If a woman miscarries on the evening [or] of the eighty-first day; Beth Shammai exempt her from a sacrifice, whereas Beth Hillel declare her liable. Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai: Wherein does the evening [‘or’] of the eighty-first differ from the day of the eighty-first; seeing that it was assimilated thereto in respect of uncleanness, shall one not assimilate it thereto in respect of sacrifice? Now since Beth Hillel say to Beth Shammai, ‘Wherein does the evening [or] of the eighty-first differ from the day of the eighty-first,’ it follows that ‘or’ is evening. This proves it. New Moon was fixed by direct observation, not calculation, and communities at a distance from Jerusalem were informed by bonfires. These were lit only if the New Moon appeared ‘in its (due) time,’ i.e.,it was fixed for the thirtieth day, the previous month thus consisting of twenty-nine days only; in that case too Beth Din formally sanctified this day. But if observation fixed it for the thirty-first day, no bonfires were lit, since the absence of bonfires on the previous day would be a sufficient signal; further, New Moon was not formally sanctified by Beth Din (Rashi). An objection is raised: one might think that it may be eaten on the evening [‘or’] of the third day [from sacrifice], and it is logical: Sacrifices are eaten on one day, while peace-offerings are eaten on two days: just as there the night follows the day, so here too the night should follow the day. Therefore it is stated, It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if aught remain until the third day [it shall be burnt with fire]: teaching, it may be eaten only during the day, but it may not be eaten during the evening [‘or’] of the third day. One might think that it must be burnt immediately; and this is logical: Sacrifices may be eaten one day and one [sc. the following) night, while peace-offerings may be eaten two days and one [sc. the intermediate] night: just as there, immediately after [the time allowed for] eating there is burning, so here too immediately after [the time allowed for] eating there is burning. Therefore it is stated, But that which remaineth of the flesh of the sacrifice, on the third day it shall be burnt with fire: teaching, you must burn it by day, but you must not burn it by night. Since he states, . . .it may be eaten in the evening [‘or’] of the third day,’ it follows that or is evening. This proves it. Come and hear: on the evening [‘or’] of the Day of Atonement one recites seven [benedictions] and confesses; in the morning service he recites seven and confesses; in the additional service he recites seven and confesses; at minhah he recites seven and confesses; (at ne'ilah — the concluding service — he recites seven and confesses); in the evening service he recites [one benediction] embodying the eighteen; R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said on the authority of his fathers: He must recite the eighteen [benedictions] in full, because he must pronounce habdalah in [the benediction] ‘Thou dost graciously grant knowledge’. This proves that ‘or’ is evening. This proves it. Come and hear: For the School of Samuel learned: ‘In the evening of the fourteenth leaven is searched for by the light of a lamp’; thus proving that ‘or’ is evening! The fact is both R. Huna and Rab Judah are alike, agreeing that ‘or’ is evening, and there is no controversy: each Master [speaks] in accordance with his locality. In R. Huna's town they called it naghe, while in Rab Judah's town it is called night [lele]. And our Tanna, why does he not employ lele? — He employs a refined expression, and in accordance with R. Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: one should not utter a gross expression with his mouth, for lo! the Writ employs a circumlocution of eight letters rather than utter a gross expression, for it is said, of every clean beast . . . and of the beasts that are not clean. R. Papa said: Nine, for it is said, If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of that which chanceth by night. Rabina said: Ten, [including] the waw of tahor. R. Aha b. Jacob said: Sixteen, for it is said, for he thought, Something hath befallen him he is not clean; surely he is not clean. The School of R. Ishmael taught: one should always discourse in decent language, for lo!, the case of a zab it is called riding, while in connection with a woman it is called sitting; and it is said, and thou shalt choose the tongue of the subtle; and it is said, and that which my lips know they shall speak purely. Why [quote] ‘and it is said [etc.]’? — [For] should you object, that is only in the case of Scripture, but not in the case of Rabbinical [discussions], then come and hear, ‘and it is said, and thou shalt choose the tongue of the subtle’. Yet should you [still] object, that is only in reference to Rabbinical [discussions] but not secular matters, — then come and hear, ‘and it is said, and that which my lips know they shall speak purely’. Now, is riding not written in connection with a woman, but surely it is written, And Rebekah arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels? — There it was natural through fear of the camels. But it is written, and Moses took his wife and his sons, and made them ride upon an ass? — Thereᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰ