המפלת אור לשמונים ואחד בית שמאי פוטרין מקרבן ובית הלל מחייבים
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman must bring a sacrifice eighty-one days after the birth of a daughter (v. Lev. XII, 2.6) . This sacrifice suffices also for a miscarriage within the eighty days, i.e., before it was due, but not for a miscarriage (or viable birth) from the eighty-first day and onwards, since by then it was already due on account of the first birth. Now, by the evening of the eighty-first day eighty days have already passed; on the other hand, since there are no sacrifices at night, she could not offer hers until the following morning. Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel accordingly differ as to whether that miscarriage entails a sacrifice or not.');"><sup>1</sup></span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A discharge of blood on the eighty-first, whether in the evening or during the day, renders her unclean, - this is agreed by all. - A discharge between the fifteenth and the eightieth inclusive does not make her unclean; v. ibid. 5.');"><sup>2</sup></span> 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.
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
ויהי ביום השמיני . Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 42,4) have taught us a rule that whenever the Torah uses the expression ויהי, this is a reference to a painful experience. The sages are sometimes hard-pressed to demonstrate the validity of this dictum. Our question is why the Torah chooses to use an expression which points at something unpleasant when we are taught that elsewhere (Genesis 7,2) the Torah spent additional verbiage such as הבהמה אשר לא טהורה, "a category of animal which is not ritually pure," instead of simply saying בהמה טמאה, "an impure animal," merely to avoid referring expressly to something unpleasant?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
A rather striking problem in the text is the description of the purifying waters as מד נדה, "waters of a menstruant," surely a very derogatory term in view of the purpose of these waters! And especially, since the Torah on occasion uses clumsy language in order to avoid describing something in derogatory terms (Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,2). It is also unusual that the Torah does not report that "Israel and Eleazar did so," as is the case after similar instructions in the Torah on other occasions. The expression in 19,14, זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל, is unusual, as is the statement of our sages that it teaches that "the words of Torah are fulfilled only on people who are prepared to kill themselves on its behalf" (Berachot 43). How does this comment apply in this connection? Defilement through contact with the dead is usually involuntary!
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
Why did Joseph pretend to use the silver goblet as an instrument of magic, an activity so totally unworthy of a man of Joseph's stature to engage in? Usually the Torah goes to great lengths to avoid calling a forbidden thing by its proper name. Why not here also? What could be more revolting than any association with the original serpent, i.e. the expression “5 ,44) ”נחש ינחש אדם אשר כמוני)?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
Another problem is the meaning of the word במרמה, if meant in the sense of חכמה, as Rashi says. If Isaac wanted to use the word in that sense, why did he not say: בא אחיך בחכמה, instead of using the word מרמה? Our sages in Pessachim 3 explained that the Torah distorted eight letters in Genesis 7,8 in order not to have to use gross language such as the word בהמה טמאה. Why do we not find the same here? The Torah could have used the word חכמה in order to avoid the negative connotation of מרמה, deceit?
