation, the Sages thereby remind her that all her births require offerings. And Rabbi Akiva maintains we are not concerned for her negligence, and therefore it is sufficient for her to say: I am bringing the offering for one of them.
(8b:3)הדרן עלך שלשים ושש
(8b:4)MISHNA: There are four individuals whose halakhic status is defined as: Lacking atonement [khappara], which means they had been in a state of ritual impurity and underwent rituals to purify themselves, but since they have not yet brought the requisite atonement offering to complete the purification process, they may not partake of sacrificial meat. And there are also four individuals who bring an offering for an intentional transgression in the same manner as they do for an unwitting transgression.
(8b:4)מתני׳ ארבעה מחוסרי כפרה וארבעה מביאין על הזדון כשוגג
(8b:5)And these are the four individuals who lack atonement: The man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], the woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava], the woman after childbirth, and the leper. In all four of these cases, although the individual has completed all of the other steps of the purification process, the process is not complete until the atonement offering has been brought.
(8b:5)ואלו הן מחוסרי כפרה הזב והזבה והיולדת והמצורע
(8b:6)Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A convert also lacks atonement, even after he has been circumcised and has immersed in a ritual bath, until the priest sprinkles the blood of his offering on the altar on his behalf. A nazirite also lacks atonement with regard to his permission for drinking wine, and cutting his hair, and his exposure to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, until his offerings are sacrificed.
(8b:6)רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר גר מחוסר כפרה עד שיזרוק עליו הדם נזיר ליינו ותגלחתו וטומאתו:
(8b:7)GEMARA: The mishna lists four individuals whose status is defined as lacking atonement until their offering is brought: The zav, the zava, the woman after childbirth, and the leper. The Gemara asks: What is different about a zav and a zava, that the tanna decided to count them as two separate cases? The Gemara answers: They are different due to the fact that the impurity of a zav is distinct from that of a zava, as a zav does not become impure if he has a discharge by accident, i.e., due to a cause such as an illness or having consumed certain foods, whereas there is no such exemption in the case of a zava; and a zava, unlike a zav, does not become impure by three sightings of menstrual-type blood on one day like she becomes impure by sightings on three consecutive days.
(8b:7)גמ׳ מאי שנא זב וזבה דמני להון בתרין משום דחלוקה טומאתו דזב לא מטמא באונס וזבה לא מטמאה בראיות כבימים
(8b:8)As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “When any man has a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is impure” (Leviticus 15:2). The term “from his flesh” teaches that the discharge is impure only if it is due to an internal cause, and not due to his accident. And furthermore, a zav becomes impure by three sightings of gonorrhea-like discharge on one day like he becomes impure by three such sightings on three consecutive days, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse links the impurity of the male, i.e., a zav, to the number of sightings on the same day or on consecutive days, and of the female zava to the number of consecutive days on which she experiences sightings of blood. And by contrast, a zava becomes impure if she has a discharge by accident, and does not become impure by three sightings on one day like she becomes impure by sightings on three consecutive days. Therefore, the mishna counts them as two separate cases.
(8b:8)דתניא (ויקרא טו, ב) מבשרו ולא מחמת אונסו (ומי טמא) בראיות כבימים דתניא תלה הכתוב את הזכר בראיות ואת הנקבה בימים וזבה מטמאה באונס ולא מטמאה בראיות כבימים
(8b:9)The Gemara objects: But the impurities of a male leper and a female leper are also distinct, as a male leper requires letting his hair grow wild and rending his garments, as it is written: “His garments shall be rent and the hair of his head shall go wild” (Leviticus 13:45), and he is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse.
(8b:9)מצורע ומצורעת נמי חלוקה טומאתן דמצורע טעון פריעה ופרימה דכתיב (ויקרא יג, מה) בגדיו יהיו פרומים וראשו יהיה פרוע ואסור בתשמיש המטה
(8b:10)And by contrast, a female leper does not require letting her hair grow wild and rending her garments, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “He is a leprous man” (Leviticus 13:44): I have derived only that a man can be a leper; from where do I derive that a woman can also be a leper? When the verse states: “And the leper in whom the mark is” (Leviticus 13:45), without specifying a man, the verse teaches that there are two here, i.e., a man and a woman.
(8b:10)ומצורעת אינה טעונה פריעה ופרימה דתניא אין לי אלא איש אשה מנין כשהוא אומר (ויקרא יג, מה) והצרוע הרי כאן שנים
(8b:11)The baraita asks: If so, why does the verse state: “A leprous man”? The baraita answers: The verse removed it from the matter stated earlier, and applied it to the matter stated later: “His garments shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go wild,” to say that a man who is a leper lets his hair grow wild and rends his garments, but the woman who is a leper does not need to let her hair grow wild and does not rend her garments. And a female leper is permitted to engage in sexual intercourse, as it is stated: “And he shall dwell outside his tent for seven days” (Leviticus 14:8), and not: Outside her tent.
(8b:11)אם כן מה ת"ל איש נתקו הכתוב מענין של מעלה לענין של מטה לומר איש פורע ופורם ואין האשה פורעת ופורמת ומותרת בתשמיש המטה שנאמר (ויקרא יד, ח) וישב מחוץ לאהלו שבעת ימים ולא מחוץ לאהלה
(8b:12)The Gemara now resumes stating its objection: Therefore, let us count the male and female leper as two separate cases, as the mishna does with regard to the zav and zava. Why does the mishna not do so? The Gemara explains: With regard to a zav and zava, they are treated as separate cases because the essence of their impurity is distinct, as the impurity of a zav is based on the number of sightings of discharge, whereas the impurity of a zava is based on the number of consecutive days on which she experiences sightings of menstrual-type blood. By contrast, with regard to a male leper and female leper, the essence of their impurity is not distinct, as in both this case of a male leper and that case of a female leper, the impurity is based on a leprous mark which is at least the area of a split bean.
(8b:12)הלכך נמנינהו בתרין זב וזבה עיקר טומאתן חלוקה מצורע ומצורעת אין עיקר טומאתן חלוקה האי והאי כגריס הוא:
(8b:13)§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A convert also lacks atonement until the priest sprinkles the blood of his offering on the altar on his behalf. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the first tanna does not also teach a convert, i.e., why does the first tanna not include him in the list of individuals lacking atonement? The Gemara answers: When the first tanna teaches those individuals who lack atonement, he includes any matter where the atonement offering completes the process of purification and thereby permits the individual to partake of sacrificial meat. But when a convert brings his atonement offering, it is to qualify him to enter the congregation of Israel through marriage, not to permit him to partake of sacrificial meat.
(8b:13)ר"א בן יעקב אומר גר מחוסר כו': ות"ק מאי טעמא לא תני גר כי קתני מדעם דמישרי למיכל בקדשים גר כי קא מייתי קרבן לאכשורי נפשיה למיעל בקהל
(8b:14)The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the first tanna also does not teach that a nazirite lacks atonement? The Gemara answers: Ultimately, as well, when a nazirite brings his offering, it is to permit him to drink non-sacred wine, not to permit him to partake of sacrificial meat.
(8b:14)ונזיר מאי טעמא לא תני סוף סוף נזיר נמי כי מייתי קרבן לאישתרויי למישתי יין דחולין הוא
(8b:15)The Gemara objects: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who teaches a nazirite in the mishna’s list of those who lack atonement, because the nazirite brings his offering in order to permit himself to drink wine, let him also teach, i.e., include in the list, a ritually impure nazirite. The Gemara answers: A ritually pure nazirite brings an offering in order to render an action permitted, and therefore Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov considers him lacking atonement. By contrast, when a ritually impure nazirite brings his offering, it is not to render an action permitted, but rather to effect upon himself a new period of naziriteship in purity.
(8b:15)ור"א דקתני נזיר למישרי נפשיה ניתני נמי נזיר טמא כי קא מייתי קרבן למיחל עליה נזירות בטהרה הוא
(8b:16)§ With regard to the atonement offering of a convert, the Sages taught in a baraita: A convert is precluded from partaking of sacrificial meat until he brings his bird nest, i.e., his offering of a pair of birds, either pigeons or doves. If he brought one young bird [perida] in the morning, he may partake of sacrificial meat in the evening, and may bring the second bird at a later time. Furthermore, with regard to all other cases in the Torah where bird nests are mandated as offerings, one of the birds is brought as a sin offering and the other one as a burnt offering; but here, in the case of the convert, both of them are burnt offerings.
(8b:16)תנו רבנן גר מעוכב לאכול בקדשים עד שיביא קינו הביא פרידה אחת שחרית אוכל בקדשים לערב כל הקינין שבתורה אחד חטאת ואחד עולה כאן שתיהן עולות
(8b:17)The baraita continues: If, instead of birds, the convert brought a burnt offering from an animal as his obligatory offering, he has fulfilled his obligation, and if he brought a burnt offering and a peace offering, he has also fulfilled his obligation; but if he brought a meal offering and a peace offering, he has not fulfilled his obligation. This is because a bird nest was stated in the Torah only to be lenient for him. Therefore, if he voluntarily brought an animal, which is more expensive, as a burnt offering, he has fulfilled his obligation.
(8b:17)הביא חובתו מן הבהמה יצא עולה ושלמים יצא מנחה ושלמים לא יצא לא אמרו קן אלא להקל
(8b:18)The Gemara asks: What is different about a meal offering and peace offering, that if the convert brings these he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara answers: It is as it is written: “And if a stranger dwell with you, or whosoever may be among you, throughout your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord; as you do, so he shall do” (Numbers 15:14). From this verse it is derived: Just as you brought a burnt offering and a peace offering when you entered the covenant on Mount Sinai, as it is stated: “And they sacrificed burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings” (Exodus 24:5), so too, a convert must bring a burnt offering and a peace offering.
(8b:18)מאי שנא מנחה ושלמים דלא יצא דכתיב (במדבר טו, יד) כאשר תעשו כן יעשה מה אתם עולה ושלמים אף גר עולה ושלמים
(8b:19)The Gemara objects: If so, in a case where he brought one offering from an animal for his obligation, that should not be enough for him, as isn’t it written: “As you do, so he shall do,” which teaches that he must bring both a burnt offering and a peace offering? Why, then, does the baraita state that a single burnt offering from an animal is sufficient? Rav Pappa says: One can say that this is derived from an a fortiori inference: If a bird offering was included as an inexpensive way for a convert to fulfill his obligation, would the Torah not all the more so include a more expensive animal burnt offering?
(8b:19)א"כ חובתו אחת מן הבהמה לא תיסגי עליה בגוויה דהכתיב כאשר תעשו כן יעשה אר"פ יש לומר לעוף איתרבי לעולת בהמה לא כל שכן
(8b:20)The Gemara objects: If so, then even a meal offering should fulfill the convert’s obligation. The Gemara answers: The verse restricts the acceptable offerings, excluding a meal offering, as it states: “Just as you do, so he shall do,” meaning that he must not do less than that.
(8b:20)אי הכי אפילו מנחה נמי מיעט קרא כן
(8b:21)The Gemara asks: And where was a bird offering included as an option? The Gemara answers that this is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “As you do, so he shall do” (Numbers 15:14): Just as you entered the covenant with a burnt offering and a peace offering, so too, a convert fulfills his obligation with a burnt offering and a peace offering, as it is stated: “As you are, so shall the stranger be” (Numbers 15:15). From where is it derived to include the option of the bird offering instead of an animal? The verse states: “An offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord” (Numbers 15:14). Which item is an offering that is entirely for the Lord? You must say: This is referring to a bird burnt offering, which is entirely consumed upon the altar.
(8b:21)ועוף היכא איתרבי דת"ר כאשר תעשו כן יעשה מה אתם עולה ושלמים אף הוא עולה ושלמים שנא' (במדבר טו, טו) ככם כגר מנין לרבות את העוף ת"ל (במדבר טו, י) אשה ריח ניחוח לה' איזה דבר שכולו לה' הוי אומר עולת העוף
