Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 16, 2019 | 讬状讞 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Niddah 24

What is the law regarding a woman who miscarries different forms like a body missing certain parts, a face with blurred features or no features? The rabbis believed that babies were born either after 7 or 9 months but after 8 months, they were not viable. Is this the same for animals? One who miscarries a sac full of water, blood or colors – is the mother impure from birth? What about a second fetus that gets “flattened” by another fetus in utero or a placenta? The gemara talks about the effects of the mother drinking wine on the fetus. Abba Shaul who buried people, brings a few situations that happened to him while at work – one where he got stuck while chasing a deer in the leg bone of Og the giant and another where he fell into the eyeball of Avshalom. The gemara then describes what a great man he was and gives a list of the great rabbis of a number of generations and explains how each was less great than the one in the previous generation.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

注讚 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讜诪专 注讚 诇谞拽讘讬讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜砖注 注讚 诪拽讜诐 讟讘讜专讜

Until above the knee. Rabbi Yannai says: Until his orifices. Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehoshua: Until the location of his navel.

讘讬谉 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 诪专 住讘专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讟专驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛

The Gemara explains the dispute between the amora鈥檌m: The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Zakkai and that of Rabbi Yannai is whether a tereifa can survive beyond twelve months. One Sage, Rabbi Yannai, holds that a tereifa can survive beyond twelve months. Therefore, although one whose legs were removed until above the knee has the status of a tereifa, if a woman discharges a fetus of this form she is impure. Only if the fetus lacks legs until his orifices is the woman pure, as such a person cannot survive. And one Sage, Rabbi Zakkai, holds that a tereifa cannot survive beyond twelve months. Therefore, even if the fetus lacks legs only from above the knee and not from his orifices, the woman is not impure.

讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞讬讟诇 讬专讱 讜讞诇诇 砖诇讛 谞讘诇讛

The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yannai and the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who both agree that a tereifa can survive, is with regard to a statement of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: If the thigh, i.e., the hind leg of the animal, and its recess were removed from an animal before slaughter, the animal is considered an unslaughtered carcass; consequently, it is forbidden in consumption and imparts ritual impurity even while still alive. Rabbi Yannai agrees with the statement of Rabbi Elazar, and accordingly holds that if the lower part of a person鈥檚 body until his orifices is missing or removed, the person immediately assumes the halakhic status of a corpse. Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and holds that one whose lower part of his body was missing or removed has the status of a corpse only if it is removed until his navel.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讚讛讜 讟讛讜专讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪驻诇转 讗转 砖讙讜诇讙诇转讜 讗讟讜诪讛 讗诪讜 讟讛讜专讛

Rav Pappa says: The dispute between the amora鈥檌m is with regard to a fetus that is lacking part of its body from below to above, i.e., the lower part of his body; but if it is lacking part of its body from above to below, even any amount of its skull, the woman is pure. And likewise, Rav Giddel says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus whose skull is sealed, i.e., deficient, its mother is pure.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 讗驻拽转讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 讗诪讜 讟讛讜专讛

The Gemara cites another halakha: And Rav Giddel says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus that looks like the part of a palm tree that branches out, i.e., the lower part of its body is formless while the upper part has arms and legs coming out of its shoulders like branches, its mother is pure.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪驻诇转 诪讬 砖驻谞讬讜 诪讜住诪住讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗诪讜 讟讛讜专讛

搂 It was stated with regard to a woman who discharges a fetus whose face is mashed but not completely flattened, that Rabbi Yo岣nan says its mother is impure, and Reish Lakish says its mother is pure.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诪驻诇转 讬讚 讞转讜讻讛 讜专讙诇 讞转讜讻讛 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 诪讙讜祝 讗讟讜诐 讘讗转讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬转谞讬 砖诪讗 诪讙讜祝 讗讟讜诐 讗讜 诪诪讬 砖驻谞讬讜 诪讜住诪住讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita: In the case of a woman who discharges a shaped hand, i.e., a hand whose fingers are discernible, or a shaped foot, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth, as it certainly came from a full-fledged fetus, and we are not concerned that perhaps it came from a fetus with a sealed, i.e., deficient, body. And if it is so, that a fetus with a mashed face does not render its mother impure, let the baraita teach: We are not concerned that perhaps it came from a fetus with a sealed body or from one whose face is mashed.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 讘驻谞讬讜 诪讜住诪住讬谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讟诪讗讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘驻谞讬讜 讟讜讞讜转 讜讗讬驻讻讗 讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诪讜 讟讛讜专讛 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛

Rav Pappi says: In a case where its face is mashed, everyone agrees that the woman is impure. When they disagree, it is in a case where its face is completely flat, i.e., none of its features are discernible; and the opposite was stated: Rabbi Yo岣nan says that its mother is pure, and Reish Lakish says that its mother is impure.

讜诇讜转讘讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讜祝 讗讟讜诐 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讬 砖驻谞讬讜 讟讜讞讜转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But according to this version of the dispute, let Reish Lakish raise an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from this baraita, from which Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish according to the previous version of the dispute: If a woman who discharges a fetus whose face is flat is pure, the baraita should have stated that there is no concern that the hand or foot might have come from a fetus with a sealed body or one whose face is flat. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish did not raise the objection, because Rabbi Yo岣nan would have responded to him that the status of a sealed body is the same as that of one whose face is flat. There is no reason to mention both types of deformities.

讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞驻讬拽 诇拽专讬讬转讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛讜谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻诇讜诐 讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇讬讚讻诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 驻谞讬诐 讟讜讞讜转 讘讗 诇讬讚讬谞讜 讜讟讬诪讗谞讜讛

The Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi 岣yya went out to the villages to inspect their father鈥檚 fields. When they came back to their father, he said to them: Wasn鈥檛 any incident brought to you for a halakhic ruling? They said to him: A case of a woman who discharged a fetus with a flat face was brought to us, and we deemed her impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 爪讗讜 讜讟讛专讜 诪讛 砖讟诪讗转诐 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讬讻讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 讞讜诪专讗 讚讗转讬讗 诇讬讚讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讚拽讬讛讘讬转讜 诇讛 讬诪讬 讟讜讛专

Rabbi 岣yya said to them: Go out and deem pure that which you have deemed impure. What was your thinking when you ruled that she is impure? Did you reason that as the matter is subject to a dispute, one should rule stringently? But your ruling is a stringency that leads to a leniency, as you have given the woman thirty-three days of purity after the birth of a male, following her period of impurity, which are the minimum days of purity established in the Torah for a woman who gave birth.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪驻诇转 讘专讬讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 讙讘讬诐 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讘讗砖讛 讗讬谞讜 讜诇讚 讘讘讛诪讛 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗砖讛 讜诇讚 讘讘讛诪讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讻讬诇讛

It was stated: With regard to a woman or female animal who discharges an entity that has two backs and two spines, Rav says that in the case of the woman, her discharged fetus is not considered an offspring, as it cannot survive, and therefore the woman does not have the ritual impurity caused by childbirth, and in the case of the animal, its fetus is prohibited for consumption. And Shmuel says: In the case of a woman, the discharged fetus is considered an offspring, and the woman is impure, and in the case of an animal, the fetus is permitted for consumption.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讛砖住讜注讛 讘专讬讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 讙讘讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree concerning the statement of Rav 岣nin bar Abba, as Rav 岣nin bar Abba said: The verse states: 鈥淣evertheless these you shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven [umimafrisei haparsa hashesua]: The camel, and the hare, and the rock badger鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:7). The apparently superfluous term hashesua is not a redundant description of the cloven hoof; it is referring to a separate entity that has two backs and two spines and therefore looks like an entirely cloven animal.

专讘 讗诪专 讘专讬讛 讘注诇诪讗 诇讬转讗 讜讻讬 讗讙诪专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 讘诪注讬 讗诪讛 讗讙诪专讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘专讬讛 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬转讗 讜讻讬 讗讙诪专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 讘注诇诪讗 讗讙诪专讬讛 讗讘诇 讘诪注讬 讗诪讛 砖专讬讗

It is with regard to this prohibition that Rav and Shmuel disagree. Rav says that there is no such living entity in the world, and when the Merciful One taught this prohibition to Moses, he taught it to him with regard to a fetus that has two backs and two spines that is found in the womb of its mother after slaughter. And Shmuel says that there is such an entity in the world, and when the Merciful One taught this prohibition to Moses, he taught it to him with regard to a living animal in the world, but a fetus that has two backs and two spines in the womb of its mother is permitted for consumption.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讙讘讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转 驻住讜诇 诇注讘讜讚讛 讗诇诪讗 讚讞讬讬 讜拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讬诪讬 讗转 砖砖讚专转讜 注拽讜诪讛

Rav Shimi bar 岣yya raised an objection to Rav from a baraita: Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: Any priest who has two backs and two spines is disqualified from the Temple service, as he is blemished. Evidently, an entity that has two backs and two spines can survive, and this is difficult for the opinion of Rav. Rav said to him: You are clearly Shimi, i.e., you asked well. Yet the statement of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus is not referring to one who literally has two backs and two spines, but rather to one whose spine is crooked and therefore appears as though he has two spines. One who actually has two backs and two spines cannot survive.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬砖 讘注讜讘专讬谉 砖讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘谉 讗专讘注讛 诇讚拽讛 讘谉 砖诪谞讛 诇讙住讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇诪讟讛 讗住讜专 讬爪讗 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讙讘讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Among discharged animal fetuses, there are those that are forbidden in consumption, as they have the halakhic status of carcasses of unslaughtered animals. Specifically, if an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, where the pregnancy is normally five months long, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, where the pregnancy is normally nine months long, or if the miscarriage occurred from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, i.e., if the pregnancy ended before this stage, the animal is forbidden. This excludes one that has two backs and two spines.

诪讗讬 讬爪讗 诇讗讜 讬爪讗 诪讻诇诇 注讜讘专讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉

The Gemara asks: What does the baraita mean when it states that an animal with two backs and two spines is excluded? Does it not mean that it is excluded from the category of those fetuses, which are permitted for consumption if found inside their mother鈥檚 womb, as such animals are forbidden even while they are in the wombs of their mothers? This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that an animal fetus of that type is permitted for consumption.

专讘 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 专讘 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘谉 讗专讘注讛 诇讚拽讛 讘谉 砖诪讜谞讛 诇讙住讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇诪讟讛 讗住讜专

The Gemara answers: Rav explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and Shmuel explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning. Rav explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, as was assumed above: If an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, or if it was born from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, the animal is forbidden.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 讘诪注讬 讗诪讜 砖专讬 讬爪讗 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讙讘讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪注讬 讗诪讜 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

In what case is this statement said? In a case where the animal emerged into the airspace of the world; but if it was found in its mother鈥檚 womb after its mother was slaughtered, it is permitted for consumption. This excludes the case of a fetus that has two backs and two spines, as even if it is found in the womb of its mother it is prohibited.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘谉 讗专讘注讛 诇讚拽讛 讘谉 砖诪谞讛 诇讙住讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇诪讟讛 讗住讜专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖诇讗 讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜 讗讘诇 讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜 诪讜转专 讬爪讗 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讙讘讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜 讗诐 讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 讗住讜专 讘诪注讬 讗诪讜 砖专讬

And Shmuel explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, in the following manner: If an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, or if it was born from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, the animal is forbidden. In what case is this statement said? In a case when the fetus鈥檚 months of gestation were not completed; but in a case when its months of gestation were completed, it is permitted for consumption even outside the womb. This excludes a fetus that has two backs and two spines, as even in a case where its months of gestation were completed, if it emerged into the airspace of the world, it is forbidden, whereas if it is found in the womb of its mother, it is permitted.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪驻诇转 讘专讬讬转 讙讜祝 砖讗讬谞讜 讞转讜讱 讜讘专讬讬转 专讗砖 砖讗讬谞讜 讞转讜讱 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖讛 讻讬 转讝专讬注 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜讙讜壮 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讜讙讜壮

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav: In the case of a woman who discharges an entity that has a shapeless body, i.e., it does not have the outline of limbs, or an entity that has a shapeless head, one might have thought that its mother should be impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚f a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven days; as in the days of the menstruation of her sickness she shall be impure. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:2鈥3).

诪讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讘专讬转 砖诪谞讛 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘专讬转 砖诪谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讜住讬讬诐 讘讛 讛讻讬 讜砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讙讘讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转

Those verses teach that the impurity of a woman after childbirth applies only to one who gave birth to a child that is fit for circumcision on the eighth day, excluding these cases, where the child is not fit for circumcision on the eighth day, as it cannot survive that long. Consequently, this woman does not have the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Rav said to the tanna: And conclude the baraita like this: Excluding these cases, where the child is not fit for circumcision on the eighth day, and excluding the case of a woman who discharges a child that has two backs and two spines.

专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 住讘专 诇诪注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 诇讞讜诪专讗 讞讜诪专讗 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讬讛讘转 诇讛 讚诪讬 讟讜讛专 注讘讬讚 诪讬讛讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba thought to perform an action, i.e., to issue a ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, that a woman who gives birth to a child with two backs and two spines is impure. Rav Huna said to him: What is your thinking? That as this matter is subject to a dispute, one should rule stringently? Your ruling is a stringency that leads to a leniency, as you have given the woman a period of thirty-three days following her period of impurity when any blood that emerges is blood of purity. In any event, you should perform, i.e., issue your ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav with regard to ritual matters, whether his opinion leads to a leniency or to a stringency.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讗砖讛 讬讜诇讚转 诇转砖注讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 诇砖讘注讛 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 讬讜诇讚转 诇转砖注讛 讬讜诇讚转 诇砖讘注讛 讗讜 诇讗 讬诇讚讛

Rava says: The Sages said that a woman can give birth to a viable offspring after nine months of pregnancy or after seven months of pregnancy; but if a woman gives birth after eight months of pregnancy, the child cannot survive and is stillborn. Similarly, a large domesticated animal gives birth to a viable offspring after nine months of pregnancy, and if it discharges a fetus after only eight months, the newborn animal cannot survive. With this in mind, Rava asked: Can a large domesticated animal give birth to a viable offspring after seven months of pregnancy, like a human, or can such an animal not give birth to a viable offspring after only seven months?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转讗 砖诪注 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇诪讟讛 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讙住讛 诇讗 讗讚拽讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the aforementioned baraita: If an animal discharges from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, the fetus is forbidden in consumption as an unslaughtered animal carcass. What, is it not referring to large livestock, which indicates that large livestock do not give birth to a viable offspring after only seven months of pregnancy? The Gemara answers: No, the reference is specifically to small domesticated animals, which do not give birth to a viable offspring until after five months of pregnancy.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讙住讛 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗砖讛 讞讬讬 讘讘讛诪讛 谞诪讬 讞讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讞讬讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: What is this? Granted, if you say that the reference is to large livestock, it is necessary for the baraita to state that an animal does not give birth to a viable offspring after less than a complete period of pregnancy, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since in the case of a woman who gives birth after seven months the baby survives, it is logical that in the case of a large domesticated animal that gives birth after seven months the newborn also survives, and it is therefore permitted for consumption. Consequently, the baraita teaches us that such an animal does not survive.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讚拽讛 讗讬转诪专 驻砖讬讟讗 讘转 转诇转讗 讬专讞讬 诪讬 拽讗 讞讬讬

But if you say that the ruling in the baraita, that if an animal discharged a fetus before the period of gestation was completed then the fetus is prohibited, was stated with regard to small domesticated animals, isn鈥檛 it obvious that if a sheep or goat fetus was discharged at this stage it cannot survive? Can it survive after only three months of gestation?

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讘爪讬专 转专讬 讬专讞讬 讞讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers that in fact it is necessary for the baraita to state this halakha with regard to small domesticated animals, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that any mammal that is born two months less than its complete gestation survives, just as a human born at seven months of gestation survives. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that a sheep or goat that is born at three months of gestation cannot survive and is forbidden for consumption.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪驻诇转 讚诪讜转 诇讬诇讬转 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 诇讜 讻谞驻讬诐 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘住讬诪讜谞讬 讘讗讞转 砖讛驻讬诇讛 讚诪讜转 诇讬诇讬转 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 诇讜 讻谞驻讬诐

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus that has the form of a lilith, a female demon with wings and a human face, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth, as it is a viable offspring, only it has wings. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: An incident occurred in Simoni involving a certain woman who discharged a fetus that had the form of a lilith, and the incident was brought before the Sages; and they said that it is a viable offspring, only it has wings.

讛诪驻诇转 讚诪讜转 谞讞砖 讛讜专讛 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗讞讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讛诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讜住驻专 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖诇讞 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛谞讛讙 讘谉 讗讞讬讱 讜讘讗

There was a case of a woman who discharged an item that had the form of a snake. 岣nina, the son of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 brother, ruled that its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Rabbi Yosef went and told this matter to Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel sent to Rabbi Yehoshua: Take hold of your nephew and come to me, so that I may admonish him for his ruling.

讘讛诇讬讻转谉 讬爪转讛 讻诇转 (专讘讬) 讞谞讬谞讗 诇拽专讗转讜 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 谞讞砖 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诪讜 讟讛讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 诪砖诪讱 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讞诪讜转讬 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗讬讝讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙诇讙诇 注讬谞讜 注讙讜诇 讻砖诇 讗讚诐 诪转讜讱 讚讘专讬讛 谞讝讻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诇讞 诇讜 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪驻讬 讛讜专讛 讞谞讬谞讗

While they were going to Rabban Gamliel, 岣nina鈥檚 daughter-in-law went out to greet Rabbi Yehoshua, and said to him: My teacher, what is the halakha with regard to a woman who discharges an item that looks like a snake? Rabbi Yehoshua said to her: Its mother is pure. She said to him: But my mother-in-law said to me in your name that its mother is impure in such a case, and that you said to her: For what reason is she impure? It is because the pupil of a snake is round like that of a human. Due to her statement, Rabbi Yehoshua remembered that he had issued such a ruling. He subsequently sent a message to Rabban Gamliel: 岣nina issued the ruling based on my own statement.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬诇转讗 诇讬诪讗 讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚讻讬 诪讚讻专讜 诇讬讛 诪讚讻专

Abaye said: Conclude from this incident that a Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan] who says a halakhic matter should say the reason for his statement, so that when his colleagues remind him of his reasoning, he will remember that ruling, as happened to Rabbi Yehoshua.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻诇转 砖驻讬专 诪诇讗 诪讬诐 诪诇讗 讚诐 诪诇讗 讙谞讜谞讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转 诇讜诇讚 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪专讜拽诐 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讛诪驻诇转 住谞讚诇 讗讜 砖诇讬讗 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛

MISHNA: A woman who discharges a gestational sac full of fluid, full of blood, or full of different colors need not be concerned that it was an offspring. But if the sac was one in which tissue developed, her halakhic status is that of a woman after childbirth. Since the sex of the embryo is unknown, the woman observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female; she is impure for fourteen days like a woman who gave birth to a female, but blood that she sees thereafter is pure only until forty days after birth, like a woman who gave birth to a male. A woman who discharges a sandal fetus, i.e., one that has the form of a sandal fish, and one who discharges an afterbirth observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讚诐 讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讙谞讜谞讬诐 谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讜诇讚 讛讜讛 讜谞讬诪讜讞 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诪讛 讬讬谉 讞讬 砖转转 讗诪讜 砖诇 讝讛 砖谞诪讜讞 注讜讘专讛 讘转讜讱 诪注讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, one can understand why a woman who discharges a gestational sac full of blood or water is pure, as such an item is nothing, i.e., it is not an offspring. But if the gestational sac was full of different colors, let us be concerned that perhaps it was an offspring and it liquefied. Abaye says in response: How much undiluted wine, which can be harmful to an embryo, did the mother of this purported embryo drink, that her embryo was liquefied in her womb? In other words, there is no such concern.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪诇讗 转谞谉 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗转诪讜讞讬 讗转诪讞 诪讞住专 讞住专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讙讜讜谞讬诐 转谞谉 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗转诪讜讞讬 讗转诪讞 讻讜诇讛 讘讞讚 讙讜讜谞讗 讛讜讬 拽讗讬

Rava says that there is a different explanation: We learned in the mishna that the gestational sac was full of different colors, and if it is so, that there was an embryo in the sac that liquefied, the sac would have been lacking some of the mass of the liquified portion. Rav Adda bar Ahava says that there is yet another explanation: We learned in the mishna that the gestational sac is full of different colors, and if it is so, that there was an embryo there that liquefied, it would all be of one color.

转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 拽讜讘专 诪转讬诐 讛讬讬转讬 讜讛讬讬转讬 诪住转讻诇 讘注爪诪讜转 砖诇 诪转讬诐 讛砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讞讬 注爪诪讜转讬讜 砖专讜驻讬谉 诪讝讜讙 注爪诪讜转讬讜 住讻讜讬讬谉 讻专讗讜讬 注爪诪讜转讬讜 诪砖讜讞讬谉 讜讻诇 诪讬 砖砖转讬讬转讜 诪专讜讘讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讜 注爪诪讜转讬讜 砖专讜驻讬谉 讗讻讬诇转讜 诪专讜讘讛 诪砖转讬讬转讜 注爪诪讜转讬讜 住讻讜讬讬谉 讻专讗讜讬 注爪诪讜转讬讜 诪砖讜讞讬谉

With regard to the effect of drinking wine on a person鈥檚 body, it is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: I used to be a gravedigger, and I would observe the bones of corpses. I discovered that the bones of one who drinks too much undiluted wine during his lifetime look burnt, the bones of one who drinks too much diluted wine are black, and the bones of one who drinks the appropriate amount of wine are fat, i.e., full of marrow. And furthermore, I discovered that the bones of anyone who drinks much more than he eats look burnt, the bones of one who eats much more than he drinks are black, and the bones of one who eats and drinks appropriate amounts are fat.

转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讜讘专 诪转讬诐 讛讬讬转讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 专爪转讬 讗讞专 爪讘讬 讜谞讻谞住转讬 讘拽讜诇讬转 砖诇 诪转 讜专爪转讬 讗讞专讬讜 砖诇砖 驻专住讗讜转 讜爪讘讬 诇讗 讛讙注转讬 讜拽讜诇讬转 诇讗 讻诇转讛 讻砖讞讝专转讬 诇讗讞讜专讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬 砖诇 注讜讙 诪诇讱 讛讘砖谉 讛讬转讛

It is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says the following, and some say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said it: I used to be a gravedigger. Once I ran after a deer, and I entered the thighbone of a corpse; and it was so large that I ran after the deer for three parasangs inside the thighbone, and although I did not reach the deer, the thighbone did not end. When I came back and related this to the Sages, they said to me: It was evidently the thighbone of Og, king of Bashan, a known giant.

转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 拽讜讘专 诪转讬诐 讛讬讬转讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞驻转讞讛 诪注专讛 转讞转讬 讜注诪讚转讬 讘讙诇讙诇 注讬谞讜 砖诇 诪转 注讚 讞讜讟诪讬 讻砖讞讝专转讬 诇讗讞讜专讬 讗诪专讜 注讬谉 砖诇 讗讘砖诇讜诐 讛讬转讛

It is likewise taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: I used to be a gravedigger. Once a burial cave opened up underneath where I was standing, and I found myself standing in the eye socket of a corpse until my nose. When I came back and told this to the Sages, they said to me: It was evidently the eye of Absalom.

讜砖诪讗 转讗诪专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 谞谞住 讛讜讛 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛 讜专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜 讜专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛 讜专讘讬 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜 专讘讬 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛

And lest you say that Abba Shaul was a midget, and therefore he was capable of standing in an eye socket until his nose, Abba Shaul was the tallest person in his generation. And Rabbi Tarfon reached only his shoulder, and Rabbi Tarfon was the tallest person in his generation. And Rabbi Meir reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Tarfon, and Rabbi Meir was the tallest person in his generation. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the tallest person in his generation.

讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛 讜专讘 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜 专讘 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛 讜讗讚讗 讚讬讬诇讗 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜

The Gemara continues: And Rabbi 岣yya reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi 岣yya was the tallest person in his generation. And Rav reached only the shoulder of Rabbi 岣yya, and Rav was the tallest person in his generation. And Rav Yehuda reached only the shoulder of Rav, and Rav Yehuda was the tallest person in his generation. And Adda the attendant [dayyala] reached only the shoulder of Rav Yehuda,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 24

注讚 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讜诪专 注讚 诇谞拽讘讬讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜砖注 注讚 诪拽讜诐 讟讘讜专讜

Until above the knee. Rabbi Yannai says: Until his orifices. Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehoshua: Until the location of his navel.

讘讬谉 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 诪专 住讘专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讟专驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛

The Gemara explains the dispute between the amora鈥檌m: The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Zakkai and that of Rabbi Yannai is whether a tereifa can survive beyond twelve months. One Sage, Rabbi Yannai, holds that a tereifa can survive beyond twelve months. Therefore, although one whose legs were removed until above the knee has the status of a tereifa, if a woman discharges a fetus of this form she is impure. Only if the fetus lacks legs until his orifices is the woman pure, as such a person cannot survive. And one Sage, Rabbi Zakkai, holds that a tereifa cannot survive beyond twelve months. Therefore, even if the fetus lacks legs only from above the knee and not from his orifices, the woman is not impure.

讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞讬讟诇 讬专讱 讜讞诇诇 砖诇讛 谞讘诇讛

The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yannai and the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who both agree that a tereifa can survive, is with regard to a statement of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: If the thigh, i.e., the hind leg of the animal, and its recess were removed from an animal before slaughter, the animal is considered an unslaughtered carcass; consequently, it is forbidden in consumption and imparts ritual impurity even while still alive. Rabbi Yannai agrees with the statement of Rabbi Elazar, and accordingly holds that if the lower part of a person鈥檚 body until his orifices is missing or removed, the person immediately assumes the halakhic status of a corpse. Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and holds that one whose lower part of his body was missing or removed has the status of a corpse only if it is removed until his navel.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讚讛讜 讟讛讜专讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪驻诇转 讗转 砖讙讜诇讙诇转讜 讗讟讜诪讛 讗诪讜 讟讛讜专讛

Rav Pappa says: The dispute between the amora鈥檌m is with regard to a fetus that is lacking part of its body from below to above, i.e., the lower part of his body; but if it is lacking part of its body from above to below, even any amount of its skull, the woman is pure. And likewise, Rav Giddel says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus whose skull is sealed, i.e., deficient, its mother is pure.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 讗驻拽转讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 讗诪讜 讟讛讜专讛

The Gemara cites another halakha: And Rav Giddel says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus that looks like the part of a palm tree that branches out, i.e., the lower part of its body is formless while the upper part has arms and legs coming out of its shoulders like branches, its mother is pure.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪驻诇转 诪讬 砖驻谞讬讜 诪讜住诪住讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗诪讜 讟讛讜专讛

搂 It was stated with regard to a woman who discharges a fetus whose face is mashed but not completely flattened, that Rabbi Yo岣nan says its mother is impure, and Reish Lakish says its mother is pure.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诪驻诇转 讬讚 讞转讜讻讛 讜专讙诇 讞转讜讻讛 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 诪讙讜祝 讗讟讜诐 讘讗转讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬转谞讬 砖诪讗 诪讙讜祝 讗讟讜诐 讗讜 诪诪讬 砖驻谞讬讜 诪讜住诪住讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita: In the case of a woman who discharges a shaped hand, i.e., a hand whose fingers are discernible, or a shaped foot, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth, as it certainly came from a full-fledged fetus, and we are not concerned that perhaps it came from a fetus with a sealed, i.e., deficient, body. And if it is so, that a fetus with a mashed face does not render its mother impure, let the baraita teach: We are not concerned that perhaps it came from a fetus with a sealed body or from one whose face is mashed.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 讘驻谞讬讜 诪讜住诪住讬谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讟诪讗讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘驻谞讬讜 讟讜讞讜转 讜讗讬驻讻讗 讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诪讜 讟讛讜专讛 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛

Rav Pappi says: In a case where its face is mashed, everyone agrees that the woman is impure. When they disagree, it is in a case where its face is completely flat, i.e., none of its features are discernible; and the opposite was stated: Rabbi Yo岣nan says that its mother is pure, and Reish Lakish says that its mother is impure.

讜诇讜转讘讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讜祝 讗讟讜诐 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讬 砖驻谞讬讜 讟讜讞讜转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But according to this version of the dispute, let Reish Lakish raise an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from this baraita, from which Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish according to the previous version of the dispute: If a woman who discharges a fetus whose face is flat is pure, the baraita should have stated that there is no concern that the hand or foot might have come from a fetus with a sealed body or one whose face is flat. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish did not raise the objection, because Rabbi Yo岣nan would have responded to him that the status of a sealed body is the same as that of one whose face is flat. There is no reason to mention both types of deformities.

讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞驻讬拽 诇拽专讬讬转讗 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛讜谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻诇讜诐 讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇讬讚讻诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 驻谞讬诐 讟讜讞讜转 讘讗 诇讬讚讬谞讜 讜讟讬诪讗谞讜讛

The Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi 岣yya went out to the villages to inspect their father鈥檚 fields. When they came back to their father, he said to them: Wasn鈥檛 any incident brought to you for a halakhic ruling? They said to him: A case of a woman who discharged a fetus with a flat face was brought to us, and we deemed her impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 爪讗讜 讜讟讛专讜 诪讛 砖讟诪讗转诐 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讬讻讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 讞讜诪专讗 讚讗转讬讗 诇讬讚讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讚拽讬讛讘讬转讜 诇讛 讬诪讬 讟讜讛专

Rabbi 岣yya said to them: Go out and deem pure that which you have deemed impure. What was your thinking when you ruled that she is impure? Did you reason that as the matter is subject to a dispute, one should rule stringently? But your ruling is a stringency that leads to a leniency, as you have given the woman thirty-three days of purity after the birth of a male, following her period of impurity, which are the minimum days of purity established in the Torah for a woman who gave birth.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪驻诇转 讘专讬讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 讙讘讬诐 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讘讗砖讛 讗讬谞讜 讜诇讚 讘讘讛诪讛 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗砖讛 讜诇讚 讘讘讛诪讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讻讬诇讛

It was stated: With regard to a woman or female animal who discharges an entity that has two backs and two spines, Rav says that in the case of the woman, her discharged fetus is not considered an offspring, as it cannot survive, and therefore the woman does not have the ritual impurity caused by childbirth, and in the case of the animal, its fetus is prohibited for consumption. And Shmuel says: In the case of a woman, the discharged fetus is considered an offspring, and the woman is impure, and in the case of an animal, the fetus is permitted for consumption.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讛砖住讜注讛 讘专讬讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 讙讘讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree concerning the statement of Rav 岣nin bar Abba, as Rav 岣nin bar Abba said: The verse states: 鈥淣evertheless these you shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven [umimafrisei haparsa hashesua]: The camel, and the hare, and the rock badger鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:7). The apparently superfluous term hashesua is not a redundant description of the cloven hoof; it is referring to a separate entity that has two backs and two spines and therefore looks like an entirely cloven animal.

专讘 讗诪专 讘专讬讛 讘注诇诪讗 诇讬转讗 讜讻讬 讗讙诪专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 讘诪注讬 讗诪讛 讗讙诪专讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘专讬讛 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬转讗 讜讻讬 讗讙诪专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 讘注诇诪讗 讗讙诪专讬讛 讗讘诇 讘诪注讬 讗诪讛 砖专讬讗

It is with regard to this prohibition that Rav and Shmuel disagree. Rav says that there is no such living entity in the world, and when the Merciful One taught this prohibition to Moses, he taught it to him with regard to a fetus that has two backs and two spines that is found in the womb of its mother after slaughter. And Shmuel says that there is such an entity in the world, and when the Merciful One taught this prohibition to Moses, he taught it to him with regard to a living animal in the world, but a fetus that has two backs and two spines in the womb of its mother is permitted for consumption.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讙讘讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转 驻住讜诇 诇注讘讜讚讛 讗诇诪讗 讚讞讬讬 讜拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讬诪讬 讗转 砖砖讚专转讜 注拽讜诪讛

Rav Shimi bar 岣yya raised an objection to Rav from a baraita: Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: Any priest who has two backs and two spines is disqualified from the Temple service, as he is blemished. Evidently, an entity that has two backs and two spines can survive, and this is difficult for the opinion of Rav. Rav said to him: You are clearly Shimi, i.e., you asked well. Yet the statement of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus is not referring to one who literally has two backs and two spines, but rather to one whose spine is crooked and therefore appears as though he has two spines. One who actually has two backs and two spines cannot survive.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬砖 讘注讜讘专讬谉 砖讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讘谉 讗专讘注讛 诇讚拽讛 讘谉 砖诪谞讛 诇讙住讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇诪讟讛 讗住讜专 讬爪讗 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讙讘讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Among discharged animal fetuses, there are those that are forbidden in consumption, as they have the halakhic status of carcasses of unslaughtered animals. Specifically, if an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, where the pregnancy is normally five months long, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, where the pregnancy is normally nine months long, or if the miscarriage occurred from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, i.e., if the pregnancy ended before this stage, the animal is forbidden. This excludes one that has two backs and two spines.

诪讗讬 讬爪讗 诇讗讜 讬爪讗 诪讻诇诇 注讜讘专讬谉 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪注讬 讗诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉

The Gemara asks: What does the baraita mean when it states that an animal with two backs and two spines is excluded? Does it not mean that it is excluded from the category of those fetuses, which are permitted for consumption if found inside their mother鈥檚 womb, as such animals are forbidden even while they are in the wombs of their mothers? This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that an animal fetus of that type is permitted for consumption.

专讘 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 专讘 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘谉 讗专讘注讛 诇讚拽讛 讘谉 砖诪讜谞讛 诇讙住讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇诪讟讛 讗住讜专

The Gemara answers: Rav explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and Shmuel explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning. Rav explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, as was assumed above: If an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, or if it was born from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, the animal is forbidden.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 讘诪注讬 讗诪讜 砖专讬 讬爪讗 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讙讘讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪注讬 讗诪讜 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

In what case is this statement said? In a case where the animal emerged into the airspace of the world; but if it was found in its mother鈥檚 womb after its mother was slaughtered, it is permitted for consumption. This excludes the case of a fetus that has two backs and two spines, as even if it is found in the womb of its mother it is prohibited.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘谉 讗专讘注讛 诇讚拽讛 讘谉 砖诪谞讛 诇讙住讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇诪讟讛 讗住讜专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖诇讗 讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜 讗讘诇 讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜 诪讜转专 讬爪讗 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讙讘讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜 讗诐 讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 讗住讜专 讘诪注讬 讗诪讜 砖专讬

And Shmuel explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, in the following manner: If an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, or if it was born from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, the animal is forbidden. In what case is this statement said? In a case when the fetus鈥檚 months of gestation were not completed; but in a case when its months of gestation were completed, it is permitted for consumption even outside the womb. This excludes a fetus that has two backs and two spines, as even in a case where its months of gestation were completed, if it emerged into the airspace of the world, it is forbidden, whereas if it is found in the womb of its mother, it is permitted.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪驻诇转 讘专讬讬转 讙讜祝 砖讗讬谞讜 讞转讜讱 讜讘专讬讬转 专讗砖 砖讗讬谞讜 讞转讜讱 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖讛 讻讬 转讝专讬注 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜讙讜壮 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讜讙讜壮

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav: In the case of a woman who discharges an entity that has a shapeless body, i.e., it does not have the outline of limbs, or an entity that has a shapeless head, one might have thought that its mother should be impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚f a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven days; as in the days of the menstruation of her sickness she shall be impure. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:2鈥3).

诪讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讘专讬转 砖诪谞讛 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘专讬转 砖诪谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讜住讬讬诐 讘讛 讛讻讬 讜砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讙讘讬谉 讜砖谞讬 砖讚专讗讜转

Those verses teach that the impurity of a woman after childbirth applies only to one who gave birth to a child that is fit for circumcision on the eighth day, excluding these cases, where the child is not fit for circumcision on the eighth day, as it cannot survive that long. Consequently, this woman does not have the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Rav said to the tanna: And conclude the baraita like this: Excluding these cases, where the child is not fit for circumcision on the eighth day, and excluding the case of a woman who discharges a child that has two backs and two spines.

专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 住讘专 诇诪注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 诇讞讜诪专讗 讞讜诪专讗 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讬讛讘转 诇讛 讚诪讬 讟讜讛专 注讘讬讚 诪讬讛讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba thought to perform an action, i.e., to issue a ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, that a woman who gives birth to a child with two backs and two spines is impure. Rav Huna said to him: What is your thinking? That as this matter is subject to a dispute, one should rule stringently? Your ruling is a stringency that leads to a leniency, as you have given the woman a period of thirty-three days following her period of impurity when any blood that emerges is blood of purity. In any event, you should perform, i.e., issue your ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav with regard to ritual matters, whether his opinion leads to a leniency or to a stringency.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讗砖讛 讬讜诇讚转 诇转砖注讛 讜讬讜诇讚转 诇砖讘注讛 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 讬讜诇讚转 诇转砖注讛 讬讜诇讚转 诇砖讘注讛 讗讜 诇讗 讬诇讚讛

Rava says: The Sages said that a woman can give birth to a viable offspring after nine months of pregnancy or after seven months of pregnancy; but if a woman gives birth after eight months of pregnancy, the child cannot survive and is stillborn. Similarly, a large domesticated animal gives birth to a viable offspring after nine months of pregnancy, and if it discharges a fetus after only eight months, the newborn animal cannot survive. With this in mind, Rava asked: Can a large domesticated animal give birth to a viable offspring after seven months of pregnancy, like a human, or can such an animal not give birth to a viable offspring after only seven months?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转讗 砖诪注 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇诪讟讛 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讙住讛 诇讗 讗讚拽讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the aforementioned baraita: If an animal discharges from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, the fetus is forbidden in consumption as an unslaughtered animal carcass. What, is it not referring to large livestock, which indicates that large livestock do not give birth to a viable offspring after only seven months of pregnancy? The Gemara answers: No, the reference is specifically to small domesticated animals, which do not give birth to a viable offspring until after five months of pregnancy.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讙住讛 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗砖讛 讞讬讬 讘讘讛诪讛 谞诪讬 讞讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讞讬讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: What is this? Granted, if you say that the reference is to large livestock, it is necessary for the baraita to state that an animal does not give birth to a viable offspring after less than a complete period of pregnancy, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since in the case of a woman who gives birth after seven months the baby survives, it is logical that in the case of a large domesticated animal that gives birth after seven months the newborn also survives, and it is therefore permitted for consumption. Consequently, the baraita teaches us that such an animal does not survive.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讚拽讛 讗讬转诪专 驻砖讬讟讗 讘转 转诇转讗 讬专讞讬 诪讬 拽讗 讞讬讬

But if you say that the ruling in the baraita, that if an animal discharged a fetus before the period of gestation was completed then the fetus is prohibited, was stated with regard to small domesticated animals, isn鈥檛 it obvious that if a sheep or goat fetus was discharged at this stage it cannot survive? Can it survive after only three months of gestation?

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讘爪讬专 转专讬 讬专讞讬 讞讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers that in fact it is necessary for the baraita to state this halakha with regard to small domesticated animals, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that any mammal that is born two months less than its complete gestation survives, just as a human born at seven months of gestation survives. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that a sheep or goat that is born at three months of gestation cannot survive and is forbidden for consumption.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪驻诇转 讚诪讜转 诇讬诇讬转 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 诇讜 讻谞驻讬诐 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘住讬诪讜谞讬 讘讗讞转 砖讛驻讬诇讛 讚诪讜转 诇讬诇讬转 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 诇讜 讻谞驻讬诐

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus that has the form of a lilith, a female demon with wings and a human face, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth, as it is a viable offspring, only it has wings. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: An incident occurred in Simoni involving a certain woman who discharged a fetus that had the form of a lilith, and the incident was brought before the Sages; and they said that it is a viable offspring, only it has wings.

讛诪驻诇转 讚诪讜转 谞讞砖 讛讜专讛 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗讞讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讛诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讜住驻专 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖诇讞 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛谞讛讙 讘谉 讗讞讬讱 讜讘讗

There was a case of a woman who discharged an item that had the form of a snake. 岣nina, the son of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 brother, ruled that its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Rabbi Yosef went and told this matter to Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel sent to Rabbi Yehoshua: Take hold of your nephew and come to me, so that I may admonish him for his ruling.

讘讛诇讬讻转谉 讬爪转讛 讻诇转 (专讘讬) 讞谞讬谞讗 诇拽专讗转讜 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 谞讞砖 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诪讜 讟讛讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 诪砖诪讱 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讞诪讜转讬 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗讬讝讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙诇讙诇 注讬谞讜 注讙讜诇 讻砖诇 讗讚诐 诪转讜讱 讚讘专讬讛 谞讝讻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诇讞 诇讜 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪驻讬 讛讜专讛 讞谞讬谞讗

While they were going to Rabban Gamliel, 岣nina鈥檚 daughter-in-law went out to greet Rabbi Yehoshua, and said to him: My teacher, what is the halakha with regard to a woman who discharges an item that looks like a snake? Rabbi Yehoshua said to her: Its mother is pure. She said to him: But my mother-in-law said to me in your name that its mother is impure in such a case, and that you said to her: For what reason is she impure? It is because the pupil of a snake is round like that of a human. Due to her statement, Rabbi Yehoshua remembered that he had issued such a ruling. He subsequently sent a message to Rabban Gamliel: 岣nina issued the ruling based on my own statement.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬诇转讗 诇讬诪讗 讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚讻讬 诪讚讻专讜 诇讬讛 诪讚讻专

Abaye said: Conclude from this incident that a Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan] who says a halakhic matter should say the reason for his statement, so that when his colleagues remind him of his reasoning, he will remember that ruling, as happened to Rabbi Yehoshua.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻诇转 砖驻讬专 诪诇讗 诪讬诐 诪诇讗 讚诐 诪诇讗 讙谞讜谞讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转 诇讜诇讚 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪专讜拽诐 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讛诪驻诇转 住谞讚诇 讗讜 砖诇讬讗 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛

MISHNA: A woman who discharges a gestational sac full of fluid, full of blood, or full of different colors need not be concerned that it was an offspring. But if the sac was one in which tissue developed, her halakhic status is that of a woman after childbirth. Since the sex of the embryo is unknown, the woman observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female; she is impure for fourteen days like a woman who gave birth to a female, but blood that she sees thereafter is pure only until forty days after birth, like a woman who gave birth to a male. A woman who discharges a sandal fetus, i.e., one that has the form of a sandal fish, and one who discharges an afterbirth observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讚诐 讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讙谞讜谞讬诐 谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讜诇讚 讛讜讛 讜谞讬诪讜讞 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诪讛 讬讬谉 讞讬 砖转转 讗诪讜 砖诇 讝讛 砖谞诪讜讞 注讜讘专讛 讘转讜讱 诪注讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, one can understand why a woman who discharges a gestational sac full of blood or water is pure, as such an item is nothing, i.e., it is not an offspring. But if the gestational sac was full of different colors, let us be concerned that perhaps it was an offspring and it liquefied. Abaye says in response: How much undiluted wine, which can be harmful to an embryo, did the mother of this purported embryo drink, that her embryo was liquefied in her womb? In other words, there is no such concern.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪诇讗 转谞谉 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗转诪讜讞讬 讗转诪讞 诪讞住专 讞住专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讙讜讜谞讬诐 转谞谉 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗转诪讜讞讬 讗转诪讞 讻讜诇讛 讘讞讚 讙讜讜谞讗 讛讜讬 拽讗讬

Rava says that there is a different explanation: We learned in the mishna that the gestational sac was full of different colors, and if it is so, that there was an embryo in the sac that liquefied, the sac would have been lacking some of the mass of the liquified portion. Rav Adda bar Ahava says that there is yet another explanation: We learned in the mishna that the gestational sac is full of different colors, and if it is so, that there was an embryo there that liquefied, it would all be of one color.

转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 拽讜讘专 诪转讬诐 讛讬讬转讬 讜讛讬讬转讬 诪住转讻诇 讘注爪诪讜转 砖诇 诪转讬诐 讛砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讞讬 注爪诪讜转讬讜 砖专讜驻讬谉 诪讝讜讙 注爪诪讜转讬讜 住讻讜讬讬谉 讻专讗讜讬 注爪诪讜转讬讜 诪砖讜讞讬谉 讜讻诇 诪讬 砖砖转讬讬转讜 诪专讜讘讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讜 注爪诪讜转讬讜 砖专讜驻讬谉 讗讻讬诇转讜 诪专讜讘讛 诪砖转讬讬转讜 注爪诪讜转讬讜 住讻讜讬讬谉 讻专讗讜讬 注爪诪讜转讬讜 诪砖讜讞讬谉

With regard to the effect of drinking wine on a person鈥檚 body, it is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: I used to be a gravedigger, and I would observe the bones of corpses. I discovered that the bones of one who drinks too much undiluted wine during his lifetime look burnt, the bones of one who drinks too much diluted wine are black, and the bones of one who drinks the appropriate amount of wine are fat, i.e., full of marrow. And furthermore, I discovered that the bones of anyone who drinks much more than he eats look burnt, the bones of one who eats much more than he drinks are black, and the bones of one who eats and drinks appropriate amounts are fat.

转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讜讘专 诪转讬诐 讛讬讬转讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 专爪转讬 讗讞专 爪讘讬 讜谞讻谞住转讬 讘拽讜诇讬转 砖诇 诪转 讜专爪转讬 讗讞专讬讜 砖诇砖 驻专住讗讜转 讜爪讘讬 诇讗 讛讙注转讬 讜拽讜诇讬转 诇讗 讻诇转讛 讻砖讞讝专转讬 诇讗讞讜专讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬 砖诇 注讜讙 诪诇讱 讛讘砖谉 讛讬转讛

It is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says the following, and some say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said it: I used to be a gravedigger. Once I ran after a deer, and I entered the thighbone of a corpse; and it was so large that I ran after the deer for three parasangs inside the thighbone, and although I did not reach the deer, the thighbone did not end. When I came back and related this to the Sages, they said to me: It was evidently the thighbone of Og, king of Bashan, a known giant.

转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 拽讜讘专 诪转讬诐 讛讬讬转讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞驻转讞讛 诪注专讛 转讞转讬 讜注诪讚转讬 讘讙诇讙诇 注讬谞讜 砖诇 诪转 注讚 讞讜讟诪讬 讻砖讞讝专转讬 诇讗讞讜专讬 讗诪专讜 注讬谉 砖诇 讗讘砖诇讜诐 讛讬转讛

It is likewise taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: I used to be a gravedigger. Once a burial cave opened up underneath where I was standing, and I found myself standing in the eye socket of a corpse until my nose. When I came back and told this to the Sages, they said to me: It was evidently the eye of Absalom.

讜砖诪讗 转讗诪专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 谞谞住 讛讜讛 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛 讜专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜 讜专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛 讜专讘讬 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜 专讘讬 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛

And lest you say that Abba Shaul was a midget, and therefore he was capable of standing in an eye socket until his nose, Abba Shaul was the tallest person in his generation. And Rabbi Tarfon reached only his shoulder, and Rabbi Tarfon was the tallest person in his generation. And Rabbi Meir reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Tarfon, and Rabbi Meir was the tallest person in his generation. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the tallest person in his generation.

讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛 讜专讘 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜 专讘 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讜讱 讘讚讜专讜 讛讜讛 讜讗讚讗 讚讬讬诇讗 诪讙讬注 诇讻转驻讜

The Gemara continues: And Rabbi 岣yya reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi 岣yya was the tallest person in his generation. And Rav reached only the shoulder of Rabbi 岣yya, and Rav was the tallest person in his generation. And Rav Yehuda reached only the shoulder of Rav, and Rav Yehuda was the tallest person in his generation. And Adda the attendant [dayyala] reached only the shoulder of Rav Yehuda,

Scroll To Top