There are thirty-six cases in the Torah with regard to which one who performs a prohibited action intentionally is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. They are: One who engages in sexual intercourse with his mother; or with the wife of his father, even if she is not his mother; or with his daughter-in-law. The same punishment is imposed on a man who engages in intercourse with another male [hazekhur], or who copulates with an animal; and a woman who brings an animal upon her to engage in bestiality. The same punishment is imposed on one who engages in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, or with a married woman. The same punishment is imposed on one who engages in intercourse with his sister, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with the wife of his father’s brother, or with the wife of his mother’s brother, or with a menstruating woman.And these too are liable to receive karet: One who blasphemes the name of Heaven, and one who worships an idol, and one who gives of his children to Molekh (see Leviticus 20:1–5), and a necromancer, and one who desecrates Shabbat. And the same is the punishment of one who is ritually impure who ate sacrificial food; and one who enters the Temple while ritually impure; and one who eats forbidden fat, or consumes blood, or eats meat left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar], or eats meat of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul]; and one who slaughters offerings and offers them up outside the Temple. And these too are liable to receive karet: One who eats leavened bread on Passover, and one who eats or performs prohibited labor on Yom Kippur. And the same is the punishment of one who blends the anointing oil according to the specifications of the oil prepared by Moses in the wilderness (see Exodus 30:22–33); and one who blends the incense according to the specifications of the incense used in the Temple service for purposes other than use in the Temple; and one who applies the anointing oil to his skin. And one is liable to receive karet for failure to fulfill the mitzva of bringing the Paschal offering and the mitzva of circumcision, which unlike the cases of prohibitions enumerated in the mishna, are positive mitzvot.
For any of these prohibitions, one is liable to receive karet for its intentional violation and to bring a sin offering for its unwitting violation. And for their violation in a case where it is unknown to him whether or not he transgressed, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, which provides provisional atonement until he discovers whether or not he transgressed. This is the halakha for all of the transgressions listed above except for one who defiles the Temple, i.e., he enters the Temple while ritually impure, or partakes of its consecrated items while ritually impure. In these cases he does not bring a provisional guilt offering because he is obligated to bring a sliding-scale offering for a definite transgression. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.And the Rabbis say: The halakha is the same even with regard to the one who blasphemes, as it is stated with regard to the sin offering: “You shall have one law for him who performs the action unwittingly” (Numbers 15:29), excluding one who blasphemes, as he does not perform an action but sins with speech.
There are some women who bring a sin offering of a woman after childbirth and the offering is eaten by the priests. And there are some women who bring a sin offering but it is not eaten. And there are some women who do not bring a sin offering at all. The mishna elaborates: The following women bring a sin offering and it is eaten by the priests: One who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to a domesticated animal, one who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to an undomesticated animal, or one who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to a bird; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She does not bring a sin offering unless the fetus has the form of a person. With regard to a woman who miscarries a sandal fetus, i.e., one that has the form of a flat fish; or if she miscarries the placenta; or an amniotic sac in which tissue developed; or a fetus that emerged cut, i.e., in pieces; and likewise a Canaanite maidservant, owned by a Jew, who miscarried; in all these cases she brings a sin offering and it is eaten by the priests.
And these women bring sin offerings but their sin offerings are not eaten: One who miscarries and does not know the nature of what she miscarried; and two women who miscarried, in a case where one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is exempt from bringing an offering and the other one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is liable to bring an offering, and they do not know which miscarried which type. Rabbi Yosei said: When is their sin offering not eaten? It is when both women went to different places within the Temple to bring their offerings, e.g., this woman went to the east and that woman went to the west. But if both of them were standing together, both of them together bring one sin offering, and it is eaten.
These women do not bring a sin offering: A woman who miscarries an amniotic sac full of water, or one full of blood, or one full of different colors; and likewise a woman who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to fish, or grasshoppers, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals; and a woman who miscarries on the fortieth day of her pregnancy; and a woman who gives birth by caesarean section. Rabbi Shimon deems a woman liable to bring a sin offering in the case where she gives birth by caesarean section.
A woman who gives birth to a daughter counts fourteen days during which she is ritually impure. That is followed by sixty-six days during which she remains ritually pure even if she experiences a flow of blood. The Torah obligates a woman to bring her offering on the eighty-first day (see Leviticus 12:1–6). If the woman miscarries another fetus before that day, she is not required to bring an additional offering. In the case of a woman who miscarries a fetus on the night of, i.e., preceding, the eighty-first day, Beit Shammai deem her exempt from bringing a second offering and Beit Hillel deem her liable to bring a second offering. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: What is different between the night of the eighty-first and the day of the eighty-first? If they are equal with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, i.e., the blood flow of this woman on the eighty-first night renders her ritually impure and all the standard strictures of ritual impurity apply to her, will the two time periods not be equal with regard to liability to bring an additional offering as well? Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: No, there is a difference between that night and the following day. If you said with regard to a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day that she is obligated to bring an additional offering, this is logical, as she emerged into a period that is fit for her to bring her offering. Would you say the same with regard to a woman who miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day, where she did not emerge into a period that is fit for her to bring her offering, as offerings are not sacrificed at night? Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But let the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day that occurs on Shabbat prove that this distinction is incorrect, as she did not emerge into a period that is fit for her to bring her offering because individual offerings are not sacrificed on Shabbat, and nevertheless she is obligated to bring an additional offering.Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: No, there is a difference between these cases. If you said this ruling with regard to a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day that occurs on Shabbat, the reason is that although Shabbat is unfit for the sacrifice of an individual offering, it is fit for the sacrifice of a communal offering whose time is fixed, e.g., the daily offering. Would you say the same with regard to a woman who miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day, as the night is completely unfit, since neither an individual offering nor a communal offering is sacrificed at night? Beit Shammai add: And as for the ritual impurity status of the blood, i.e., Beit Hillel’s opinion that the two time periods are equal with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, this does not prove what the halakha should be with regard to offerings, as with regard to a woman who miscarries before the completion of the term of eighty days, her blood is impure like the blood of a woman after childbirth, and nevertheless she is exempt from bringing the offering.
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. 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.
שְׁלשִׁים וָשֵׁשׁ כְּרֵתוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת הָאָב, וְעַל הַכַּלָּה, הַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר, וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה עָלֶיהָ, הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה, הַמְגַדֵּף, וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ, וּבַעַל אוֹב, הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְהַבָּא לַמִּקְדָּשׁ טָמֵא, הָאוֹכֵל חֵלֶב, וְדָם, נוֹתָר, וּפִגּוּל, הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמַּעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ, הָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח, וְהָאוֹכֵל וְהָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, הַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, וְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת, וְהַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה. הַפֶּסַח וְהַמִּילָה בְּמִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה:
There are thirty-six cases in the Torah with regard to which one who performs a prohibited action intentionally is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. They are: One who engages in sexual intercourse with his mother; or with the wife of his father, even if she is not his mother; or with his daughter-in-law. The same punishment is imposed on a man who engages in intercourse with another male [hazekhur], or who copulates with an animal; and a woman who brings an animal upon her to engage in bestiality. The same punishment is imposed on one who engages in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, or with a married woman. The same punishment is imposed on one who engages in intercourse with his sister, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with the wife of his father’s brother, or with the wife of his mother’s brother, or with a menstruating woman. And these too are liable to receive karet: One who blasphemes the name of Heaven, and one who worships an idol, and one who gives of his children to Molekh (see Leviticus 20:1–5), and a necromancer, and one who desecrates Shabbat. And the same is the punishment of one who is ritually impure who ate sacrificial food; and one who enters the Temple while ritually impure; and one who eats forbidden fat, or consumes blood, or eats meat left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar], or eats meat of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul]; and one who slaughters offerings and offers them up outside the Temple. And these too are liable to receive karet: One who eats leavened bread on Passover, and one who eats or performs prohibited labor on Yom Kippur. And the same is the punishment of one who blends the anointing oil according to the specifications of the oil prepared by Moses in the wilderness (see Exodus 30:22–33); and one who blends the incense according to the specifications of the incense used in the Temple service for purposes other than use in the Temple; and one who applies the anointing oil to his skin. And one is liable to receive karet for failure to fulfill the mitzva of bringing the Paschal offering and the mitzva of circumcision, which unlike the cases of prohibitions enumerated in the mishna, are positive mitzvot.
עַל אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִים עַל זְדוֹנָם כָּרֵת, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָם חַטָּאת, וְעַל לֹא הוֹדַע שֶׁלָּהֶן אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, חוּץ מִן הַמְטַמֵּא מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, מִפְנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אַף הַמְגַדֵּף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו), תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לָעֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה, יָצָא מְגַדֵּף, שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה:
For any of these prohibitions, one is liable to receive karet for its intentional violation and to bring a sin offering for its unwitting violation. And for their violation in a case where it is unknown to him whether or not he transgressed, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, which provides provisional atonement until he discovers whether or not he transgressed. This is the halakha for all of the transgressions listed above except for one who defiles the Temple, i.e., he enters the Temple while ritually impure, or partakes of its consecrated items while ritually impure. In these cases he does not bring a provisional guilt offering because he is obligated to bring a sliding-scale offering for a definite transgression. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is the same even with regard to the one who blasphemes, as it is stated with regard to the sin offering: “You shall have one law for him who performs the action unwittingly” (Numbers 15:29), excluding one who blasphemes, as he does not perform an action but sins with speech.
יֵשׁ מְבִיאוֹת קָרְבָּן וְנֶאֱכָל, וְיֵשׁ מְבִיאוֹת וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינָן מְבִיאוֹת. אֵלּוּ מְבִיאוֹת קָרְבָּן וְנֶאֱכָל. הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בוֹ מִצּוּרַת הָאָדָם. הַמַּפֶּלֶת סַנְדָּל, אוֹ שִׁלְיָא, וְשָׁפִיר מְרֻקָּם, וְהַיּוֹצֵא מְחֻתָּךְ. וְכֵן שִׁפְחָה שֶׁהִפִּילָה, מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּן וְנֶאֱכָל:
There are some women who bring a sin offering of a woman after childbirth and the offering is eaten by the priests. And there are some women who bring a sin offering but it is not eaten. And there are some women who do not bring a sin offering at all. The mishna elaborates: The following women bring a sin offering and it is eaten by the priests: One who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to a domesticated animal, one who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to an undomesticated animal, or one who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to a bird; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She does not bring a sin offering unless the fetus has the form of a person. With regard to a woman who miscarries a sandal fetus, i.e., one that has the form of a flat fish; or if she miscarries the placenta; or an amniotic sac in which tissue developed; or a fetus that emerged cut, i.e., in pieces; and likewise a Canaanite maidservant, owned by a Jew, who miscarried; in all these cases she brings a sin offering and it is eaten by the priests.
אֵלּוּ מְבִיאוֹת וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל. הַמַּפֶּלֶת וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מַה הִפִּילָה, וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁהִפִּילוּ, אַחַת מִמִּין פְּטוּר וְאַחַת מִמִּין חוֹבָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָלְכוּ זוֹ לְמִזְרָח וְזוֹ לְמַעֲרָב. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת כְּאַחַת, מְבִיאוֹת קָרְבָּן וְנֶאֱכָל:
And these women bring sin offerings but their sin offerings are not eaten: One who miscarries and does not know the nature of what she miscarried; and two women who miscarried, in a case where one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is exempt from bringing an offering and the other one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is liable to bring an offering, and they do not know which miscarried which type. Rabbi Yosei said: When is their sin offering not eaten? It is when both women went to different places within the Temple to bring their offerings, e.g., this woman went to the east and that woman went to the west. But if both of them were standing together, both of them together bring one sin offering, and it is eaten.
אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן מְבִיאוֹת. הַמַּפֶּלֶת שָׁפִיר מָלֵא מַיִם, מָלֵא דָם, מָלֵא גְנִינִים, הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, הַמַּפֶּלֶת יוֹם אַרְבָּעִים, וְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַיֵּב בְּיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן:
These women do not bring a sin offering: A woman who miscarries an amniotic sac full of water, or one full of blood, or one full of different colors; and likewise a woman who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to fish, or grasshoppers, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals; and a woman who miscarries on the fortieth day of her pregnancy; and a woman who gives birth by caesarean section. Rabbi Shimon deems a woman liable to bring a sin offering in the case where she gives birth by caesarean section.
הַמַּפֶּלֶת אוֹר לִשְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין מִן הַקָּרְבָּן, בֵּית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּבִים. אָמְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, מַאי שְׁנָא אוֹר לִשְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד מִיּוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד. אִם שָׁוֶה לוֹ לַטֻּמְאָה, לֹא יִשְׁוֶה לוֹ לַקָּרְבָּן. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, לֹא, אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בְּמַפֶּלֶת יוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד, שֶׁכֵּן יָצְאָה בְשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לְהָבִיא בָהּ קָרְבָּן, תֹּאמְרוּ בְמַפֶּלֶת אוֹר לִשְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד, שֶׁלֹּא יָצְאָה בְשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לְהָבִיא בָהּ קָרְבָּן. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל, וַהֲרֵי הַמַּפֶּלֶת יוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁלֹּא יָצְאָה בְשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לְהָבִיא בָהּ קָרְבָּן וְחַיֶּבֶת בַּקָּרְבָּן. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, לֹא, אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בְּמַפֶּלֶת יוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְקָרְבַּן יָחִיד, רָאוּי לְקָרְבַּן צִבּוּר, תֹּאמְרוּ בְמַפֶּלֶת אוֹר לִשְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד, שֶׁאֵין הַלַּיְלָה רָאוּי לֹא לְקָרְבַּן יָחִיד וְלֹא לְקָרְבַּן צִבּוּר. הַדָּמִים אֵינָן מוֹכִיחִין, שֶׁהַמַּפֶּלֶת בְּתוֹךְ מְלֹאת, דָּמֶיהָ טְמֵאִין, וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַקָּרְבָּן:
A woman who gives birth to a daughter counts fourteen days during which she is ritually impure. That is followed by sixty-six days during which she remains ritually pure even if she experiences a flow of blood. The Torah obligates a woman to bring her offering on the eighty-first day (see Leviticus 12:1–6). If the woman miscarries another fetus before that day, she is not required to bring an additional offering. In the case of a woman who miscarries a fetus on the night of, i.e., preceding, the eighty-first day, Beit Shammai deem her exempt from bringing a second offering and Beit Hillel deem her liable to bring a second offering. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: What is different between the night of the eighty-first and the day of the eighty-first? If they are equal with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, i.e., the blood flow of this woman on the eighty-first night renders her ritually impure and all the standard strictures of ritual impurity apply to her, will the two time periods not be equal with regard to liability to bring an additional offering as well? Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: No, there is a difference between that night and the following day. If you said with regard to a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day that she is obligated to bring an additional offering, this is logical, as she emerged into a period that is fit for her to bring her offering. Would you say the same with regard to a woman who miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day, where she did not emerge into a period that is fit for her to bring her offering, as offerings are not sacrificed at night? Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But let the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day that occurs on Shabbat prove that this distinction is incorrect, as she did not emerge into a period that is fit for her to bring her offering because individual offerings are not sacrificed on Shabbat, and nevertheless she is obligated to bring an additional offering. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: No, there is a difference between these cases. If you said this ruling with regard to a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day that occurs on Shabbat, the reason is that although Shabbat is unfit for the sacrifice of an individual offering, it is fit for the sacrifice of a communal offering whose time is fixed, e.g., the daily offering. Would you say the same with regard to a woman who miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day, as the night is completely unfit, since neither an individual offering nor a communal offering is sacrificed at night? Beit Shammai add: And as for the ritual impurity status of the blood, i.e., Beit Hillel’s opinion that the two time periods are equal with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, this does not prove what the halakha should be with regard to offerings, as with regard to a woman who miscarries before the completion of the term of eighty days, her blood is impure like the blood of a woman after childbirth, and nevertheless she is exempt from bringing the offering.
הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ סְפֵק חֲמִשָּׁה זִיבוֹת וּסְפֵק חֲמִשָּׁה לֵדוֹת, מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּן אֶחָד, וְאוֹכֶלֶת בַּזְּבָחִים, וְאֵין הַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה. חָמֵשׁ לֵדוֹת וַדָּאוֹת, חָמֵשׁ זִיבוֹת וַדָּאוֹת, מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּן אֶחָד, וְאוֹכֶלֶת בַּזְּבָחִים, וְהַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָמְדוּ קִנִּים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַמָּעוֹן הַזֶּה, לֹא אָלִין הַלַּיְלָה, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ בְדִינָרִין. נִכְנַס לְבֵית דִּין וְלִמֵּד, הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ חָמֵשׁ לֵדוֹת וַדָּאוֹת, חָמֵשׁ זִיבוֹת וַדָּאוֹת, מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּן אֶחָד, וְאוֹכֶלֶת בַּזְּבָחִים, וְאֵין הַשְּׁאָר עָלֶיהָ חוֹבָה. וְעָמְדוּ קִנִּים בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בְּרִבְעָתָיִם:
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. 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.