The following bring no offering at all: the woman who discharges a foetus filled with water or with blood or with a many-coloured substance; or if the abortion was in the shape of fish, locust, unclean animals or reptiles; or if the miscarriage to ok place on the fortieth day [after the conception], or if it was extracted by means of a Caesarean section. R. Simeon [T4] declares her liable [to an offering] in the case of a Caesarean section.
t.Ker.1.5
A. These are those [transgressions] punishable by death:
B. he who eats untithed food, a non-priest who ate clean heave-offering, an unclean priest who ate clean heave-offering,
C. and a non-priest, one who had immersed that self-same day, one who lacked proper garments, one who lacked proper completion of rites of purification, one with unkempt hair, one who was drunk, [any of whom] served at the altar-
D. all of them are subject to the death penalty.
E. But the uncircumcised [priest], the priest in mourning, and the priest who [performed the rite while he] was sitting down, lo, these are subject to warning.
F. ``A blemished priest who served at the altar is subject to the death penalty,`` the words of Rabbi.
G. And sages say, ``He is subject to the penalty for having transgressed a negative commandment`` [T.Zeb.12.17].
MISHNAH: m.Ker.1.3Some [women after confinement] bring an offering which is eaten; some bring one which is not eaten, and some bring no offering at all. Some bring an offering which is eaten: if a woman bears an abortion which is in the shape of cattle, or a beast of chase or a bird [thus the view of R. Meir [T4]; while the Sages* hold: only if it has a human shape], or if a woman discharges a sandal-like foetus or a placenta or a developed foetus, or a young that came out in pieces; similarly, if a woman-slave miscarries, she brings an offering which is eaten.
MISHNAH: m.Ker.1.4The following bring an offering which is not eaten: a woman who bears an abortion but does not know what the abortion was, or if of two women the one had an abortion of a kind which did not render her liable [to an offering], and the other of a kind to make her liable [to an offering]. R. Jose [T4] said: this applies only if the one went towards the east and the other towards the West, but if both remained together they bring [together] one offering which is eaten.
MISHNAH: m.Ker.1.5The following bring no offering at all: the woman who discharges a foetus filled with water or with blood or with a many-coloured substance; or if the abortion was in the shape of fish, locust, unclean animals or reptiles; or if the miscarriage to ok place on the fortieth day [after the conception], or if it was extracted by means of a Caesarean section. R. Simeon [T4] declares her liable [to an offering] in the case of a Caesarean section.
GEMARA: `Whence do we know [the law concerning] the woman-slave? For our Rabbis taught: [Speak unto] the children of Israel; from this I only know that [the law] applies to the children of Israel, whence do we know [its application to] a woman-proselyte and to a woman-slave? The text therefore states: [If] a woman. Why state, similarly if a woman-slave? I might have thought that the rule that all commandments which are binding upon a woman apply also to a slave holds good only in respect of laws which are applicable both to men and woman; but as to the laws concerning the woman after confinement, which are applicable to women only and not to men, I might have thought that the woman-slave is not included. Therefore a woman-slave is mentioned [in the Mishnah]. the following bring an offering etc. How shall they proceed? They bring [each] a certain [burnt-]offering and [together] a doubtful sin-offering of a bird and stipulate. But does R. Jose [T4] indeed admit that one can stipulate? Have we not learnt: R. Simeon [T4] holds, They together bring one sin-offering; R. Jose [T4] holds, Two persons cannot bring one sin-offering? Does this not prove that R. Jose [T4] does not agree with the principle of making a stipu lation? Said Raba: R. Jose [T4] agrees in the case of one who requires atonement. Also when Rabin [PA3 or PA4] came [from Palestine], he said in the name of R. Johanan [PA2]: R. Jose [T4] agrees in the case of one who requires atonement. `What is the difference? There, it is essential that the offender be conscious of his sin, as it is written: If his sin be known to him; therefore the offering cannot be brought conditionally. But here, the women bring offerings only in order to be permitted to partake of holy things, even as we have learnt in the concluding clause of that [same Mishnah], R. Jose [T4] says: No sin-offering that is brought for the expiation of sin can be offered by two persons. the following bring no offering... R. Simeon [T4] declares her liable in the case of a Caesarean section. What is the reason of R. Simeon [T4]? Said Resh Lakish [PA2]: It is written, And if she bear a maid-child, to include another kind of bearing, namely by means of a caesarean section. And what is the reason of the Rabbis? Said R. Mani b. Pattish: It is written, If a woman conceive seed and bear; only when the birth takes place through the seat of conception.