כריתות 7 — Soncino English Talmud

¹If the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite has eaten terumah, she has to pay the principal but not the additional fifth, and her punishment is death by burning. If she is married to one of those disqualified [for priesthood], she has to pay the principal as well as the additional fifth, and her punishment is death by strangulation. Thus the view of R. Meir; but the Sages hold: In either case she has to pay the principal but not the fifth, and is punished by burning. Said R. Joseph: The dispute [between R. Meir and R. Judah] is only with reference to the putting of the oil of anointing, and as we have explained above; but elsewhere all agree that ‘giving’ implies at least an olive size. [To turn to] the main text: A Tanna recited before R. Eleazar: Whosoever is subject to [the prohibition] ‘he shall not pour’ is subject to [the law] ‘it shall not be poured [over him]’; but he who is not subject to ‘he shall not pour’ is not subject to ‘it shall not be poured [over him]’. The latter said to him: You speak well: it is written, ‘It shall not be poured’ [yisak], read ‘he shall not pour’ [yasik]. R. Hananiah recited before Raba: If a high priest has taken from the oil of anointing that is upon his head and rubbed it upon his stomach, whence do we know that he is culpable? It says: Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured’. Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: ‘Why is this different from that which has been taught: A priest who is anointed with oil of terumah may without scruple allow [e.g.,] his Israelite grandson to roll against him? — He replied: In that connection it is written: And die therein, if they profane it; once it is profaned it remains profane; but in connection with the oil of anointing it says: For the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him; the Divine Law [still] calls it oil of anointing, so that even when it is ‘upon him’ it does not become profane. FOR THESE [TRANSGRESSIONS] ONE IS LIABLE TO EXTINCTION IF COMMITTED WILFULLY etc. It states EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF ONE WHO DEFILED THE TEMPLE OR ITS CONSECRATED THINGS. Excluded from what? — Read thus: Excluded is he who defiles the sanctuary or sacred things in that he does not bring a suspensive guilt-offering. Why not also state: Excluded is one from a suspensive guilt-offering where the Day of Atonement has passed by in the meantime? — Replied Resh Lakish: He mentions only cases where a sin-offering is [prescribed], but the Divine Law has pronounced exemption [from a suspensive guilt-offering in case of a doubt]; but where the Day of Atonement had passed by, there is no sin-offering prescribed, for [the sin] had already been atoned. R. Johanan said: [The Mishnah] refers to a rebellious person, [that is] who says that the Day of Atonement brings no forgiveness; if then he repents after the Day of Atonement, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering. But Resh Lakish holds that the Day of Atonement effects forgiveness even to a rebellious person. Their dispute is similar to the following: If one says, My sin-offering shall effect no atonement for me, Abaye says: It does not effect atonement; Raba says: It does effect atonement. If he said, It shall not be offered, all agree that it does not effect atonement,for it is written: He shall bring it with the consent; where they differ is when he said: It should be offered but should not effect atonement. Abaye holds that it does not effect atonement,for he said: It should not atone. Raba holds that it does effect atonement, since he ordered that it should be offered, atonement comes as a matter of course. Raba, however, has retracted his view, as it has been taught: I might assume that the Day of Atonement atones alike for them who repent and them who do not repent. But is there not an argument [to the contrary]: Sin- and guilt-offerings effect atonement, and the Day of Atonement effects atonement. Just as sin- and guilt-offerings atone only for them that repent, so shall also the Day of Atonement atone only for them that repent? No, [this is not conclusive]. You can rightly say that such is the case of sin- and guilt-offerings, since they do not atone for wilful sins as they do for those in error; will you apply the same to the Day of Atonement which atones alike for wilful sins as well as for those in error? I might therefore have thought since the Day of Atonement atones for wilful sins as well as those in error, so it would atone for them that repent as well as them that do not repent, therefore it is written, ‘howbeit’, to establish a distinction [between them that repent and them that do not repent]. ‘What is meant by ‘them that repent’ and ‘them that do not repent’? Does ‘them that repent’ mean that the sin has been committed in error, and ‘them that do not repent’ that the sin has been committed wilfully? But then, does it not state: No, you can rightly say that such is the case of sin- and guilt-offerings, since they do not atone for wilful sins, etc.? — Rather [explain in the light of] what ‘Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man ate heleb and separated a sacrifice, and then he apostatized but retracted afterwards, [the sacrifice may not be offered] for since it has once been rejected it remains rejected. But although this [particular] sacrifice is rejected, the person, however, is fit for atonement? — Hence [you must say] that ‘them that repent’ refers to one who says: My sin-offering shall effect atonement for me; and ‘them that do not repent’ to one who says: My sin-offering shall effect no atonement for me. This proves it. The following contradiction was raised: I might think that the Day of Atonement atoned only for him who afflicted himself and did no work on it, and called it a holy convocation; but if one did not afflict himself or did work on it or did not call it a holy convocation, I might think that the Day of Atonement does not atone for him; therefore it is stated: It is the Day of Atonement: in all circumstances [does it atone]. Now, these two statements are both given anonymously in the Sifra and so they contradict each other! — Replied Abaye: There is no difficulty; the former teaching is that of Rabbi on the view of R. Judah, the latter that of Rabbi himself; as it has been taught: Rabbi says, For all the sins of the Torah, whether one has repented or not, the Day of Atonement atones, except for throwing off the yoke, interpreting the Torah in opposition to the halachah, and making void the convenant of the flesh, where if one has repented the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but if not, the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. Raba said: Both teachings represent Rabbi's own view, but Rabbi agrees that the transgressions against the sanctity of the Day of Atonement itself are not atoned for. For if this was not so, how could, according to Rabbi, the penalty of kareth for offending against the laws of the Day of Atonement ever take effect, since there is on that day continuous atonement. This would offer no difficulty; [it might take effect] when one did work during the night and died at dawn, so that he had no day to atone for him. This is right only as far as sins committed by night are concerned, how can kareth take effect for sins committed by day? — This is no difficulty. [It might take effect] when one while partaking of a meal was choked by a lump of meat and died, so that there was no time during the day for the atonement to atone for him; or when he was working just before sunset; or when while working he cut off his thigh with the axe and died, so that there was no time during the day to atone for him. THE SAGES SAY: ALSO ONE WHO BLASPHEMES etc. What is the meaning of ‘also one who blasphemes’? — The Rabbis heard that R. Akiba included ob but not yidde'oni; so they said to him: The reason why there is no offering in the latter instance is because it involves no action; the blasphemer, too, performs no action. Our Rabbis have taught: He who blasphemes is liable to an offering, for kareth is written in connection with him; thus the view of R. Akiba. And it further says: He will bear his iniquity. But is it a rule that wherever kareth is written, one has to bring an offering [in case of error]? Surely there are the cases of Passover and circumcision in connection with which kareth is written, and yet these Involve no offerings? —^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ

^ᵃnote:V. Glos. By marrying an Israelite she becomes disqualified from eating terumah. She is, however, exempted from the payment of the fine of an extra fifth of the value (cf. Lev. V, 16), because she might return to her original status of priesthood on her husband's childless death.
^ᵇnote:In case of infidelity; cf. Lev. XXI, 9.
^ᶜnote:Like any other unfaithful wife. By this marriage she herself has become disqualified for priesthood. Even after her husband's death she is not fit to eat terumah.
^ᵈnote:R. Meir does not take into consideration the fact that she was once fit for priesthood; while the Sages, identified with R. Judah, hold she has still the status of a priest's daughter by reason of her former inclusion in the tribe. The arguments are thus similar to those underlying the previous dispute.
^ᵉnote:Viz., that the term ‘putting’ (i.e., giving) of oil is to be compared with that of ‘pouring’.
^ᶠnote:E.g., when frankincense is put upon the meal-offering, cf. Men. 59b.
^ᵍnote:The fact that the word lxhh is understood, by reason of the two yods, both in the active and in the passive voice is taken to imply that there is an interdependence between him who uses the oil and him upon whom it is used.
^ʰnote:This is all inclusive.
^ⁱnote:Tosef. Ter. IX, 8, with slight variants.
^ʲnote:The son of his daughter who married an Israelite.
^ᵏnote:Although his body may be smeared with the oil of terumah, which is prohibited to an Israelite.
^ˡnote:Lev. XXII, 9.
^ᵐnote:I.e., once it has been used.
^ⁿnote:Ibid. XXI, 12. It is called a ‘consecration’ even after it is poured over his head.
^ᵒnote:V. Mishnah. The reason given is that such a guilt-offering is offered only in cases where by certain yet unwitting transgression a fixed sin-offering is prescribed. For the defilement, however, of the sanctuary or sacred things, a sacrifice of higher or lesser value is prescribed.
^ᵖnote:In which case the Day of Atonement effects atonement for the doubtful sins.
^ᵠnote:Viz., when the transgression is certain though committed in error.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘one who kicks’.
^ˢnote:And for this reason the Mishnah doss not exclude this case.
^ᵗnote:Lev. I, 3.
^ᵘnote:Shebu. 13a.
^ᵛnote:Lev. XXIII, 27 which is a restrictive expression.
^ʷnote:Mentioned above in connection with sin- and guilt-offerings.
^ˣnote:This passage would then be a repetition of the previous.
^ʸnote:Sanh. 47a.
^ᶻnote:V. Glos. The eating was in error, in which case he is liable to a sin-offering.
^ᵃᵃnote:An apostate's sacrifice may not be offered upon the altar. In accordance with this dictum ‘them that do not repent’ signifies people who have apostatized between the separation of the sacrifice and its offering up.
^ᵃᵇnote:After the revocation of his apostasy such a person is regarded as a full Israelite and surely participates in the forgiveness of the Day of Atonement.
^ᵃᶜnote:That where one says, ‘My sin-offering shall effect no atonement for me’ it does not atone.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., participated in the service of the day (Rashi).
^ᵃᵉnote:Lev. XXIII, 27. The article is considered superfluous and is understood as an amplification.
^ᵃᶠnote:Viz., this one and the one above stating that the Day of Atonement atones only for them that repent and comply with the laws concerning the Day of Atonement.
^ᵃᵍnote:Being anonymous both teachings emanate from the same authority.
^ᵃʰnote:Halachic Midrash on Leviticus.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., unbelief in God.
^ᵃʲnote:Rejecting thereby the oral law.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., circumcision. On these phrases v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 672 and notes.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., that if one does not afflict himself on the Day of Atonement that day does not atone for this sin except after repentance, while other sins perpetrated throughout the year are atoned for even without repentance. The former statement is thus confined to sins against the holiness of the Day of Atonement itself.
^ᵃᵐnote:Atonement is granted during day-time, although the sanctity of the festival commences on the previous evening as is the case of all Jewish festivals. Although the sinner is now dead, kareth can still take effect thereafter. V. Glos on kareth.
^ᵃⁿnote:The text Lev. XXIII, 28 explicitly mentions the day: Ye shall do no manner of work in that same day.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘eating bread’. The parallel passage in Shebu. 13b reads: While eating a lump of meat.
^ᵃᵖnote:Sin and death were simultaneous.
^ᵃᵠnote:It can have no reference to the immediately preceding passage, which deals with suspensive guilt-offerings for doubtful sins.
^ᵃʳnote:As is later on explained, the anonymous view in our Mishnah, to whom the Sages retort, represents R. Akiba's opinion.
^ᵃˢnote:Viz., in the category of sins enumerated in the Mishnah liable to a sin-offering where committed in error.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. supra 3b.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lev. XXIV, 15.

²This is the meaning: One who blasphemes brings an offering, because [the penalty of] kareth stands in this case in conjunction with offerings. This is the view of R. Akiba. He holds that since kareth in this instance could have been mentioned independently, but is in fact mentioned in conjunction with offerings, this proves that [he who blasphemes] brings an offering. And it further says, ‘he shall bear his iniquity’; this is quoted on the view of the Sages. And thus did the Rabbis say to R. Akiba: You maintain that the blasphemer [megaddef] is liable to an offering because kareth in this instance is mentioned in conjunction with offerings. You thus assume that the term ‘megaddef’ of the Holy Writ denotes one who blasphemes the Name of the Lord. [This is not so;] ‘Megaddef’ denotes one who worships idols. And as to the text of the Mishnah: AND THE SAGES SAY, ALSO ONE WHO BLASPHEMES [megaddef], it is to be understood thus: Also he who blasphemes the Name which you designate as megaddef etc. . . And whence do you know that kareth applies to one who blasphemes the Name? — In connection with blasphemy we read: ‘He shall bear his iniquity’, and also in connection with the second Passover we read: ‘He shall bear his iniquity’: As in the latter instance kareth is the penalty, so also in the former the penalty is kareth. Our Rabbis taught: The same blasphemeth [megaddef] the Lord; Issi b. Judah explains [the term gadaf] in the sense of a man who says to his neighbour: Thou hast scraped [garef] the dish and impaired it; he holds ‘megaddef’ denotes one who blasphemes the Name. R. Eleazar b. Azariah explains it in the sense of a man who says to his neighbour: Thou hast scraped the dish but hast not impaired it; he holds ‘megaddef’ denotes one who worships idols. Another [Baraitha] teaches: ‘The same blasphemeth the Lord’: R. Eleazar b. Azariah says: The text speaks of one who worships idols; while the Sages say: The text intends only to pronounce kareth for him who blasphemes the Name. MISHNAH. SOME [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; 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. THE 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 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. 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 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 indeed admit that one can stipulate? Have we not learnt: R. Simeon holds, They together bring one sin-offering; R. Jose holds, Two persons cannot bring one sin-offering? Does this not prove that R. Jose does not agree with the principle of making a stipu lation? — Said Raba: R. Jose agrees in the case of one who requires atonement. Also when Rabin came [from Palestine], he said in the name of R. Johanan: R. Jose 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 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 DECLARES HER LIABLE IN THE CASE OF A CAESAREAN SECTION. What is the reason of R. Simeon? — Said Resh Lakish: 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. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN BRINGS FORTH AN ABORTION ON THE EVE OF THE EIGHTY-FIRST DAY, BETH SHAMMAI SAY: SHE IS EXEMPTED FROM AN OFFERING, WHILE BETH HILLEL SAY: SHE IS LIABLE. SAID BETH HILLEL TO BETH SHAMMAI: 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 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 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 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.43^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ

^ᵃᵛnote:Although he performs no action.
^ᵃʷnote:Cf. Num. XV, 30 and the context.
^ᵃˣnote:Viz., of Num. XV, 30.
^ᵃʸnote:So that blasphemy which is accordingly mentioned only in Lev. XXIV, 15-16 does not stand in conjunction with offerings. R. Akiba's view is thus robbed of its foundation.
^ᵃᶻnote:Thus admitting that ‘megaddef’ denotes the blasphemer.
^ᵇᵃnote:I.e., the Sages use here the term ‘megaddef’ in the language of R. Akiba to whom they address themselves.
^ᵇᵇnote:Since the text in Num. XV, 30 where kareth is mentioned refers to idolatry.
^ᵇᶜnote:Lev. XXIV, 15.
^ᵇᵈnote:Num. IX, 13.
^ᵇᵉnote:Thus Rashi's version. Cur. edd., whose text is not quite clear, read thus: . . . on the view of the Rabbis. R. Akiba argues thus with the Rabbis: You maintain the blasphemer (megaddef) performs no action; but in fact ‘megaddef’ is one who blasphemes the Name. And for what purpose has kareth been mentioned? They said to him: He who curses the Lord is liable to kareth, for it is written in connection with cursing, ‘That man shall bear his iniquity’ and it is written in conjunction with the second passover, ‘He shall bear his iniquity’: as in the latter instance there is kareth, so also in the former there is kareth.
^ᵇᶠnote:Num. XV, 30.
^ᵇᵍnote:;sdn is thus turned into ;rdn by reason of the similarity of the two letters s and r .
^ᵇʰnote:I.e., not only hast thou robbed the vessel of its contents, thou hast also damaged the vessel itself. The allusion is as follows: Though worshipping idols, the work of God's creation, one may still believe and recognise the supremacy of the Creator Himself, however unsound this attitude may be. With blasphemy one turns against the Creator Himself.
^ᵇⁱnote:In Lev. XXIV, 14 the death penalty is pronounced for the blasphemer of the Name. This text of Num. XV, 30 pronounces the penalty of kareth in case of wilful transgression in the absence of two witnesses or without due warning.
^ᵇʲnote:Or rather offerings, cf. Lev. XII, 6-8.
^ᵇᵏnote:I.e., with the articulate parts of the body.
^ᵇˡnote:Viz.,an heathen bondwoman.
^ᵇᵐnote:I.e., she is in doubt whether it was of a human shape making her liable to offerings, or not. Of the two offerings she has to bring (viz., the burnt-offering and the sin-offering) the first is brought with the stipulation that should she be exempted from offerings, it should be regarded as a freewill burnt-offering. With the latter this stipulation cannot be made, since there is no freewill sin-offering.
^ᵇⁿnote:It is not known which of the two is liable and which is exempted, therefore each of them brings a set of offerings.
^ᵇᵒnote:I.e., they have separated one from the other so that they cannot make the stipulation expounded in the Gemara.
^ᵇᵖnote:The development of the embryo begins to take shape after the fortieth day.
^ᵇᵠnote:Lev. XII, 2f., where the offerings of a woman after confinement are mentioned.
^ᵇʳnote:Ibid. implying any woman.
^ᵇˢnote:Is it not obvious, since slaves are subject to all laws to which women are subject?
^ᵇᵗnote:The question refers to R. Jose who holds that both women bring together one offering.
^ᵇᵘnote:The law prescribes two offerings, a burnt-offering and a sin-offering. A burnt-offering can also be brought in a doubtful case with the stipulation that the offering should be a freewill burnt-offering should the person in fact be exempted from the offerings. In this instance of the two women, each of them brings therefore a burnt-offering and stipulates that her burnt-offering should be a freewill sacrifice should the other woman be the one that is liable to the offering by law. This method cannot be used in connection with the sin-offering, for there is no freewill sin-offering. The women are therefore asked to bring together one sin-offering and each stipulates that her portion of the offering should belong to her friend, should the latter be the one that is liable by law to the offering.
^ᵇᵛnote:Infra 23a. The case in question is that two pieces of fat, one forbidden and the other permitted, were eaten by two people, and it is not known who ate the forbidden and who the permitted fat.
^ᵇʷnote:Or else he would suggest a solution similar to that of our Mishnah.
^ᵇˣnote:I.e., the instance of our Mishnah where the object of the offerings is to complete the atonement; v. infra 8b.
^ᵇʸnote:In the Mishnah infra 23a.
^ᵇᶻnote:Lev. IV, 28. The offering is to expiate a certain sin of a certain person.
^ᶜᵃnote:Lev. XII, 5. It sufficed to state, ‘and if it be a maid-child’.
^ᶜᵇnote:Ibid. 2.
^ᶜᶜnote:. I.e., only in the case of a normal birth are offerings prescribed.
^ᶜᵈnote:After the birth of a girl, cf. Lev. XII, 5. These eighty days are a period of cleanness, during which the woman does not become unclean through the discharge of blood. On the eighty-first day special offerings are to be offered. If another birth takes place before the expiration of this period, no new offerings are required; if on or after the eighty-first day, she is liable. The query arises, if the second birth was on the eve of the eighty-first day. Although the night is generally reckoned as part of the following day, as the sacrifices may not be offered until day-time of the eighty-first day, it is doubtful whether the abortion is to be covered by these sacrifices or not.
^ᶜᵉnote:For the second birth.
^ᶜᶠnote:The period of cleanness undoubtedly ends with sunset. It is assumed by Beth Hillel that the exemption from new offerings in the case of abortion within the period of cleanness is based upon the fact that the blood discharged thereby is clean. If accordingly the abortion took place after this period has passed, new offerings are required.
^ᶜᵍnote:Viz., the law that if the second birth takes place on or after the eighty-first day, a new set of offerings is required.
^ᶜʰnote:Viz., the abortion.
^ᶜⁱnote:Sacrifices may not be offered during the night. Although the period of cleanness is over, since the sacrifices may not be offered until the following morning, the birth on the eve of the eighty-first day is to be covered by these offerings.
^ᶜʲnote:Viz., the first objection of Beth Hillel: ‘SINCE THESE ARE CONSIDERED EQUAL WITH REGARD TO UNCLEANNESS etc.’.
^ᶜᵏnote:Discharged at the abortion.
^ᶜˡnote:I.e., according to Beth Shammai the exemption from offering in the case of abortion within the period of cleanness is not the outcome of the fact that the blood discharged thereby is clean, which in fact it is not, but because it is covered by the first set of offerings.