|  |  | Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah ### Folio 24a To the top of the knee joint.1 R. Jannai replied: To his lower orifices.2 R. Johanan citing R. Jose b. Joshua replied: To the position of his navel. The point at issue between R. Zakkai and R. Jannai is whether a trefah3 animal4 can survive.5 The latter holds that a trefah animal can survive6 while the former holds that it cannot survive.7 The point at issue between R. Jannai and R. Johanan8 is a ruling of R. Eleazar; for R. Eleazar ruled: If the haunch and its hollow were removed the animal is nebelah.9 R. Papa stated: The dispute10 refers only to cases where the lower part of the body is affected11 but if the upper part is affected,12 even if the missing part is ever so small the woman is clean.13 So also said R. Giddal in the name of R. Johanan: If a woman aborted a foetus whose skull is a shapeless lump she14 is clean.13 R. Giddal citing R. Johanan further stated: If a woman aborted a foetus shaped like the ramification of a palmtree15 she is clean.13 It was stated: If a woman aborted a foetus whose face was mashed,16 R. Johanan ruled: She14 is unclean; and Resh Lakish ruled: She is clean. R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: If a woman aborted a shaped17 hand or a shaped foot she14 is subject to the uncleanness of birth18 and there is no need to consider the possibility19 that it might have come from a shapeless body.20 Now if it were so,21 should it not have been stated, 'The possibility that it might have come from a shapeless body or from a foetus whose face was mashed'?22 R. Papi stated:23 Where its24 face was mashed no one25 disputes the ruling that the woman is unclean. They only differ where its face was entirely covered over,26 and the statement27 was made in the reverse order: R. Johanan ruled: His mother is clean; and Resh Lakish ruled: His mother is unclean. Should not then28 Resh Lakish raise an objection against R. Johanan from that [Baraitha]?29 — Because the latter could have answered him: 'A stumped body' and 'a foetus whose face was entirely covered over are identical terms.30 The sons of R. Hiyya once toured the countryside. When they appeared before their father he asked them, 'Has any case been submitted for your consideration?' 'The case of a foetus whose face was entirely covered over', they told him 'has been submitted to us, and we decided that the woman was unclean'. 'Go back', he said to them, 'and declare as clean that which you have declared unclean. For what did you think?31 That you are restricting the law;32 but this is a restriction that results in a relaxation, for thereby33 you also allow her34 the days of cleanness'.35 It was stated: If one aborted a creature that had two backs and two spinal columns, Rab ruled: In the case of a woman it is no valid birth36 and in that of a beast it is forbidden to be eaten;37 but Samuel ruled: In the case of a woman it is a valid birth38 and in that of a beast it is permitted to be eaten.39 On what principle do they40 differ? — On that of R. Hanin b. Abba; for R. Hanin b. Abba stated, 'The cloven'41 is a creature that has two backs and two spinal columns'.42 Rab maintains that such a creature exists nowhere in the world, and that when the All Merciful taught Moses about it43 he must have taught him about one that was still in her dam's bowels, while Samuel maintains that such a creature does exist in the world so that when the All Merciful taught Moses about it43 he taught him about the species in general,44 but one that is still in its dam's bowels is well permitted to be eaten.45 R. Shimi b. Hiyya pointed out an objection to Rab: R. Hanina b. Antigonus stated, Any [firstling of beasts] that had two backs and two spinal columns is unfit for the Temple service;46 from which47 it is obvious, is it not, that it is viable?48 — 'Is it you, Shimi?' the other49 replied, 'this50 refers to a case where its spinal column was only crooked'.51 An objection was raised: Among embryos52 there are some that are forbidden53 viz, a four monthly embryo among small cattle, and an eight monthly one among large cattle, and one that is younger54 is equally forbidden. From this is excluded one that had two backs and two spinal columns. Now what is meant by 'is excluded'? Obviously that it55 is excluded from the category of embryos56 in that it is forbidden to be eaten even while still in its dam's body?57 — Rab58 explains in accordance with his own view, and Samuel59 explains it in accordance with his view. 'Rab explains in accordance with his own view', thus: A four monthly embryo among small cattle and an eighth monthly one among large cattle, and one that is younger is equally forbidden. This applies only where it saw the light60 but while it is still in its dam's bowels it is permitted; but from this is excluded one that has two backs and two spinal columns which, even while still in its dam's bowels, is also forbidden. To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Inclusive; form the foot upwards. A person cannot live after such an amputation (v. infra). Of the intestines and the urethra. Cf. prev. n. second clause. V. Glos. Including man. V. Hul 42a. Hence his ruling that the birth is valid unless the missing part of the body extended as high as the lower orifices. The birth is consequently invalid even if the missing part extended as far as the knee joint only. Both of whom agree that a fatally wounded animal can survive. V. Glos. Hul. 21a, 32b. On the extent of the missing part of the body that renders a birth invalid and causes the woman to remain clean. Lit., 'from below to above'. Lit., 'from above to below'; if a part of the skull, for instance, is missing. Since such a child is not viable and his birth is no valid one. Lit., 'his mother'. Sc. the lower part of his body was shapeless while his limbs branched out from its upper part. But its features were not entirely indistinguishable. Lit., 'cut'. Sc. since it is unknown whether the abortion was a male or a female the restrictions of both are imposed upon her. Which would exempt her from the certainty of uncleanness. Supra 18a, infra 28a. That, as Resh Lakish maintains, the birth of a foetus with a mashed face causes no uncleanness to its mother. Since both these possibilities would be causes of the woman's cleanness. Why then was only the former possibility mentioned? In accordance with a tradition he received from his teacher (v. Rashi). A foetus'. Not even Resh Lakish. Sc. none of the features was distinguishable. Of the dispute. Since it is now R. Johanan who declared the woman clean. From which the latter raised an objection supra against the former; thus: Why did not the Baraitha add 'the possibility that it may have come … from a foetus whose face was entirely covered over'? Both indicating an abortion none of whose features are distinguishable. This could not be given as a reply in the case of a mashed face where some of the features are not altogether indistinguishable. When declaring the woman unclean. Since it was unknown whether the foetus was male or female the woman, having been declared unclean, would have to remain in her uncleanness for a period of fourteen days (as for a female) and not only for seven days (as for a male). By regarding the abortion as a valid birth. As a woman after childbirth. Which even in the case of a male, are no less than thirty-three. Any discharge of blood within this period would consequently be regarded as clean, whereas if the abortion had not been declared to be a valid birth the discharge would have imposed upon the woman the uncleanness of a menstruant. And she remains, therefore, clean. Even if it was found in the ritually slaughtered body of its dam, and much more so if it was aborted. And the woman is consequently subject to the laws of uncleanness prescribed for one after childbirth. As deduced from Scripture in Hul. 69b. Rab and Samuel. Ha-Shesu'ah, Deut. XIV, 7. Hul. 60b. That it must not be eaten. Lit., 'in the world'. Wherever the dam is of the clean beasts and was ritually slain. Bek. 43b; because these are regarded as blemishes. Since it is only forbidden as a sacrifice and is presumably permitted for consumption in the case of unconsecrated animals. If it had not been viable it could not have been permitted to be eaten. The permissibility to eat the creature, even after it was born, thus raises an objection against both Rab (who ruled that it was always forbidden) and against Samuel (who permitted it only when it was in its dam's bowels). V. Marginal Gloss. Cur. edd. in parenthesis add 'and this is a difficulty against Rab'. Rab, who was his grandfather. R. Hanina's ruling from which it follows that a double-backed creature is viable. And consequently had the appearance of two backs. Such a creature is viable. Of clean beasts. To be eaten, as nebelah, even after their birth. Lit., 'from it and below'. The beast with the two backs and the two spinal columns. Which are permitted if found in their dam's body. How then could Samuel maintain that even while it is in its dam's body it is permitted? Against whom no objection was raised from the last cited Baraitha but who nevertheless finds a difficulty in its present form in reconciling its first and last clauses. As the first clause deals with those who saw the light the last one (double-backed creatures) also deals obviously with one who saw the light. But its permissibility would be contrary to the ruling of Rab. Who has to explain the objection raised against him (cf. prev. n. but one). Lit., 'went out to the air of the world'. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Niddah 24b Samuel also 'explains it in accordance with his view', thus: A four monthly embryo among small cattle, and an eight monthly one among large cattle, and one that is younger is equally forbidden. This, however, applies only to one whose period of pregnancy1 had not ended, but if the period has ended it is permitted; and from this is excluded one who had two backs and two spinal columns which, even though its period of pregnancy had ended, it is forbidden if it saw the light2 but permitted when still in its dam's body.3 A Tanna recited before Rab: As it might have been assumed that if an abortion was a creature with a shapeless body or with a shapeless head its mother is unclean by reason of its birth, it was explicitly stated in Scripture, If a woman be delivered, and bear a man-child etc.4 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised etc.,5 thus implying6 that only a child that is fit for the covenant of the eight days7 [causes uncleanness to his mother] but these8 are excluded, since they are not fit for the covenant of the eight days. 'And', said Rab to him, 'conclude your statement thus:9 And one who had two backs and two spinal columns'. R. Jeremiah b. Abba intended to give a practical decision10 in agreement with the view of Samuel,11 but R. Huna said to him: 'What have you in your mind? To impose a restriction?12 But this is a restriction that results in a relaxation, since you must in consequence13 allow her also a period of clean blood.14 Act rather in accordance with the view of Rab, since we have an established rule that in ritual matters the law is in agreement with Rab irrespective of whether this leads to a relaxation or a restriction. Raba said: It has been stated that a woman may bear15 at nine months16 and also at seven months.16 Can [then] large cattle who bear17 at nine months also bear17 at seven months or not? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied, Come and hear: 'One that is younger is equally forbidden'.18 Does not this also refer to the large cattle?19 — No, it may only refer to the small cattle.20 What an argument this is! If you grant that the reference21 was to the large cattle also, one can well see the necessity for it. For it might have been presumed that since [a seven monthly] is viable in the case of a woman it is also viable in that of cattle, we were informed that it is not viable; but if you maintain that reference was made to small cattle only, this would be obvious, for can a three monthly abortion live?22 — It23 was necessary: As it might have been presumed that anyone [born within] less than two months [before the conclusion of the normal conception] can survive,24 hence we were informed that it25 was not viable. Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If an abortion had the likeness of Lilith26 its mother is unclean by reason of the birth, for it is a child, but it has wings. So it was also taught: R. Jose stated, It once happened at Simoni27 that a woman aborted the likeness of Lilith, and when the case came up for a decision before the Sages they ruled that it was a child but that it also had wings. If an abortion had the likeness of a serpent, Hanina the son of R. Joshua's brother ruled: Its mother is unclean by reason of the birth. R. Joseph proceeded to report the ruling to R. Gamaliel when the latter sent word [to]28 R. Joshua, 'Take charge of29 your nephew and come with him to me'. As they were going, Hanina's30 daughterin-law came out to meet R. Joshua.31 'Master', she said to him, 'what is your ruling where an abortion had the likeness of a serpent?' 'Its mother', he replied, 'is clean'. 'But', she retorted, 'was it not in your name that my mother-in-law told me that its mother was unclean?' 'And', he asked her, 'on what ground?' 'Since [she told him] its eye-ball is round like that of a human being'. As a result of her statements R. Joshua recollected his ruling and sent the following message to R. Gamaliel: 'Hanina gave his ruling on my authority'.32 Abaye observed: From this incident it may be learnt that when a scholar gives a ruling he should also indicate his reason so that when he is ever reminded of it he would recollect it. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN ABORTED A SAC FULL OF WATER, FULL OF BLOOD, OR FULL OF MATTER OF VARIOUS COLOURS, SHE NEED NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE POSSIBILITY OF ITS BEING A VALID BIRTH; BUT IF ITS LIMBS WERE FASHIONED SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR BOTH MALE AND FEMALE.33 IF SHE ABORTED A SANDAL OR A PLACENTA SHE MUST ALSO CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH MALE AND FEMALE.33 GEMARA. One can well understand why BLOOD or WATER34 [constitutes no valid birth, since in this respect] it is of no consequence;35 but as regards MATTER OF VARIOUS COLOURS,36 why should not the possibility be taken into consideration that it had originally been a child that was now squashed? — Abaye replied: How much of undiluted wine must the mother of this thing have drunk that her embryo should be squashed within her bowels!37 Raba replied: We have learnt, FULL OF, and if it were the case that the embryo had been squashed something would have been missing.38 R. Adda b. Ahaba replied: We have learnt, MATTER OF VARIOUS COLOURS, and if it were the case that an embryo had been squashed it would all have been reduced to the same colour. It was taught: Abba Saul stated, I was once a grave-digger39 when I made a practice of carefully observing the bones of the dead. The bones of one who drinks undiluted wine are burned; those of one who drinks wine excessively diluted are dry;40 and those of one who drinks wine properly mixed are full of marrow.41 The bones of a person whose drinking exceeds his eating are burned; those of one whose eating exceeds his drinking are dry,40 and those of one who eats and drinks in a proper manner are full of marrow.41 It was taught: Abba Saul (or, as some say, R. Johanan stated): I was once a grave-digger.39 On one occasion, when pursuing a deer, I entered the thigh-bone of a corpse, and pursued it for three parasangs but did neither reach the deer nor the end of the thigh-bone.42 When I returned I was told that it was the thigh-bone of Og, King of Bashan.43 It was taught: Abba Saul stated, I was once a grave-digger39 and on one occasion there was opened a cave under me and I stood in the eye-ball of a corpse up to my nose. When I returned I was told that it was the eye of Absalom. And should you suggest that Abba Saul was a dwarf [it may be mentioned that] Abba Saul was the tallest man in his generation, and R. Tarfon reached to his shoulder and that R. Tarfon was the tallest man in his generation and R. Meir reached to his shoulder. R. Meir was the tallest man in his generation and Rabbi reached to his shoulder. Rabbi was the tallest man in his generation and R. Hiyya reached to his shoulder, and R. Hiyya was the tallest in his generation and Rab reached to his shoulder. Rab was the tallest man in his generation and Rab Judah reached to his shoulder, and Rab Judah was the tallest man in his generation and his waiter Adda reached to his shoulder. - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Lit.,'its months'. Not being viable it is forbidden as nebelah. As part of that beast which was a clean one and ritually slaughtered. She shall be unclean. Lev. XII, 2. Ibid. 3. By the juxtaposition of the texts. The covenant of circumcision. Which are not viable. I.e., insert between 'these' and are excluded'. In the case of an abortion without bleeding of a two-backed foetus. That the woman is unclean by reason of the birth which he regards as valid. By treating the woman as unclean. 'Of your regarding the birth as valid'. From the seventh to the fortieth day for a male, and from the fourteenth to the eightieth day for a female. Should there be a discharge of blood within these periods respectively the woman could not be subjected to menstrual uncleanness. A viable child. After conception. Viable young. Supra 24a. Mentioned earlier in the Baraitha (supra 24a) immediately after the 'small cattle', and in whose case an 'eight monthly' was spoken of. 'One that is younger' would consequently include a seven monthly abortion also who would thus be 'equally forbidden'. In whose case (cf. prev. n.) only a 'four monthly' abortion was spoken of. The question of a seven monthly abortion cannot, therefore, be solved from this Baraitha. 'One that is younger is equally forbidden'. Of course not; and there would have been no necessity to mention it. The reference to small cattle. Sc. as in the case of man and large cattle one born at seven months after conception (two months before the normal period of nine months) is viable (though one born at eight months is not viable) so also in the case of small cattle (though one born at four months is not viable) one born at three months after conception (also two months before the normal period of five months) is viable. A three monthly abortion. A female demon of the night, reputed to have wings and a human face. Semunige in Lower Galilee. So MS.M. Cur. edd. omit. Lit., 'lead'. Curr. edd. in parenthesis insert 'R'. So Rashi, Cur. edd. reading 'to meet him' omit 'R. Joshua'. Lit., 'from my mouth'. Cf. Lev. XII, 2-5. In a SAC. Lit., 'nothing'. Being neither water nor blood. Fabulous quantities, of course, which no woman could possibly be suspected of doing. The suggestion that a normal embryo was squashed is, therefore, untenable. From the sac. Lit., 'one who buries the dead'. Aliter: Black; aliter: Transparent. Lit., 'anointed', 'oiled'. Lit., 'and the thigh-bone did not end'. A Biblical giant (cf. Deut. III, 11). Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |