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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 17, 2019 | ื™ืดื˜ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ืŸ ืชืฉืดืค

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Chagigah is lovingly sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family, who are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas!

Niddah 25

What is the law regarding a gestational sac filled with flesh? during the course of the discussion, the gemara brings in a debate between Rabbi Yehoshua and the rabbis regarding a sac in which the tissue did not develop. They discuss the reasoning behind Rabbi Yehoshua’s approach. How does one check a sac to determine if the tissue has developed? How does one tell if male or female? Shmuel was known to be an expert in this area but told others to look for an easy sign – if hair has developed. What is the “sandal” reeferring to in the mishna that is considered a birth – does it has facial features or not? If it always comes with a twin, why is it relevant to say that it also makes the mother impure from birth if she anyway gave birth to another?

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

ืคืจืฉืชื‘ื™ื ื ื“ืคื•ืžื‘ื“ื™ืชื ืงืื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืื“ื ื“ื™ื™ืœื ืขื“ ืคืœื’ื™ื” ื•ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืงืื™ ืœืคืจืฉืชื‘ื™ื ื ื“ืคื•ืžื‘ื“ื™ืชื ืขื“ ื—ืจืฆื™ื”

and when the governor [parashtevina] of Pumbedita would stand next to Adda the attendant, he would reach only half of his height. And when everyone else in the world would stand next to the governor of Pumbedita, they would reach only his loins [แธฅartzeih].

ืฉืืœื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื”ืžืคืœืช ืฉืคื™ืจ ืžืœื ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืœื ืฉืžืขืชื™

ยง The students asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In the case of a woman who discharges a gestational sac full of flesh, what is the halakha? Does she have the impurity of a woman after childbirth? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: I have not heard from my teachers the halakha in this case.

ืืžืจ ืœืคื ื™ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื›ืš ืืžืจ ืื‘ื ืžืœื ื“ื ื˜ืžืื” ื ื“ื” ืžืœื ื‘ืฉืจ ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื”

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: This is what my father, i.e., Rabbi Yosei ben แธคalafta, one of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasiโ€™s teachers, said: If a woman discharged a gestational sac full of blood, she is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. If it is full of flesh, she is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืœืžืœื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ืืžืจืช ืœื ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืื‘ื™ืš ืฉืžืขื ื•ืš ืขื›ืฉื™ื•

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: If you had told us an entirely new statement in the name of your father, no part of which was also stated by another Sage, we would have listened to you, i.e., we would have accepted the statement as halakha. But now that you stated two halakhot, one with regard to a woman who discharged a gestational sac full of blood, and the other with regard to a woman who discharged a gestational sac full of flesh, the entire statement cannot be accepted as halakha.

ืžื“ื”ื ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื›ื™ื—ื™ื“ืื” ืงืืžืจ ื›ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืžื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi explains: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei said this first clause of his statement, with regard to a gestational sac full of blood, in accordance with an individual opinion, i.e., in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who said in the name of Rabbi Meir that the woman is impure, contrary to the opinion of the other Sages, it follows that with regard to this latter statement as well, with regard to a gestational sac full of flesh, one can say that perhaps Rabbi Yosei said it in accordance with the opinion of another individual Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua. And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžืคืœืช ืฉืคื™ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืจื•ืงื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืœื“ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื•ืœื“

As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a woman who discharges a gestational sac in which tissue did not develop, Rabbi Yehoshua says: It has the status of an offspring, and the woman has the impurity of a woman after childbirth; and the Rabbis say: It is not an offspring, and the woman is pure. The opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a woman who discharged a gestational sac full of flesh is impure might be in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua, which is not accepted as halakha, since the majority of the other Sages disagree with him. Therefore, the halakha cannot be decided in accordance with either part of the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืขื›ื•ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืื™ื ื• ื•ืœื“ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: The dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid, as Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the turbidity indicates that there was likely an embryo in the sac that liquefied. But in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear, everyone agrees that the discharged sac is not considered an offspring. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืขื›ื•ืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื•ืœื“ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื–ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื–ื” ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืชื™ืงื•

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What does Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi mean? Does he mean that the dispute applies only in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear, but in a case where it is turbid, everyone agrees that it has the halakhic status of an offspring? Or perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi means that the dispute applies in this case and in that case, i.e., the Rabbis hold that the sac does not have the status of an offspring even if the amniotic fluid is turbid. The Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืืช ื–ื• ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื•ื™ืขืฉ ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื ืœืื“ื ื•ืœืืฉืชื• ื›ืชื ื•ืช ืขื•ืจ ื•ื™ืœื‘ืฉื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ืขื•ืจ ืœืื“ื ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื•ืฆืจ

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies only in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben แธคananya, who is the same Rabbi Yehoshua who disagrees with the Rabbis with regard to the case of a woman who discharges a gestational sac in which tissue did not develop, taught this following proof for his opinion that the woman is impure: It is stated: โ€œAnd the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed themโ€ (Genesis 3:21). This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not make skin for a person unless he is already created, as God first created Adam and Eve, and then gave them skin. Consequently, the existence of a gestational sac proves that there is an offspring.

ืืœืžื ื‘ืขื•ืจ ืชืœื™ื ืžื™ืœืชื ืœื ืฉื ื ืขื›ื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืฆืœื•ืœ

Evidently, according to Rabbi Yehoshua the matter of whether or not an embryo is considered offspring is dependent on whether or not there is skin, and there is no difference whether the amniotic fluid is turbid, and there is no difference whether it is clear.

ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืขื›ื•ืจ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืงืจื ืกื‘ืจื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Granted, if you say that the dispute applies in a case where it is clear, that is why it was necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua to derive from a verse that an embryo that has skin is considered an offspring. But if you say that the dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid, but Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that the woman is pure if it is clear, why do I need a verse to teach that if the amniotic fluid is turbid the woman is impure? It is logical that where the amniotic fluid is turbid there was probably an embryo that liquefied. Rather, conclude from it that the dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from it that this is correct.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืขื›ื•ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืื™ื ื• ื•ืœื“

And likewise, just as Rabbi Oshaya interprets the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis as referring to a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid, Rav Naแธฅman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid; but in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear, everyone agrees that the discharged sac is not considered an offspring.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืœื ืืžืจื• ืกื™ืžืŸ ื•ืœื“ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ืงื” ื˜ื™ื ื•ืฃ ื‘ื’ืกื” ืฉืœื™ื ื‘ืืฉื” ืฉืคื™ืจ ื•ืฉืœื™ื

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naแธฅman from a mishna that specifies the obligations that apply to firstborn animals (Bekhorot 19b):But the Sages said that not only does a viable offspring exempt any subsequent offspring from being counted a firstborn, but the same applies to an indication of the offspring that is discharged from the womb. The indication in a small animal is a murky discharge from the womb, in a large animal it is the emergence of an afterbirth, and in a woman the indication is a gestational sac or an afterbirth.

ื•ืื™ืœื• ืฉืคื™ืจ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื ืคื˜ืจ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™

Rava infers: And yet the miscarriage of a gestational sac in the case of a large animal does not exempt the animalโ€™s subsequent offspring from being counted a firstborn. Granted, if you say that the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear, it is due to that reason that the mishna differentiates between a large animal and a woman with regard to a gestational sac.

ืืฉื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ื” ืงืจื ืคื˜ืจ ื‘ื” ืฉืคื™ืจ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืงืจื ืœื ืคื˜ืจ ื‘ื” ืฉืคื™ืจ

Rava explains: With regard to a woman, as the aforementioned verse: โ€œAnd the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins,โ€ includes in the definition of offspring a gestational sac, i.e., skin, one can say that such a gestational sac exempts subsequent births from the obligations of primogeniture. By contrast, in the case of an animal, as the verse does not include a gestational sac in the definition of offspring, discharging a gestational sac does not exempt the animalโ€™s subsequent offspring from being considered a firstborn.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืขื›ื•ืจ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืžื›ื“ื™ ืกื‘ืจื ื”ื•ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืืฉื” ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื‘ื”ืžื”

But if you say that the dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid, and Rabbi Yehoshua deems the woman impure due to the likelihood that there was an embryo that liquefied, since this halakha is based on logic, what is different in the case of a woman, and what is different in the case of an animal? Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s reasoning applies equally to both. Evidently, the dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear.

ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืžืคืฉื˜ ืคืฉื™ื˜ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืกืคื•ืงื™ ืžืกืคืงื ืœื™ื” ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ื”ื›ื ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ื•ื”ื›ื ืœื—ื•ืžืจื

The Gemara answers: Do you hold that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehoshua that a gestational sac in which the amniotic fluid is turbid has the halakhic status of an offspring? That is not so; rather, Rabbi Yehoshua is uncertain of its halakhic status, and therefore here, in this case, he rules stringently, and there he also rules stringently.

ื’ื‘ื™ ืืฉื” ื“ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื ืกืคืง ืžืžื•ื ื ืœืงื•ืœื

The Gemara elaborates: First of all, with regard to a situation where a woman discharged a gestational sac in which the amniotic fluid was turbid, in which case the obligation of primogeniture is a monetary matter, i.e., the obligation to redeem the newborn child by paying money to a priest, the subsequent births are exempt, in accordance with the principle that uncertainty with regard to monetary matters is treated leniently.

ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœื’ื‘ื™ ื’ื™ื–ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืกืคืง ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืืฉื” ืกืคืง ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืœื—ื•ืžืจื

By contrast, with regard to an animal, in which case firstborn status is a ritual matter, as there are prohibitions involving, i.e., against, shearing the animalโ€™s wool and using the animal for labor before it incurs a blemish, the discharged gestational sac is not considered an offspring and does not exempt subsequent births from the obligations of firstborn status, as uncertainty with regard to ritual matters is treated stringently. So too, with regard to the impurity of a woman who discharged a gestational sac, she is deemed impure, as uncertainty with regard to impurity is treated stringently, which means that for the purposes of this halakha a gestational sac is considered an offspring.

ื•ืžื™ ืžืกืคืงื ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืงืจื ืงืืžืจ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืงืจื ืืกืžื›ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehoshua uncertain about the halakha of a woman who discharges a gestational sac? But doesnโ€™t he cite a verse as proof that the woman has the impurity of one who gave birth? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that the woman is impure by rabbinic law, and the verse he cites is a mere support for this halakha; it is not the actual source.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืจ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžืจ ื›ืžืืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”

Rav แธคanina bar Shelamya said to Rav: This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who told his students that he did not hear from his teachers the halakha in the case of a woman who discharged a gestational sac full of flesh; and this is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who cited his fatherโ€™s opinion that in such a case the woman is impure. And this is the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, that the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies only in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid; and finally this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who holds that the dispute applies if the amniotic fluid is clear. In accordance with whose opinion does the Master hold?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ืื™ื ื” ื—ื•ืฉืฉืช

Rav said to Rav แธคanina bar Shelamya: I say that both in this case, where the amniotic fluid is turbid, and in that case, where the fluid is clear, the woman does not need to be concerned that she has the status of a woman who gave birth to an offspring.

ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืฉืฉืช ื•ืื–ื“ื ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืžืขื•ืœื ืœื ื“ื›ื• ืฉืคื™ืจ ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืœื‘ืจ ืžื”ื”ื•ื ืฉืคื™ืจื ื“ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืžื ื— ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื•ื˜ ื”ืฉืขืจื” ืžื”ืื™ ื’ื™ืกื ื•ื—ื–ื™ื ืžื”ืื™ ื’ื™ืกื ืืžืจ ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ื•ืœื“ ื”ื•ืื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื–ื™ื’ ื›ื•ืœื™ ื”ืื™

And Shmuel says: In both this case and that case, the woman must be concerned that the discharged gestational sac has the status of an offspring, and therefore she is considered impure like a woman who gave birth. And Shmuel follows his standard line of reasoning here, as when Rav Dimi came and transmitted many halakhic traditions, the latter said: In Nehardeโ€™a the Sages never deemed a woman who discharged a gestational sac pure, except for the case of a certain gestational sac that came before Shmuel, who placed a hair on this side of that sac, and it was visible from that side. Shmuel said, based on this test: If it were so, that there was an offspring in the sac, it would not have been so transparent. He therefore deemed the woman pure, but his ruling applied only in that extreme case.

ื•ืื ื”ื™ื” ืžืจื•ืงื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืฉืคื™ืจ ืžืจื•ืงื ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืชื—ืœืช ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื• ืžืจืืฉื• ื•ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ื›ืฉืชื™ ื˜ื™ืคื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื‘ื•ื‘ ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืจื•ื—ืงื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืžื–ื” ืฉื ื™ ื—ื•ื˜ืžื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืชื™ ื˜ื™ืคื™ื ืฉืœ ื–ื‘ื•ื‘

ยง The mishna teaches: But if the sac was one in which tissue developed, the halakhic status of the woman is that of a woman after childbirth. Since the sex of the embryo is unknown, she 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. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the definition of a gestational sac in which tissue developed? Abba Shaul says: The beginning of the formation of the embryo is from its head, and its two eyes look like two drops, similar to the eyes of a fly. Rabbi แธคiyya teaches: These eyes must be distant from each other. Furthermore, its two nostrils look like two drops, similar to the nostrils of a fly.

ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื•ืžืงื•ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืœื–ื” ื•ืคื™ื• ืžืชื•ื— ื›ื—ื•ื˜ ื”ืฉืขืจื” ื•ื’ื•ื™ืชื• ื›ืขื“ืฉื” ื•ืื ื”ื™ืชื” ื ืงื‘ื” ื ื“ื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืขื•ืจื” ืœืืจื›ื”

Rabbi แธคiyya teaches: And these eyes must be close to each other. And its mouth stretches along the width of its face like a strand of hair. And its body is like the size of a lentil. And if it was female, its vagina can be discerned by the appearance of a line like a cracked grain of barley oriented along the length of its body.

ื•ื—ืชื•ืš ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื•ืขืœื™ื• ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื‘ืงื‘ืœื” ื”ืœื ื›ื—ืœื‘ ืชืชื™ื›ื ื™ ื•ื›ื’ื‘ื™ื ื” ืชืงืคื™ืื ื™ ืขื•ืจ ื•ื‘ืฉืจ ืชืœื‘ื™ืฉื ื™ ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ื•ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ืชืกื•ื›ื›ื ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื•ื—ืกื“ ืขืฉื™ืช ืขืžื“ื™ ื•ืคืงื“ืชืš ืฉืžืจื” ืจื•ื—ื™

And it does not have the shape of arms and legs at this stage. And it is said with regard to an embryo at this stage, in the texts of tradition, the Prophets: โ€œHave You not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? You have clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and favor, and Your providence has preserved my spiritโ€ (Job 10:10โ€“12).

ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืžื™ื ืฉื”ืžื™ื ืขื–ื™ืŸ

And one does not examine it with water to discover its sex, as water is too strong,

ื•ื˜ื•ืจื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืืœื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ืฉื”ืฉืžืŸ ืจืš ื•ืžืฆื—ืฆื—ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ื—ืžื”

and dissolves it. Rather, one examines it with oil, as oil is soft and cleans the embryo so that its sex can be discerned. And one views it only in the light of the sun.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืžื” ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืœื™ื“ืข ืื ื–ื›ืจ ื”ื•ื ืื ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ื™ื

The baraita continues: How does one examine the embryo? The Gemara expresses surprise at this question: How does one examine it to determine whether it has the halakhic status of an offspring? Clearly, one examines it as we just said. Rather, the question is as follows: In what manner does one examine it to ascertain whether it is male or whether it is female?

ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ืจ ื ืฉ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ืจ ืจืžืฉ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ืงื™ืกื ืฉืจืืฉื• ื—ืœืง ื•ืžื ืขื ืข ื‘ืื•ืชื• ืžืงื•ื ืื ืžืกื›ืกืš ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื–ื›ืจ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื ืœืื• ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื ืงื‘ื” ื”ื™ื

Abba Shaul bar Nash, and some say Abba Shaul bar Remash, says: One brings a sliver of wood whose top is smooth, and he moves it along the embryo in that place, i.e., the sex organ. If the sliver is caught, i.e., its movement is not smooth, it is known that the embryo is male, as its member interfered with the movement of the sliver. And if the sliver is not caught, it is known that it is female.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืžืœืžื˜ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืื‘ืœ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ืžื ื›ื•ืชืœื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืจื—ื ื ื™ื ื”ื•

Rav Naแธฅman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught this halakha, that if the movement of the sliver is not smooth then the embryo is male, only if the sliver was moved along the sex organ of the embryo from below to above; but if it was moved from the sides, from one side to the other, the fact that it was not smooth does not prove that the embryo is male, as one can say that the sides of the womb interfered.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืชื ื ืื ื”ื™ืชื” ื ืงื‘ื” ื ื“ื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืขื•ืจื” ืกื“ื•ืงื” ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื—ื•ื˜ ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื’ื•ืคื™ื™ื”ื• ืœื ื™ื“ื™ืขื™ ื—ื•ื˜ ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื™ื“ื™ืข

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The complete version of the baraita is taught as follows: If it was female, its vagina can be discerned by the appearance of a line like a cracked grain of barley oriented along the length of its body. Rav Naแธฅman objects to this: But perhaps it is not the vagina but the recess between the testes, and the embryo is male. Abaye said to him: Now, at this stage of development, the testes of the embryo themselves are not discernible. Is it possible that the recess between the testes is discernible?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืžืจื ืชื ื ืฉืชื™ ื™ืจื›ื•ืชื™ื• ื›ืฉื ื™ ื—ื•ื˜ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื•ืจื™ืช ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืžืจื ืขืœื” ื›ืฉืœ ืขืจื‘ ื•ืฉื ื™ ื–ืจื•ืขื•ืชื™ื• ื›ืฉื ื™ ื—ื•ื˜ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื•ืจื™ืช ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืžืจื ืขืœื” ื›ืฉืœ ืฉืชื™

The baraita teaches that at this stage an embryo does not have the shape of arms and legs. Rabbi Amram says that it is taught in a baraita that when an embryoโ€™s arms and legs start to take shape, its two thighs look like two strings of crimson thread [zehorit]. And Rabbi Amram says with regard to this matter that the thighs look like two strings of the woof, which are thicker than those of the warp. The baraita adds: And its two arms look like two strings of crimson thread. And Rabbi Amram says with regard to this matter that the arms look like two strings of the warp.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉื™ื ื ื ืœื ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื—ืช ื–ื• ื•ืื—ืช ื–ื• ื—ื•ืฉืฉืช

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, do not perform an action, i.e., do not issue a practical ruling deeming a woman who discharges an embryo at this stage of development impure, unless the embryo has grown hair. The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say that? But doesnโ€™t Shmuel say with regard to a woman who discharged a gestational sac that both in this case, where the amniotic fluid is turbid, and in that case, where the fluid is clear, the woman must be concerned that the discharged gestational sac might have the status of an offspring, which would mean that she is impure even without the growth of hair on the embryo?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ืžืคืจืฉื ืœื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื—ื•ืฉ ื—ื•ืฉืฉืช ื™ืžื™ ื˜ื”ืจื” ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉืขื™ืจ

Rav Ami bar Shmuel says: This matter was explained to me by Mar Shmuel: As for being concerned that perhaps she is impure, the woman must be concerned, due to the uncertainty whether she discharged an offspring. But we do not give her the days of purity that follow the period of impurity for a woman who gave birth, unless the embryo has grown hair.

ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืžืกืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื”ื ื”ื”ื•ื ืฉืคื™ืจื ื“ืืชืื™ ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ื”ื ื‘ืจ ืืจื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ ื™ื•ืžื ื•ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ืžื™ื•ืžื ื“ืื–ืœื ืœื˜ื‘ื™ืœื” ืขื“ ื”ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืžื ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืืœื ืืจื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Shmuel is uncertain whether a gestational sac has the halakhic status of an offspring? But there was an incident involving a certain gestational sac that was brought before Mar Shmuel, and Shmuel said: This embryo is forty-one days old. And Shmuel subsequently calculated the amount of time that had passed from the day that the woman went to perform immersion in a ritual bath until that day, and it was only forty days.

ื•ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื”ืื™ ื‘ื ื“ื” ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืคืชื™ื” ื•ืื•ื“ื™ ืฉืื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืจื‘ ื’ื•ื‘ืจื™ื”

And he said to the local court: This husband engaged in intercourse with his wife when she was a menstruating woman. They bound the husband and he confessed. Since Shmuel was so proficient in embryology, why was he unsure about the halakhic status of a gestational sac? The Gemara answers: Shmuel himself is different, as his strength, i.e., his proficiency, was great. His general ruling that the halakhic status of a gestational sac is uncertain applies to people who are not as proficient as he is.

ื”ืžืคืœืช ืกื ื“ืœ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื ื“ืœ ื“ื•ืžื” ืœื“ื’ ืฉืœ ื™ื ืžืชื—ืœืชื• ื•ืœื“ ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืฉื ืจืฆืฃ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืกื ื“ืœ ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืœืฉื•ืŸ ืฉืœ ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื”ืขื™ื“ื• ืกื ื“ืœ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฆื•ืจืช ืคื ื™ื

ยง The mishna teaches that a woman who discharges a sandal fetus or one who discharges an afterbirth observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female. The Sages taught in a baraita: A sandal fetus has a similar appearance to a certain fish of the sea known as a sandal fish;it looks as though it is a full-fledged offspring from the outset, but it was mashed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A sandal fetus has an appearance that is similar to the tongue of the large bull. Students testified in the name of our teachers that for a sandal fetus to have the halakhic status of an offspring, it requires the shape of a face.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ืกื ื“ืœ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฆื•ืจืช ืคื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืกื ื“ืœ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฆื•ืจืช ืคื ื™ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืื—ื•ืจื™ื• ืžืฉืœ ืœืื“ื ืฉืกื˜ืจ ืืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืคื ื™ื• ืœืื—ื•ืจื™ื•

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that a sandal fetus requires the shape of a face for it to have the status of an offspring. Rav Adda says that Rav Yosef says that Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: A sandal fetus requires the shape of a face, but the face does not need to be in its proper location; even if the face is on the back of its head, the fetus has the status of an offspring. A parable to which this situation can be compared is that of a person who slapped another in the face and pushed his face back. Here too, the face of the sandal fetus was pushed back due to external pressure.

ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ื‘ืงืฉื• ืœื˜ื”ืจ ืืช ื”ืกื ื“ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฆื•ืจืช ืคื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ื˜ื™ื”ืจืชื ืืช ื”ื•ื•ืœื“ื•ืช

The Gemara relates: In the days of Rabbi Yannai, the other Sages wished to deem pure a woman who discharges a sandal fetus that does not have the shape of a face. Rabbi Yannai said to them: You have deemed pure women who discharge offspring. Rabbi Yannai holds that even a sandal fetus that does not have the shape of a face is considered an offspring.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื”ืขื™ื“ื• ืกื ื“ืœ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฆื•ืจืช ืคื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืขื“ื•ืชื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ื•ื ื™ื ื ืฉื ื™ืช ืžืฉื ื” ื–ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ืขื™ืจื ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื” ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืฉืžืขืชื™ื” ื“ืื ื ื•ื”ื•ื ื”ื•ื™ื ื ื™ืชื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ืืžืจื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ื•ืงื“ื ืื™ื”ื• ื•ืืžืจ ื•ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื”

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that students testified in the name of our teachers that for a sandal fetus to have the halakhic status of an offspring it requires the shape of a face? Rav Beivai bar Abaye says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in response: This mishna, i.e., the ruling to which the students testified, is taught from the testimony of Rabbi Neแธฅunya. In other words, this ruling is the opinion of an individual tanna, which is not accepted. Rabbi Zeira says: Rav Beivai merited that his ruling of halakha, which he transmitted in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, was accepted. As he and I were both sitting before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan when Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said this halakha, but Rav Beivai said it first to the other Sages, and thereby merited that it was ascribed to him.

ืœืžื” ื”ื–ื›ื™ืจื• ืกื ื“ืœ ื•ื”ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืกื ื“ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขืžื• ื•ืœื“

ยง The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna mention that if a woman discharged a sandal fetus she observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female? Since there is no such thing as a sandal fetus that does not have another offspring with it, which mashed it and gave it the form of a sandal fish, in any case the woman has the impurity of a woman after childbirth.

ืื™ ื“ืืชื™ืœื™ื“ื ื ืงื‘ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืืชื™ืœื™ื“ ื–ื›ืจ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: If it is a female offspring that is born with the sandal fetus, it is indeed unnecessary to mention the halakha of the sandal fetus, as the woman is in any case impure for two weeks. But here we are dealing with a case where a male is born with it, on account of which the woman would be impure for only seven days were it not for the sandal fetus.

ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ืืฉื” ืžื–ืจืขืช ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื–ื›ืจ ืื™ืฉ ืžื–ืจื™ืข ืชื—ืœื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื ืงื‘ื” ืžื“ื”ื ื–ื›ืจ ื”ื ื ืžื™ ื–ื›ืจ

In this case, it is necessary for the mishna to state that the woman observes the strictures of one who gave birth both to a male and to a female, lest you say that since Rav Yitzแธฅak bar Ami says that the sex of a fetus is determined at the moment of conception, as, if the woman emits seed first she gives birth to a male and if the man emits seed first she gives birth to a female, therefore, it can be concluded from the fact that this offspring that was born with the sandal fetus is male, that this sandal fetus is also male.

ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืื™ืžื ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื”ื–ืจื™ืขื• ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ื”ืื™ ื–ื›ืจ ื•ื”ืื™ ื ืงื‘ื”

Lest this reasoning be accepted, the mishna teaches us that the woman must observe the strictures of a woman who gave birth to a female as well. This is because one can say that perhaps both the man and the woman emitted seed at the same time, and consequently this offspring is male and that sandal fetus is female.

ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืฉืื ืชืœื“ ื ืงื‘ื” ืœืคื ื™ ืฉืงื™ืขืช ื”ื—ืžื” ื•ืกื ื“ืœ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืงื™ืขืช ื”ื—ืžื”

Alternatively, it can be suggested that it is necessary for the mishna to state this halakha even with regard to a case where the twin of the sandal fetus is female, as, if the woman gives birth to the female before sunset and gives birth to the sandal fetus after sunset, which is considered the next day, the sex of the sandal fetus affects the count of the womanโ€™s periods of impurity and purity.

ืžื•ื ื” ืชื—ืœืช ื ื“ื” ืœืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืชื—ืœืช ื ื“ื” ืœืื—ืจื•ืŸ

If the sandal fetus is male, the womanโ€™s status as a woman after childbirth ends after the eightieth day from the birth of the female offspring, and she counts the beginning of the period when seeing blood renders her impure as a menstruating woman from the birth of the first offspring, i.e., the female. But if the sandal fetus is female, the woman has the status of a woman after childbirth until after the eightieth day from its birth, which is the eighty-first day from the birth of the first offspring. If so, she counts the beginning of the period when seeing blood renders her impure as a menstruating woman from the birth of the last offspring, i.e., the sandal fetus.

ืกื ื“ืœ ื“ืชื ืŸ

The Gemara discusses why the case of a woman who discharged a sandal fetus is mentioned in other mishnayot, given that a sandal fetus always has a twin. First the Gemara discusses the halakha of a woman who discharged a sandal fetus that we learned in a mishna

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

  • Masechet Chagigah is lovingly sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family, who are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas!

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 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 25

ืคืจืฉืชื‘ื™ื ื ื“ืคื•ืžื‘ื“ื™ืชื ืงืื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืื“ื ื“ื™ื™ืœื ืขื“ ืคืœื’ื™ื” ื•ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืงืื™ ืœืคืจืฉืชื‘ื™ื ื ื“ืคื•ืžื‘ื“ื™ืชื ืขื“ ื—ืจืฆื™ื”

and when the governor [parashtevina] of Pumbedita would stand next to Adda the attendant, he would reach only half of his height. And when everyone else in the world would stand next to the governor of Pumbedita, they would reach only his loins [แธฅartzeih].

ืฉืืœื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื”ืžืคืœืช ืฉืคื™ืจ ืžืœื ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืœื ืฉืžืขืชื™

ยง The students asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In the case of a woman who discharges a gestational sac full of flesh, what is the halakha? Does she have the impurity of a woman after childbirth? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: I have not heard from my teachers the halakha in this case.

ืืžืจ ืœืคื ื™ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื›ืš ืืžืจ ืื‘ื ืžืœื ื“ื ื˜ืžืื” ื ื“ื” ืžืœื ื‘ืฉืจ ื˜ืžืื” ืœื™ื“ื”

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: This is what my father, i.e., Rabbi Yosei ben แธคalafta, one of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasiโ€™s teachers, said: If a woman discharged a gestational sac full of blood, she is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. If it is full of flesh, she is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืœืžืœื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ืืžืจืช ืœื ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืื‘ื™ืš ืฉืžืขื ื•ืš ืขื›ืฉื™ื•

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: If you had told us an entirely new statement in the name of your father, no part of which was also stated by another Sage, we would have listened to you, i.e., we would have accepted the statement as halakha. But now that you stated two halakhot, one with regard to a woman who discharged a gestational sac full of blood, and the other with regard to a woman who discharged a gestational sac full of flesh, the entire statement cannot be accepted as halakha.

ืžื“ื”ื ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื›ื™ื—ื™ื“ืื” ืงืืžืจ ื›ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืžื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi explains: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei said this first clause of his statement, with regard to a gestational sac full of blood, in accordance with an individual opinion, i.e., in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who said in the name of Rabbi Meir that the woman is impure, contrary to the opinion of the other Sages, it follows that with regard to this latter statement as well, with regard to a gestational sac full of flesh, one can say that perhaps Rabbi Yosei said it in accordance with the opinion of another individual Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua. And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžืคืœืช ืฉืคื™ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืจื•ืงื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืœื“ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื•ืœื“

As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a woman who discharges a gestational sac in which tissue did not develop, Rabbi Yehoshua says: It has the status of an offspring, and the woman has the impurity of a woman after childbirth; and the Rabbis say: It is not an offspring, and the woman is pure. The opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a woman who discharged a gestational sac full of flesh is impure might be in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua, which is not accepted as halakha, since the majority of the other Sages disagree with him. Therefore, the halakha cannot be decided in accordance with either part of the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืขื›ื•ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืื™ื ื• ื•ืœื“ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจ ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: The dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid, as Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the turbidity indicates that there was likely an embryo in the sac that liquefied. But in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear, everyone agrees that the discharged sac is not considered an offspring. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืขื›ื•ืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื•ืœื“ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื–ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื–ื” ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืชื™ืงื•

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What does Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi mean? Does he mean that the dispute applies only in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear, but in a case where it is turbid, everyone agrees that it has the halakhic status of an offspring? Or perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi means that the dispute applies in this case and in that case, i.e., the Rabbis hold that the sac does not have the status of an offspring even if the amniotic fluid is turbid. The Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืืช ื–ื• ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื•ื™ืขืฉ ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื ืœืื“ื ื•ืœืืฉืชื• ื›ืชื ื•ืช ืขื•ืจ ื•ื™ืœื‘ืฉื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ืขื•ืจ ืœืื“ื ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื•ืฆืจ

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies only in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben แธคananya, who is the same Rabbi Yehoshua who disagrees with the Rabbis with regard to the case of a woman who discharges a gestational sac in which tissue did not develop, taught this following proof for his opinion that the woman is impure: It is stated: โ€œAnd the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed themโ€ (Genesis 3:21). This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not make skin for a person unless he is already created, as God first created Adam and Eve, and then gave them skin. Consequently, the existence of a gestational sac proves that there is an offspring.

ืืœืžื ื‘ืขื•ืจ ืชืœื™ื ืžื™ืœืชื ืœื ืฉื ื ืขื›ื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืฆืœื•ืœ

Evidently, according to Rabbi Yehoshua the matter of whether or not an embryo is considered offspring is dependent on whether or not there is skin, and there is no difference whether the amniotic fluid is turbid, and there is no difference whether it is clear.

ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืขื›ื•ืจ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืงืจื ืกื‘ืจื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Granted, if you say that the dispute applies in a case where it is clear, that is why it was necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua to derive from a verse that an embryo that has skin is considered an offspring. But if you say that the dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid, but Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that the woman is pure if it is clear, why do I need a verse to teach that if the amniotic fluid is turbid the woman is impure? It is logical that where the amniotic fluid is turbid there was probably an embryo that liquefied. Rather, conclude from it that the dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from it that this is correct.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืขื›ื•ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืื™ื ื• ื•ืœื“

And likewise, just as Rabbi Oshaya interprets the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis as referring to a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid, Rav Naแธฅman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid; but in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear, everyone agrees that the discharged sac is not considered an offspring.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืœื ืืžืจื• ืกื™ืžืŸ ื•ืœื“ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ืงื” ื˜ื™ื ื•ืฃ ื‘ื’ืกื” ืฉืœื™ื ื‘ืืฉื” ืฉืคื™ืจ ื•ืฉืœื™ื

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naแธฅman from a mishna that specifies the obligations that apply to firstborn animals (Bekhorot 19b):But the Sages said that not only does a viable offspring exempt any subsequent offspring from being counted a firstborn, but the same applies to an indication of the offspring that is discharged from the womb. The indication in a small animal is a murky discharge from the womb, in a large animal it is the emergence of an afterbirth, and in a woman the indication is a gestational sac or an afterbirth.

ื•ืื™ืœื• ืฉืคื™ืจ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื ืคื˜ืจ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืฆืœื•ืœ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™

Rava infers: And yet the miscarriage of a gestational sac in the case of a large animal does not exempt the animalโ€™s subsequent offspring from being counted a firstborn. Granted, if you say that the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear, it is due to that reason that the mishna differentiates between a large animal and a woman with regard to a gestational sac.

ืืฉื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ื” ืงืจื ืคื˜ืจ ื‘ื” ืฉืคื™ืจ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืงืจื ืœื ืคื˜ืจ ื‘ื” ืฉืคื™ืจ

Rava explains: With regard to a woman, as the aforementioned verse: โ€œAnd the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins,โ€ includes in the definition of offspring a gestational sac, i.e., skin, one can say that such a gestational sac exempts subsequent births from the obligations of primogeniture. By contrast, in the case of an animal, as the verse does not include a gestational sac in the definition of offspring, discharging a gestational sac does not exempt the animalโ€™s subsequent offspring from being considered a firstborn.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืขื›ื•ืจ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืžื›ื“ื™ ืกื‘ืจื ื”ื•ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืืฉื” ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื‘ื”ืžื”

But if you say that the dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid, and Rabbi Yehoshua deems the woman impure due to the likelihood that there was an embryo that liquefied, since this halakha is based on logic, what is different in the case of a woman, and what is different in the case of an animal? Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s reasoning applies equally to both. Evidently, the dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear.

ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืžืคืฉื˜ ืคืฉื™ื˜ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืกืคื•ืงื™ ืžืกืคืงื ืœื™ื” ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ื”ื›ื ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ื•ื”ื›ื ืœื—ื•ืžืจื

The Gemara answers: Do you hold that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehoshua that a gestational sac in which the amniotic fluid is turbid has the halakhic status of an offspring? That is not so; rather, Rabbi Yehoshua is uncertain of its halakhic status, and therefore here, in this case, he rules stringently, and there he also rules stringently.

ื’ื‘ื™ ืืฉื” ื“ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื ืกืคืง ืžืžื•ื ื ืœืงื•ืœื

The Gemara elaborates: First of all, with regard to a situation where a woman discharged a gestational sac in which the amniotic fluid was turbid, in which case the obligation of primogeniture is a monetary matter, i.e., the obligation to redeem the newborn child by paying money to a priest, the subsequent births are exempt, in accordance with the principle that uncertainty with regard to monetary matters is treated leniently.

ื’ื‘ื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœื’ื‘ื™ ื’ื™ื–ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืกืคืง ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืืฉื” ืกืคืง ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืœื—ื•ืžืจื

By contrast, with regard to an animal, in which case firstborn status is a ritual matter, as there are prohibitions involving, i.e., against, shearing the animalโ€™s wool and using the animal for labor before it incurs a blemish, the discharged gestational sac is not considered an offspring and does not exempt subsequent births from the obligations of firstborn status, as uncertainty with regard to ritual matters is treated stringently. So too, with regard to the impurity of a woman who discharged a gestational sac, she is deemed impure, as uncertainty with regard to impurity is treated stringently, which means that for the purposes of this halakha a gestational sac is considered an offspring.

ื•ืžื™ ืžืกืคืงื ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืงืจื ืงืืžืจ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืงืจื ืืกืžื›ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehoshua uncertain about the halakha of a woman who discharges a gestational sac? But doesnโ€™t he cite a verse as proof that the woman has the impurity of one who gave birth? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that the woman is impure by rabbinic law, and the verse he cites is a mere support for this halakha; it is not the actual source.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืจ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžืจ ื›ืžืืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”

Rav แธคanina bar Shelamya said to Rav: This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who told his students that he did not hear from his teachers the halakha in the case of a woman who discharged a gestational sac full of flesh; and this is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who cited his fatherโ€™s opinion that in such a case the woman is impure. And this is the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, that the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies only in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid; and finally this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who holds that the dispute applies if the amniotic fluid is clear. In accordance with whose opinion does the Master hold?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ืื™ื ื” ื—ื•ืฉืฉืช

Rav said to Rav แธคanina bar Shelamya: I say that both in this case, where the amniotic fluid is turbid, and in that case, where the fluid is clear, the woman does not need to be concerned that she has the status of a woman who gave birth to an offspring.

ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืฉืฉืช ื•ืื–ื“ื ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืžืขื•ืœื ืœื ื“ื›ื• ืฉืคื™ืจ ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืœื‘ืจ ืžื”ื”ื•ื ืฉืคื™ืจื ื“ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืžื ื— ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื•ื˜ ื”ืฉืขืจื” ืžื”ืื™ ื’ื™ืกื ื•ื—ื–ื™ื ืžื”ืื™ ื’ื™ืกื ืืžืจ ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ื•ืœื“ ื”ื•ืื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื–ื™ื’ ื›ื•ืœื™ ื”ืื™

And Shmuel says: In both this case and that case, the woman must be concerned that the discharged gestational sac has the status of an offspring, and therefore she is considered impure like a woman who gave birth. And Shmuel follows his standard line of reasoning here, as when Rav Dimi came and transmitted many halakhic traditions, the latter said: In Nehardeโ€™a the Sages never deemed a woman who discharged a gestational sac pure, except for the case of a certain gestational sac that came before Shmuel, who placed a hair on this side of that sac, and it was visible from that side. Shmuel said, based on this test: If it were so, that there was an offspring in the sac, it would not have been so transparent. He therefore deemed the woman pure, but his ruling applied only in that extreme case.

ื•ืื ื”ื™ื” ืžืจื•ืงื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืฉืคื™ืจ ืžืจื•ืงื ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืชื—ืœืช ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื• ืžืจืืฉื• ื•ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ื›ืฉืชื™ ื˜ื™ืคื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื‘ื•ื‘ ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืจื•ื—ืงื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืžื–ื” ืฉื ื™ ื—ื•ื˜ืžื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืชื™ ื˜ื™ืคื™ื ืฉืœ ื–ื‘ื•ื‘

ยง The mishna teaches: But if the sac was one in which tissue developed, the halakhic status of the woman is that of a woman after childbirth. Since the sex of the embryo is unknown, she 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. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the definition of a gestational sac in which tissue developed? Abba Shaul says: The beginning of the formation of the embryo is from its head, and its two eyes look like two drops, similar to the eyes of a fly. Rabbi แธคiyya teaches: These eyes must be distant from each other. Furthermore, its two nostrils look like two drops, similar to the nostrils of a fly.

ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื•ืžืงื•ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืœื–ื” ื•ืคื™ื• ืžืชื•ื— ื›ื—ื•ื˜ ื”ืฉืขืจื” ื•ื’ื•ื™ืชื• ื›ืขื“ืฉื” ื•ืื ื”ื™ืชื” ื ืงื‘ื” ื ื“ื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืขื•ืจื” ืœืืจื›ื”

Rabbi แธคiyya teaches: And these eyes must be close to each other. And its mouth stretches along the width of its face like a strand of hair. And its body is like the size of a lentil. And if it was female, its vagina can be discerned by the appearance of a line like a cracked grain of barley oriented along the length of its body.

ื•ื—ืชื•ืš ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื•ืขืœื™ื• ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื‘ืงื‘ืœื” ื”ืœื ื›ื—ืœื‘ ืชืชื™ื›ื ื™ ื•ื›ื’ื‘ื™ื ื” ืชืงืคื™ืื ื™ ืขื•ืจ ื•ื‘ืฉืจ ืชืœื‘ื™ืฉื ื™ ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ื•ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ืชืกื•ื›ื›ื ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื•ื—ืกื“ ืขืฉื™ืช ืขืžื“ื™ ื•ืคืงื“ืชืš ืฉืžืจื” ืจื•ื—ื™

And it does not have the shape of arms and legs at this stage. And it is said with regard to an embryo at this stage, in the texts of tradition, the Prophets: โ€œHave You not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? You have clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and favor, and Your providence has preserved my spiritโ€ (Job 10:10โ€“12).

ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืžื™ื ืฉื”ืžื™ื ืขื–ื™ืŸ

And one does not examine it with water to discover its sex, as water is too strong,

ื•ื˜ื•ืจื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืืœื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ืฉื”ืฉืžืŸ ืจืš ื•ืžืฆื—ืฆื—ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ื—ืžื”

and dissolves it. Rather, one examines it with oil, as oil is soft and cleans the embryo so that its sex can be discerned. And one views it only in the light of the sun.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืžื” ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืœื™ื“ืข ืื ื–ื›ืจ ื”ื•ื ืื ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ื™ื

The baraita continues: How does one examine the embryo? The Gemara expresses surprise at this question: How does one examine it to determine whether it has the halakhic status of an offspring? Clearly, one examines it as we just said. Rather, the question is as follows: In what manner does one examine it to ascertain whether it is male or whether it is female?

ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ืจ ื ืฉ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ืจ ืจืžืฉ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ืงื™ืกื ืฉืจืืฉื• ื—ืœืง ื•ืžื ืขื ืข ื‘ืื•ืชื• ืžืงื•ื ืื ืžืกื›ืกืš ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื–ื›ืจ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื ืœืื• ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื ืงื‘ื” ื”ื™ื

Abba Shaul bar Nash, and some say Abba Shaul bar Remash, says: One brings a sliver of wood whose top is smooth, and he moves it along the embryo in that place, i.e., the sex organ. If the sliver is caught, i.e., its movement is not smooth, it is known that the embryo is male, as its member interfered with the movement of the sliver. And if the sliver is not caught, it is known that it is female.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืžืœืžื˜ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืื‘ืœ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ืžื ื›ื•ืชืœื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืจื—ื ื ื™ื ื”ื•

Rav Naแธฅman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught this halakha, that if the movement of the sliver is not smooth then the embryo is male, only if the sliver was moved along the sex organ of the embryo from below to above; but if it was moved from the sides, from one side to the other, the fact that it was not smooth does not prove that the embryo is male, as one can say that the sides of the womb interfered.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืชื ื ืื ื”ื™ืชื” ื ืงื‘ื” ื ื“ื•ื ื” ื›ืฉืขื•ืจื” ืกื“ื•ืงื” ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื—ื•ื˜ ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื’ื•ืคื™ื™ื”ื• ืœื ื™ื“ื™ืขื™ ื—ื•ื˜ ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื™ื“ื™ืข

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The complete version of the baraita is taught as follows: If it was female, its vagina can be discerned by the appearance of a line like a cracked grain of barley oriented along the length of its body. Rav Naแธฅman objects to this: But perhaps it is not the vagina but the recess between the testes, and the embryo is male. Abaye said to him: Now, at this stage of development, the testes of the embryo themselves are not discernible. Is it possible that the recess between the testes is discernible?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืžืจื ืชื ื ืฉืชื™ ื™ืจื›ื•ืชื™ื• ื›ืฉื ื™ ื—ื•ื˜ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื•ืจื™ืช ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืžืจื ืขืœื” ื›ืฉืœ ืขืจื‘ ื•ืฉื ื™ ื–ืจื•ืขื•ืชื™ื• ื›ืฉื ื™ ื—ื•ื˜ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื•ืจื™ืช ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืžืจื ืขืœื” ื›ืฉืœ ืฉืชื™

The baraita teaches that at this stage an embryo does not have the shape of arms and legs. Rabbi Amram says that it is taught in a baraita that when an embryoโ€™s arms and legs start to take shape, its two thighs look like two strings of crimson thread [zehorit]. And Rabbi Amram says with regard to this matter that the thighs look like two strings of the woof, which are thicker than those of the warp. The baraita adds: And its two arms look like two strings of crimson thread. And Rabbi Amram says with regard to this matter that the arms look like two strings of the warp.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉื™ื ื ื ืœื ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื—ืช ื–ื• ื•ืื—ืช ื–ื• ื—ื•ืฉืฉืช

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, do not perform an action, i.e., do not issue a practical ruling deeming a woman who discharges an embryo at this stage of development impure, unless the embryo has grown hair. The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say that? But doesnโ€™t Shmuel say with regard to a woman who discharged a gestational sac that both in this case, where the amniotic fluid is turbid, and in that case, where the fluid is clear, the woman must be concerned that the discharged gestational sac might have the status of an offspring, which would mean that she is impure even without the growth of hair on the embryo?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ืžืคืจืฉื ืœื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื—ื•ืฉ ื—ื•ืฉืฉืช ื™ืžื™ ื˜ื”ืจื” ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉืขื™ืจ

Rav Ami bar Shmuel says: This matter was explained to me by Mar Shmuel: As for being concerned that perhaps she is impure, the woman must be concerned, due to the uncertainty whether she discharged an offspring. But we do not give her the days of purity that follow the period of impurity for a woman who gave birth, unless the embryo has grown hair.

ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืžืกืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื”ื ื”ื”ื•ื ืฉืคื™ืจื ื“ืืชืื™ ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ื”ื ื‘ืจ ืืจื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ ื™ื•ืžื ื•ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ืžื™ื•ืžื ื“ืื–ืœื ืœื˜ื‘ื™ืœื” ืขื“ ื”ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืžื ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืืœื ืืจื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Shmuel is uncertain whether a gestational sac has the halakhic status of an offspring? But there was an incident involving a certain gestational sac that was brought before Mar Shmuel, and Shmuel said: This embryo is forty-one days old. And Shmuel subsequently calculated the amount of time that had passed from the day that the woman went to perform immersion in a ritual bath until that day, and it was only forty days.

ื•ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื”ืื™ ื‘ื ื“ื” ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืคืชื™ื” ื•ืื•ื“ื™ ืฉืื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืจื‘ ื’ื•ื‘ืจื™ื”

And he said to the local court: This husband engaged in intercourse with his wife when she was a menstruating woman. They bound the husband and he confessed. Since Shmuel was so proficient in embryology, why was he unsure about the halakhic status of a gestational sac? The Gemara answers: Shmuel himself is different, as his strength, i.e., his proficiency, was great. His general ruling that the halakhic status of a gestational sac is uncertain applies to people who are not as proficient as he is.

ื”ืžืคืœืช ืกื ื“ืœ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื ื“ืœ ื“ื•ืžื” ืœื“ื’ ืฉืœ ื™ื ืžืชื—ืœืชื• ื•ืœื“ ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืฉื ืจืฆืฃ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืกื ื“ืœ ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืœืฉื•ืŸ ืฉืœ ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื”ืขื™ื“ื• ืกื ื“ืœ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฆื•ืจืช ืคื ื™ื

ยง The mishna teaches that a woman who discharges a sandal fetus or one who discharges an afterbirth observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female. The Sages taught in a baraita: A sandal fetus has a similar appearance to a certain fish of the sea known as a sandal fish;it looks as though it is a full-fledged offspring from the outset, but it was mashed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A sandal fetus has an appearance that is similar to the tongue of the large bull. Students testified in the name of our teachers that for a sandal fetus to have the halakhic status of an offspring, it requires the shape of a face.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ืกื ื“ืœ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฆื•ืจืช ืคื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืกื ื“ืœ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฆื•ืจืช ืคื ื™ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืื—ื•ืจื™ื• ืžืฉืœ ืœืื“ื ืฉืกื˜ืจ ืืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืคื ื™ื• ืœืื—ื•ืจื™ื•

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that a sandal fetus requires the shape of a face for it to have the status of an offspring. Rav Adda says that Rav Yosef says that Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: A sandal fetus requires the shape of a face, but the face does not need to be in its proper location; even if the face is on the back of its head, the fetus has the status of an offspring. A parable to which this situation can be compared is that of a person who slapped another in the face and pushed his face back. Here too, the face of the sandal fetus was pushed back due to external pressure.

ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ื‘ืงืฉื• ืœื˜ื”ืจ ืืช ื”ืกื ื“ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฆื•ืจืช ืคื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ื˜ื™ื”ืจืชื ืืช ื”ื•ื•ืœื“ื•ืช

The Gemara relates: In the days of Rabbi Yannai, the other Sages wished to deem pure a woman who discharges a sandal fetus that does not have the shape of a face. Rabbi Yannai said to them: You have deemed pure women who discharge offspring. Rabbi Yannai holds that even a sandal fetus that does not have the shape of a face is considered an offspring.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื”ืขื™ื“ื• ืกื ื“ืœ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฆื•ืจืช ืคื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืขื“ื•ืชื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ื•ื ื™ื ื ืฉื ื™ืช ืžืฉื ื” ื–ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ืขื™ืจื ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื” ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืฉืžืขืชื™ื” ื“ืื ื ื•ื”ื•ื ื”ื•ื™ื ื ื™ืชื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ืืžืจื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ื•ืงื“ื ืื™ื”ื• ื•ืืžืจ ื•ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื”

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that students testified in the name of our teachers that for a sandal fetus to have the halakhic status of an offspring it requires the shape of a face? Rav Beivai bar Abaye says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in response: This mishna, i.e., the ruling to which the students testified, is taught from the testimony of Rabbi Neแธฅunya. In other words, this ruling is the opinion of an individual tanna, which is not accepted. Rabbi Zeira says: Rav Beivai merited that his ruling of halakha, which he transmitted in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, was accepted. As he and I were both sitting before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan when Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said this halakha, but Rav Beivai said it first to the other Sages, and thereby merited that it was ascribed to him.

ืœืžื” ื”ื–ื›ื™ืจื• ืกื ื“ืœ ื•ื”ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืกื ื“ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขืžื• ื•ืœื“

ยง The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna mention that if a woman discharged a sandal fetus she observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female? Since there is no such thing as a sandal fetus that does not have another offspring with it, which mashed it and gave it the form of a sandal fish, in any case the woman has the impurity of a woman after childbirth.

ืื™ ื“ืืชื™ืœื™ื“ื ื ืงื‘ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืืชื™ืœื™ื“ ื–ื›ืจ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: If it is a female offspring that is born with the sandal fetus, it is indeed unnecessary to mention the halakha of the sandal fetus, as the woman is in any case impure for two weeks. But here we are dealing with a case where a male is born with it, on account of which the woman would be impure for only seven days were it not for the sandal fetus.

ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ืืฉื” ืžื–ืจืขืช ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื–ื›ืจ ืื™ืฉ ืžื–ืจื™ืข ืชื—ืœื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื ืงื‘ื” ืžื“ื”ื ื–ื›ืจ ื”ื ื ืžื™ ื–ื›ืจ

In this case, it is necessary for the mishna to state that the woman observes the strictures of one who gave birth both to a male and to a female, lest you say that since Rav Yitzแธฅak bar Ami says that the sex of a fetus is determined at the moment of conception, as, if the woman emits seed first she gives birth to a male and if the man emits seed first she gives birth to a female, therefore, it can be concluded from the fact that this offspring that was born with the sandal fetus is male, that this sandal fetus is also male.

ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืื™ืžื ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื”ื–ืจื™ืขื• ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ื”ืื™ ื–ื›ืจ ื•ื”ืื™ ื ืงื‘ื”

Lest this reasoning be accepted, the mishna teaches us that the woman must observe the strictures of a woman who gave birth to a female as well. This is because one can say that perhaps both the man and the woman emitted seed at the same time, and consequently this offspring is male and that sandal fetus is female.

ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืฉืื ืชืœื“ ื ืงื‘ื” ืœืคื ื™ ืฉืงื™ืขืช ื”ื—ืžื” ื•ืกื ื“ืœ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืงื™ืขืช ื”ื—ืžื”

Alternatively, it can be suggested that it is necessary for the mishna to state this halakha even with regard to a case where the twin of the sandal fetus is female, as, if the woman gives birth to the female before sunset and gives birth to the sandal fetus after sunset, which is considered the next day, the sex of the sandal fetus affects the count of the womanโ€™s periods of impurity and purity.

ืžื•ื ื” ืชื—ืœืช ื ื“ื” ืœืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ืชื—ืœืช ื ื“ื” ืœืื—ืจื•ืŸ

If the sandal fetus is male, the womanโ€™s status as a woman after childbirth ends after the eightieth day from the birth of the female offspring, and she counts the beginning of the period when seeing blood renders her impure as a menstruating woman from the birth of the first offspring, i.e., the female. But if the sandal fetus is female, the woman has the status of a woman after childbirth until after the eightieth day from its birth, which is the eighty-first day from the birth of the first offspring. If so, she counts the beginning of the period when seeing blood renders her impure as a menstruating woman from the birth of the last offspring, i.e., the sandal fetus.

ืกื ื“ืœ ื“ืชื ืŸ

The Gemara discusses why the case of a woman who discharged a sandal fetus is mentioned in other mishnayot, given that a sandal fetus always has a twin. First the Gemara discusses the halakha of a woman who discharged a sandal fetus that we learned in a mishna

Scroll To Top