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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 16, 2019 | ื™ืดื— ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืดืค

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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"

ืชื•ื›ืŸ ื–ื” ืชื•ืจื’ื ื’ื ืœ: ืขื‘ืจื™ืช

ืขื“ ื”ืืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืœื ืงื‘ื™ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืขื“ ืžืงื•ื ื˜ื‘ื•ืจื•

Until above the knee. Rabbi Yannai says: Until his orifices. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehoshua: Until the location of his navel.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื›ืื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื” ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื” ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื˜ืจืคื” ืื™ื ื” ื—ื™ื”

The Gemara explains the dispute between the amoraโ€™im: 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.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื ื™ื˜ืœ ื™ืจืš ื•ื—ืœืœ ืฉืœื” ื ื‘ืœื”

The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yannai and the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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 personโ€™s body until his orifices is missing or removed, the person immediately assumes the halakhic status of a corpse. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืžืœืžื˜ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืื‘ืœ ืžืœืžืขืœื” ืœืžื˜ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืœ ื“ื”ื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ื™ื“ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืคืœืช ืืช ืฉื’ื•ืœื’ืœืชื• ืื˜ื•ืžื” ืืžื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

Rav Pappa says: The dispute between the amoraโ€™im 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 Yoแธฅanan says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus whose skull is sealed, i.e., deficient, its mother is pure.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ื™ื“ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืืคืงืชื ื“ื“ื™ืงืœื ืืžื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

The Gemara cites another halakha: And Rav Giddel says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืžืคืœืช ืžื™ ืฉืคื ื™ื• ืžื•ืกืžืกื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืืžื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

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

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื™ื“ ื—ืชื•ื›ื” ื•ืจื’ืœ ื—ืชื•ื›ื” ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืžื ืžื’ื•ืฃ ืื˜ื•ื ื‘ืืชื” ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืฉืžื ืžื’ื•ืฃ ืื˜ื•ื ืื• ืžืžื™ ืฉืคื ื™ื• ืžื•ืกืžืกื™ืŸ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื™ ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืžื•ืกืžืกื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ื˜ืžืื” ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ื˜ื•ื—ื•ืช ื•ืื™ืคื›ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืžื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื”

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 Yoแธฅanan says that its mother is pure, and Reish Lakish says that its mother is impure.

ื•ืœื•ืชื‘ื™ื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžื”ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื’ื•ืฃ ืื˜ื•ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืžื™ ืฉืคื ื™ื• ื˜ื•ื—ื•ืช

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But according to this version of the dispute, let Reish Lakish raise an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan from this baraita, from which Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื‘ื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื ืคื™ืง ืœืงืจื™ื™ืชื ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื•ื”ื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ื›ืœื•ื ื‘ื ืžืขืฉื” ืœื™ื“ื›ื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืคื ื™ื ื˜ื•ื—ื•ืช ื‘ื ืœื™ื“ื™ื ื• ื•ื˜ื™ืžืื ื•ื”

The Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi แธคiyya went out to the villages to inspect their fatherโ€™s fields. When they came back to their father, he said to them: Wasnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืฆืื• ื•ื˜ื”ืจื• ืžื” ืฉื˜ืžืืชื ืžืื™ ื“ืขืชื™ื™ื›ื• ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ื—ื•ืžืจื ื“ืืชื™ื ืœื™ื“ื™ ืงื•ืœื ื”ื™ื ื“ืงื™ื”ื‘ื™ืชื• ืœื” ื™ืžื™ ื˜ื•ื”ืจ

Rabbi แธคiyya 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.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื‘ืจื™ื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื‘ืืฉื” ืื™ื ื• ื•ืœื“ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ื‘ืืฉื” ื•ืœื“ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื”

ยง 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.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ื“ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื”ืฉืกื•ืขื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree concerning the statement of Rav แธคanin bar Abba, as Rav แธคanin bar Abba said: The verse states: โ€œNevertheless 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 badgerโ€ (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.

ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืœื™ืชื ื•ื›ื™ ืื’ืžืจื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžืฉื” ื‘ืžืขื™ ืืžื” ืื’ืžืจื™ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืื™ืชื ื•ื›ื™ ืื’ืžืจื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžืฉื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืื’ืžืจื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžืขื™ ืืžื” ืฉืจื™ื

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.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืœืจื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืืœืžื ื“ื—ื™ื™ ื•ืงืฉื™ื ืœืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื™ืžื™ ืืช ืฉืฉื“ืจืชื• ืขืงื•ืžื”

Rav Shimi bar แธคiyya raised an objection to Rav from a baraita: Rabbi แธคanina 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 แธคanina 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.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืขื•ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืœื“ืงื” ื‘ืŸ ืฉืžื ื” ืœื’ืกื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ืืกื•ืจ ื™ืฆื ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช

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.

ืžืื™ ื™ืฆื ืœืื• ื™ืฆื ืžื›ืœืœ ืขื•ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืขื™ ืืžืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ

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 motherโ€™s 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.

ืจื‘ ืžืชืจืฅ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืชืจืฅ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ืจื‘ ืžืชืจืฅ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืœื“ืงื” ื‘ืŸ ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืœื’ืกื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ืืกื•ืจ

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.

ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื›ืฉื™ืฆื ืœืื•ื™ืจ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžืขื™ ืืžื• ืฉืจื™ ื™ืฆื ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืขื™ ืืžื• ื ืžื™ ืืกื•ืจ

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 motherโ€™s 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.

ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืชืจืฅ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืœื“ืงื” ื‘ืŸ ืฉืžื ื” ืœื’ืกื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืฉืœื ื›ืœื• ืœื• ื—ื“ืฉื™ื• ืื‘ืœ ื›ืœื• ืœื• ื—ื“ืฉื™ื• ืžื•ืชืจ ื™ืฆื ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช ื“ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ื›ืœื• ืœื• ื—ื“ืฉื™ื• ืื ื™ืฆื ืœืื•ื™ืจ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืžืขื™ ืืžื• ืฉืจื™

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 fetusโ€™s 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.

ืชื ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื‘ืจื™ื™ืช ื’ื•ืฃ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ืชื•ืš ื•ื‘ืจื™ื™ืช ืจืืฉ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ืชื•ืš ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืชื”ื ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉื” ื›ื™ ืชื–ืจื™ืข ื•ื™ืœื“ื” ื–ื›ืจ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื™ ื™ืžื•ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืณ

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: โ€œIf 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 circumcisedโ€ (Leviticus 12:2โ€“3).

ืžื™ ืฉืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ืจื™ืช ืฉืžื ื” ื™ืฆืื• ืืœื• ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืจืื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืจื™ืช ืฉืžื ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื•ืกื™ื™ื ื‘ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื•ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœืžืขื‘ื“ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ื“ืขืชื™ืš ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ื—ื•ืžืจื ื“ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ ืงื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื™ื”ื‘ืช ืœื” ื“ืžื™ ื˜ื•ื”ืจ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืžื™ื”ื ื›ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ืจื‘ ื‘ืื™ืกื•ืจื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงื•ืœื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื•ืžืจื

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ืืฉื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืœืชืฉืขื” ื•ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืœืฉื‘ืขื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื’ืกื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืœืชืฉืขื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืœืฉื‘ืขื” ืื• ืœื ื™ืœื“ื”

ยง 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?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ืืกื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืื’ืกื” ืœื ืื“ืงื”

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื”ืื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืื’ืกื” ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื‘ืืฉื” ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื ืžื™ ื—ื™ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ื—ื™ื™

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.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื“ืงื” ืื™ืชืžืจ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื‘ืช ืชืœืชื ื™ืจื—ื™ ืžื™ ืงื ื—ื™ื™

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, isnโ€™t 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?

ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ืœ ื‘ืฆื™ืจ ืชืจื™ ื™ืจื—ื™ ื—ื™ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื“ืžื•ืช ืœื™ืœื™ืช ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื” ื•ืœื“ ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืกื™ืžื•ื ื™ ื‘ืื—ืช ืฉื”ืคื™ืœื” ื“ืžื•ืช ืœื™ืœื™ืช ื•ื‘ื ืžืขืฉื” ืœืคื ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื•ืืžืจื• ื•ืœื“ ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื

ยง 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.

ื”ืžืคืœืช ื“ืžื•ืช ื ื—ืฉ ื”ื•ืจื” ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื” ื”ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื•ืกืคืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืฉืœื— ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ื ื”ื’ ื‘ืŸ ืื—ื™ืš ื•ื‘ื

There was a case of a woman who discharged an item that had the form of a snake. แธคanina, the son of Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s 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.

ื‘ื”ืœื™ื›ืชืŸ ื™ืฆืชื” ื›ืœืช (ืจื‘ื™) ื—ื ื™ื ื ืœืงืจืืชื• ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื ื—ืฉ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื” ืืžื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืืžืจื” ืœื• ื•ื”ืœื ืžืฉืžืš ืืžืจื” ืœื™ ื—ืžื•ืชื™ ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื” ืžืื™ื–ื” ื˜ืขื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื’ืœื’ืœ ืขื™ื ื• ืขื’ื•ืœ ื›ืฉืœ ืื“ื ืžืชื•ืš ื“ื‘ืจื™ื” ื ื–ื›ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืœื— ืœื• ืœืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืžืคื™ ื”ื•ืจื” ื—ื ื™ื ื

While they were going to Rabban Gamliel, แธคaninaโ€™s 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: แธคanina issued the ruling based on my own statement.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื™ืœืชื ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื” ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ื™ ืžื“ื›ืจื• ืœื™ื” ืžื“ื›ืจ

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืคืœืช ืฉืคื™ืจ ืžืœื ืžื™ื ืžืœื ื“ื ืžืœื ื’ื ื•ื ื™ื ืื™ื ื” ื—ื•ืฉืฉืช ืœื•ืœื“ ื•ืื ื”ื™ื” ืžืจื•ืงื ืชืฉื‘ ืœื–ื›ืจ ื•ืœื ืงื‘ื” ื”ืžืคืœืช ืกื ื“ืœ ืื• ืฉืœื™ื ืชืฉื‘ ืœื–ื›ืจ ื•ืœื ืงื‘ื”

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.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื“ื ื•ืžื™ื ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื™ื ืืœื ื’ื ื•ื ื™ื ื ื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืฉืžื ื•ืœื“ ื”ื•ื” ื•ื ื™ืžื•ื— ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ืžื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื—ื™ ืฉืชืช ืืžื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ืฉื ืžื•ื— ืขื•ื‘ืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืžืขื™ื”

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.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžืœื ืชื ืŸ ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืืชืžื•ื—ื™ ืืชืžื— ืžื—ืกืจ ื—ืกืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ื’ื•ื•ื ื™ื ืชื ืŸ ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืืชืžื•ื—ื™ ืืชืžื— ื›ื•ืœื” ื‘ื—ื“ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื”ื•ื™ ืงืื™

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.

ืชื ื™ื ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื•ื‘ืจ ืžืชื™ื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื•ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืžืกืชื›ืœ ื‘ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืฉืœ ืžืชื™ื ื”ืฉื•ืชื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื—ื™ ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืฉืจื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื–ื•ื’ ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืกื›ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ืจืื•ื™ ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืžืฉื•ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืœ ืžื™ ืฉืฉืชื™ื™ืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืื›ื™ืœืชื• ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืฉืจื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื›ื™ืœืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืฉืชื™ื™ืชื• ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืกื›ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ืจืื•ื™ ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืžืฉื•ื—ื™ืŸ

With regard to the effect of drinking wine on a personโ€™s 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.

ืชื ื™ื ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืงื•ื‘ืจ ืžืชื™ื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืคืขื ืื—ืช ืจืฆืชื™ ืื—ืจ ืฆื‘ื™ ื•ื ื›ื ืกืชื™ ื‘ืงื•ืœื™ืช ืฉืœ ืžืช ื•ืจืฆืชื™ ืื—ืจื™ื• ืฉืœืฉ ืคืจืกืื•ืช ื•ืฆื‘ื™ ืœื ื”ื’ืขืชื™ ื•ืงื•ืœื™ืช ืœื ื›ืœืชื” ื›ืฉื—ื–ืจืชื™ ืœืื—ื•ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ ืฉืœ ืขื•ื’ ืžืœืš ื”ื‘ืฉืŸ ื”ื™ืชื”

It is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says the following, and some say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืชื ื™ื ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื•ื‘ืจ ืžืชื™ื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืคืขื ืื—ืช ื ืคืชื—ื” ืžืขืจื” ืชื—ืชื™ ื•ืขืžื“ืชื™ ื‘ื’ืœื’ืœ ืขื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืช ืขื“ ื—ื•ื˜ืžื™ ื›ืฉื—ื–ืจืชื™ ืœืื—ื•ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ืขื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืื‘ืฉืœื•ื ื”ื™ืชื”

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.

ื•ืฉืžื ืชืืžืจ ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื ื ืก ื”ื•ื” ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื• ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื• ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื”

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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื• ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื” ื•ืจื‘ ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื• ืจื‘ ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื” ื•ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื• ื•ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื” ื•ืื“ื ื“ื™ื™ืœื ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื•

The Gemara continues: And Rabbi แธคiyya reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi แธคiyya was the tallest person in his generation. And Rav reached only the shoulder of Rabbi แธคiyya, 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 monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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

ืขื“ ื”ืืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืœื ืงื‘ื™ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืขื“ ืžืงื•ื ื˜ื‘ื•ืจื•

Until above the knee. Rabbi Yannai says: Until his orifices. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehoshua: Until the location of his navel.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื›ืื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื” ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื˜ืจืคื” ื—ื™ื” ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื˜ืจืคื” ืื™ื ื” ื—ื™ื”

The Gemara explains the dispute between the amoraโ€™im: 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.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื ื™ื˜ืœ ื™ืจืš ื•ื—ืœืœ ืฉืœื” ื ื‘ืœื”

The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yannai and the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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 personโ€™s body until his orifices is missing or removed, the person immediately assumes the halakhic status of a corpse. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืžืœืžื˜ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืื‘ืœ ืžืœืžืขืœื” ืœืžื˜ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืœ ื“ื”ื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ื™ื“ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืคืœืช ืืช ืฉื’ื•ืœื’ืœืชื• ืื˜ื•ืžื” ืืžื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

Rav Pappa says: The dispute between the amoraโ€™im 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 Yoแธฅanan says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus whose skull is sealed, i.e., deficient, its mother is pure.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื’ื™ื“ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืืคืงืชื ื“ื“ื™ืงืœื ืืžื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

The Gemara cites another halakha: And Rav Giddel says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืžืคืœืช ืžื™ ืฉืคื ื™ื• ืžื•ืกืžืกื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืืžื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

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

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื™ื“ ื—ืชื•ื›ื” ื•ืจื’ืœ ื—ืชื•ื›ื” ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืžื ืžื’ื•ืฃ ืื˜ื•ื ื‘ืืชื” ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืฉืžื ืžื’ื•ืฃ ืื˜ื•ื ืื• ืžืžื™ ืฉืคื ื™ื• ืžื•ืกืžืกื™ืŸ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื™ ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืžื•ืกืžืกื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ื˜ืžืื” ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ื˜ื•ื—ื•ืช ื•ืื™ืคื›ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืžื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื”

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 Yoแธฅanan says that its mother is pure, and Reish Lakish says that its mother is impure.

ื•ืœื•ืชื‘ื™ื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžื”ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื’ื•ืฃ ืื˜ื•ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืžื™ ืฉืคื ื™ื• ื˜ื•ื—ื•ืช

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But according to this version of the dispute, let Reish Lakish raise an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan from this baraita, from which Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื‘ื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื ืคื™ืง ืœืงืจื™ื™ืชื ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื•ื”ื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ื›ืœื•ื ื‘ื ืžืขืฉื” ืœื™ื“ื›ื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืคื ื™ื ื˜ื•ื—ื•ืช ื‘ื ืœื™ื“ื™ื ื• ื•ื˜ื™ืžืื ื•ื”

The Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi แธคiyya went out to the villages to inspect their fatherโ€™s fields. When they came back to their father, he said to them: Wasnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืฆืื• ื•ื˜ื”ืจื• ืžื” ืฉื˜ืžืืชื ืžืื™ ื“ืขืชื™ื™ื›ื• ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ื—ื•ืžืจื ื“ืืชื™ื ืœื™ื“ื™ ืงื•ืœื ื”ื™ื ื“ืงื™ื”ื‘ื™ืชื• ืœื” ื™ืžื™ ื˜ื•ื”ืจ

Rabbi แธคiyya 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.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื‘ืจื™ื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื‘ืืฉื” ืื™ื ื• ื•ืœื“ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ื‘ืืฉื” ื•ืœื“ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื”

ยง 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.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ื“ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื”ืฉืกื•ืขื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree concerning the statement of Rav แธคanin bar Abba, as Rav แธคanin bar Abba said: The verse states: โ€œNevertheless 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 badgerโ€ (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.

ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืœื™ืชื ื•ื›ื™ ืื’ืžืจื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžืฉื” ื‘ืžืขื™ ืืžื” ืื’ืžืจื™ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืื™ืชื ื•ื›ื™ ืื’ืžืจื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžืฉื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืื’ืžืจื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžืขื™ ืืžื” ืฉืจื™ื

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.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืœืจื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืืœืžื ื“ื—ื™ื™ ื•ืงืฉื™ื ืœืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื™ืžื™ ืืช ืฉืฉื“ืจืชื• ืขืงื•ืžื”

Rav Shimi bar แธคiyya raised an objection to Rav from a baraita: Rabbi แธคanina 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 แธคanina 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.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืขื•ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืœื“ืงื” ื‘ืŸ ืฉืžื ื” ืœื’ืกื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ืืกื•ืจ ื™ืฆื ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช

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.

ืžืื™ ื™ืฆื ืœืื• ื™ืฆื ืžื›ืœืœ ืขื•ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืขื™ ืืžืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ

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 motherโ€™s 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.

ืจื‘ ืžืชืจืฅ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืชืจืฅ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ืจื‘ ืžืชืจืฅ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืœื“ืงื” ื‘ืŸ ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืœื’ืกื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ืืกื•ืจ

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.

ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื›ืฉื™ืฆื ืœืื•ื™ืจ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžืขื™ ืืžื• ืฉืจื™ ื™ืฆื ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืขื™ ืืžื• ื ืžื™ ืืกื•ืจ

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 motherโ€™s 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.

ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืชืจืฅ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืœื“ืงื” ื‘ืŸ ืฉืžื ื” ืœื’ืกื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืฉืœื ื›ืœื• ืœื• ื—ื“ืฉื™ื• ืื‘ืœ ื›ืœื• ืœื• ื—ื“ืฉื™ื• ืžื•ืชืจ ื™ืฆื ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช ื“ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ื›ืœื• ืœื• ื—ื“ืฉื™ื• ืื ื™ืฆื ืœืื•ื™ืจ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืืกื•ืจ ื‘ืžืขื™ ืืžื• ืฉืจื™

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 fetusโ€™s 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.

ืชื ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื‘ืจื™ื™ืช ื’ื•ืฃ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ืชื•ืš ื•ื‘ืจื™ื™ืช ืจืืฉ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ืชื•ืš ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืชื”ื ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉื” ื›ื™ ืชื–ืจื™ืข ื•ื™ืœื“ื” ื–ื›ืจ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื™ ื™ืžื•ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืณ

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: โ€œIf 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 circumcisedโ€ (Leviticus 12:2โ€“3).

ืžื™ ืฉืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ืจื™ืช ืฉืžื ื” ื™ืฆืื• ืืœื• ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ืจืื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืจื™ืช ืฉืžื ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื•ืกื™ื™ื ื‘ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื•ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ ืฉื“ืจืื•ืช

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœืžืขื‘ื“ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ื“ืขืชื™ืš ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ื—ื•ืžืจื ื“ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ ืงื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื™ื”ื‘ืช ืœื” ื“ืžื™ ื˜ื•ื”ืจ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืžื™ื”ื ื›ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ืจื‘ ื‘ืื™ืกื•ืจื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงื•ืœื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื•ืžืจื

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ืืฉื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืœืชืฉืขื” ื•ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืœืฉื‘ืขื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื’ืกื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืœืชืฉืขื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืœืฉื‘ืขื” ืื• ืœื ื™ืœื“ื”

ยง 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?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ืืกื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืื’ืกื” ืœื ืื“ืงื”

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื”ืื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืื’ืกื” ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื‘ืืฉื” ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื ืžื™ ื—ื™ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ื—ื™ื™

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.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื“ืงื” ืื™ืชืžืจ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื‘ืช ืชืœืชื ื™ืจื—ื™ ืžื™ ืงื ื—ื™ื™

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, isnโ€™t 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?

ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ืœ ื‘ืฆื™ืจ ืชืจื™ ื™ืจื—ื™ ื—ื™ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื“ืžื•ืช ืœื™ืœื™ืช ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื” ื•ืœื“ ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืกื™ืžื•ื ื™ ื‘ืื—ืช ืฉื”ืคื™ืœื” ื“ืžื•ืช ืœื™ืœื™ืช ื•ื‘ื ืžืขืฉื” ืœืคื ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื•ืืžืจื• ื•ืœื“ ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื›ื ืคื™ื

ยง 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.

ื”ืžืคืœืช ื“ืžื•ืช ื ื—ืฉ ื”ื•ืจื” ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื” ื”ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื•ืกืคืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืฉืœื— ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ื ื”ื’ ื‘ืŸ ืื—ื™ืš ื•ื‘ื

There was a case of a woman who discharged an item that had the form of a snake. แธคanina, the son of Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s 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.

ื‘ื”ืœื™ื›ืชืŸ ื™ืฆืชื” ื›ืœืช (ืจื‘ื™) ื—ื ื™ื ื ืœืงืจืืชื• ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื”ืžืคืœืช ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื ื—ืฉ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื” ืืžื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืืžืจื” ืœื• ื•ื”ืœื ืžืฉืžืš ืืžืจื” ืœื™ ื—ืžื•ืชื™ ืืžื• ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื” ืžืื™ื–ื” ื˜ืขื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื’ืœื’ืœ ืขื™ื ื• ืขื’ื•ืœ ื›ืฉืœ ืื“ื ืžืชื•ืš ื“ื‘ืจื™ื” ื ื–ื›ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืœื— ืœื• ืœืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืžืคื™ ื”ื•ืจื” ื—ื ื™ื ื

While they were going to Rabban Gamliel, แธคaninaโ€™s 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: แธคanina issued the ruling based on my own statement.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื™ืœืชื ืœื™ืžื ื‘ื” ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ื™ ืžื“ื›ืจื• ืœื™ื” ืžื“ื›ืจ

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืคืœืช ืฉืคื™ืจ ืžืœื ืžื™ื ืžืœื ื“ื ืžืœื ื’ื ื•ื ื™ื ืื™ื ื” ื—ื•ืฉืฉืช ืœื•ืœื“ ื•ืื ื”ื™ื” ืžืจื•ืงื ืชืฉื‘ ืœื–ื›ืจ ื•ืœื ืงื‘ื” ื”ืžืคืœืช ืกื ื“ืœ ืื• ืฉืœื™ื ืชืฉื‘ ืœื–ื›ืจ ื•ืœื ืงื‘ื”

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.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื“ื ื•ืžื™ื ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื™ื ืืœื ื’ื ื•ื ื™ื ื ื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืฉืžื ื•ืœื“ ื”ื•ื” ื•ื ื™ืžื•ื— ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ืžื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื—ื™ ืฉืชืช ืืžื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ืฉื ืžื•ื— ืขื•ื‘ืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืžืขื™ื”

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.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžืœื ืชื ืŸ ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืืชืžื•ื—ื™ ืืชืžื— ืžื—ืกืจ ื—ืกืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ื’ื•ื•ื ื™ื ืชื ืŸ ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ืืชืžื•ื—ื™ ืืชืžื— ื›ื•ืœื” ื‘ื—ื“ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื”ื•ื™ ืงืื™

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.

ืชื ื™ื ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื•ื‘ืจ ืžืชื™ื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื•ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืžืกืชื›ืœ ื‘ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืฉืœ ืžืชื™ื ื”ืฉื•ืชื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื—ื™ ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืฉืจื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื–ื•ื’ ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืกื›ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ืจืื•ื™ ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืžืฉื•ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืœ ืžื™ ืฉืฉืชื™ื™ืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืื›ื™ืœืชื• ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืฉืจื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื›ื™ืœืชื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืฉืชื™ื™ืชื• ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืกื›ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ืจืื•ื™ ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืžืฉื•ื—ื™ืŸ

With regard to the effect of drinking wine on a personโ€™s 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.

ืชื ื™ื ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืงื•ื‘ืจ ืžืชื™ื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืคืขื ืื—ืช ืจืฆืชื™ ืื—ืจ ืฆื‘ื™ ื•ื ื›ื ืกืชื™ ื‘ืงื•ืœื™ืช ืฉืœ ืžืช ื•ืจืฆืชื™ ืื—ืจื™ื• ืฉืœืฉ ืคืจืกืื•ืช ื•ืฆื‘ื™ ืœื ื”ื’ืขืชื™ ื•ืงื•ืœื™ืช ืœื ื›ืœืชื” ื›ืฉื—ื–ืจืชื™ ืœืื—ื•ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ ืฉืœ ืขื•ื’ ืžืœืš ื”ื‘ืฉืŸ ื”ื™ืชื”

It is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says the following, and some say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืชื ื™ื ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื•ื‘ืจ ืžืชื™ื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืคืขื ืื—ืช ื ืคืชื—ื” ืžืขืจื” ืชื—ืชื™ ื•ืขืžื“ืชื™ ื‘ื’ืœื’ืœ ืขื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืžืช ืขื“ ื—ื•ื˜ืžื™ ื›ืฉื—ื–ืจืชื™ ืœืื—ื•ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ืขื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืื‘ืฉืœื•ื ื”ื™ืชื”

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.

ื•ืฉืžื ืชืืžืจ ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื ื ืก ื”ื•ื” ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื• ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื• ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื”

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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื• ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื” ื•ืจื‘ ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื• ืจื‘ ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื” ื•ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื• ื•ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืจื•ืš ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ื”ื•ื” ื•ืื“ื ื“ื™ื™ืœื ืžื’ื™ืข ืœื›ืชืคื•

The Gemara continues: And Rabbi แธคiyya reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi แธคiyya was the tallest person in his generation. And Rav reached only the shoulder of Rabbi แธคiyya, 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