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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.