If a woman brings forth an abortion on the Eve of the eighty-First Day, Beth Shammai [CE1] say: she is exempted from an offer-ing, while Beth Hillel [CE1] say: she is liable. Said Beth Hillel [CE1] to Beth Shammai [CE1]: what is the difference between the Eve of the eighty-First Day and the eighty-First Day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? Answered Beth Shammai [CE1] to them: no; if you will maintain this in the case where she bears an abortion on the eighty-First Day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you maintain this where she bears an abortion on the Eve of the eighty-First Day, seeing that it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Said Beth Hillel [CE1] again to them: the case of an abortion on the eighty-First Day which fell on a Sabbath shall prove it, where the abortion took place at a time when she was unfit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Replied Beth Shammai [CE1] to them: no; if you will maintain this of the eighty-First Day which fell on a Sabbath which, though indeed not fit for offerings of an individual, is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this of an abortion on the Eve of the eighty-First Day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for also when the abortion took place within the period of cleanness is the blood unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering.
t.Ker.1.6
A. He who deliberately commits sacrilege-
B. Rabbi says, ``He is subject to the death penalty.``
C. And sages say, ``He is subject to the penalty for having transgressed a negative commandment.``
D. This is the general principle: [For violation of] any negative commandment containing within itself a concrete deed do [violators] receive the penalty of forty stripes.
E. And for the violation of any which does not contain within itself a concrete deed they do not receive the penalty of forty stripes.
F. And as to all other negative commandments in the Torah, lo, these are subject to warning.
G. He who transgresses them violates the decree of the King.
MISHNAH: m.Ker.1.6If a woman brings forth an abortion on the Eve of the eighty-First Day, Beth Shammai [CE1] say: she is exempted from an offer-ing, while Beth Hillel [CE1] say: she is liable. Said Beth Hillel [CE1] to Beth Shammai [CE1]: what is the difference between the Eve of the eighty-First Day and the eighty-First Day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? Answered Beth Shammai [CE1] to them: no; if you will maintain this in the case where she bears an abortion on the eighty-First Day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you maintain this where she bears an abortion on the Eve of the eighty-First Day, seeing that it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Said Beth Hillel [CE1] again to them: the case of an abortion on the eighty-First Day which fell on a Sabbath shall prove it, where the abortion took place at a time when she was unfit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Replied Beth Shammai [CE1] to them: no; if you will maintain this of the eighty-First Day which fell on a Sabbath which, though indeed not fit for offerings of an individual, is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this of an abortion on the Eve of the eighty-First Day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for also when the abortion took place within the period of cleanness is the blood unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering. b.Ker.8a
GEMARA: It has been taught: Beth Hillel [CE1] said to Beth Shammai [CE1]: Lo, it says, `or for a daughter`, to include the eve of the eighty-first day.
R. Hoshaia was a frequent visitor to Bar Kappara [T6]; he then left him and joined R. Hiyya. One day he met [Bar Kappara [T6]] and asked him: If a zab had three [new] issues during the night of the eighth day, what would be the view of Beth Hillel [CE1] in this case? Is the reason of Beth Hillel [CE1] in the case of an abortion on the night [of the eighty-first day] because it is written, `or for a daughter`, but in the case of a zab there will be no sacrifice, since there is no superfluous text in connection therewith; or perhaps there is no difference [between these two cases]? Replied to him Bar Kappara [T6]: What did the Babylonian say in this matter? R. Hoshaia was silent and said nothing. Then Bar Kappara [T6] said to him: `We have still to depend upon the words of Iyya! Let us return to that which has been said before. `Lo, it says, or for a daughter, to include the eve of the eighty-first day`. Are we to say that this is a point of dispute between Tannaim*? If a zab had three issues in the night of the eighth day, one [Baraitha] teaches, He has to bring an offering, whereas another [Baraitha] teaches, He is exempted. Now, do they not differ in the following: The one which teaches that he is liable holds that the night does not render a period wanting in time; and the one which teaches that he is exempt holds that the night renders a period wanting in time! Said R. Huna b. Aha in the name of R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3]: These Tannaim* [indeed] hold that the night renders a period wanting in time, but the one which teaches that he is liable, deals with a zab of two issues, and the one which teaches that he is exempt deals with a zab of three issues. But need the case of a zab of two issues be stated? This is what we are informed: Only when he perceives [three issues] on the night of the eighth day; but if on the day of the seventh, he is not liable; for he holds that an issue which disturbs [the period of cleanness] does not render one liable to an offering. Said Raba: You have explained the teaching that one is exempted from an offering as referring to a zab of three issues; why then has this law not been stated in conjunction with the [Mishnah]: `Five who bring one sacrifice for many transgressions`? Because this law is not absolute; for R. Johanan [PA2] said: If he perceived one issue in the night and two during the day, he is liable; two in the night and one during the day, he is not liable. Said R. Joseph [BA3]: You can prove that one is liable if one [was perceived] by night and two during the day, for the first issue is regarded as a mere discharge of semen, and yet if two more issues are perceived, they combine one with the other. [Against this] said R. Shesheth [BA3] son of R. Idi: What argument is this? The first issue of a zab took place at a time fit for offerings, but in the instance of `one by night`, where the issue was at a time not fit for offerings, had not R. Johanan [PA2] taught us that they combine with one another, I would have thought that they do not combine. But does R. Johanan [PA2] hold that the night renders a period wanting in time? Did not Hezekiah say: If he [the nazirite] became unclean during the eighth day, he has to bring a [second] offering; if on the night [of the eighth day], he does not bring [an offering]; while R. Johanan [PA2] holds, Even on the night [of the eighth day] he has to bring? When R. Johanan [PA2] said if [he perceived] two by night and one during the day he has to bring [an offering], it was according to him who holds [that the night] renders a period wanting in time. But according to him is not this obvious? [The case] of one by night and two during the day was necessary [to be mentioned]; for I might have thought, since the one issue was not at a time fit for offerings, there is no combination. Therefore we are told [that this is not so].